Reply to James Comey Indictment

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "James Comey Indictment"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote]Ms. Halligan’s response, in which she was joined by both the Attorney General and the
Deputy Attorney General, contains a level of vitriol more appropriate for a cable news talk show [/quote]

?  what was Halligan's response that lead to this statement?[/quote]

Here's how it started:

"UNITED STATES’ RESPONSE TO THE COURT’S JANUARY 6, 2026 ORDER
In violation of the Rules of Criminal Procedure and the principle of party presentation,
the Court has initiated a sua sponte inquisition into whether it should strike Ms. Halligan’s title
from the Government’s signature block. The order launching this quest reflects a fundamental
misunderstanding of Judge Currie’s orders dismissing the indictments in United States v.
Comey, No. 1:25-cr-272 and United States v. James, 2:25-cr-122 and flouts no fewer than three
separate lines of Supreme Court precedent on elementary principles like the role of federal
courts, the effect of district court rulings, and the nature of our adversarial system.
Adding insult to error, the order posits that the United States’ continued assertion of its
legal position that Ms. Halligan properly serves as the United States Attorney amounts to a
factual misrepresentation that could trigger attorney discipline. The Court’s thinly veiled threat
to use attorney discipline to cudgel the Executive Branch into conforming its legal position in
all criminal prosecutions to the views of a single district judge is a gross abuse of power and
an affront to the separation of powers."

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.586311/gov.uscourts.vaed.586311.22.0.pdf[/quote]
I'm not a lawyer, so maybe someone could explain this part to me:

[quote]The order launching this quest reflects a fundamental
misunderstanding of Judge Currie’s orders dismissing the indictments in United States v.
Comey, No. 1:25-cr-272 and United States v. James, 2:25-cr-122 and flouts no fewer than three
separate lines of Supreme Court precedent on elementary principles like the role of federal
courts, the effect of district court rulings, and the nature of our adversarial system. [/quote]

1. what is the "fundamental misunderstanding of Judge Currie’s orders " that Halligan is referring to?  What is the judge misunderstanding?
2. "flouts no fewer than three separate lines of Supreme Court precedent".. which precedent is she referring to in relation to not being legally the AG?

It seems like she's arguing something different entirely.  My understanding is that the judge indicated that she is not legally allowed to be the AG here, not that the DOJ can't indict Comey.

Has she addressed the point of her not legally being the AG?[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics