Civil Discourse – Prosecuting Comey – Joyce Vance

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance, Prosecuting Comey

By Joyce Vance, Nov 13, 2025

Today, in Alexandria, Virginia, a senior federal judge from South Carolina, Cameron Currie, heard oral argument on consolidated motions filed by former FBI Director Jim Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James in their separate criminal prosecutions. Both of them filed motions challenging the legitimacy of Trump’s insurance-lawyer-turned-U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan’s role in their prosecution. Here’s what you need to know ahead of what Judge Currie said would be a pre-Thanksgiving decision:

The motions are being heard by Judge Currie, who was appointed by the chief judge of the Fourth Circuit (where Virginia and South Carolina are both located), since it would be problematic to have a judge from the same district where a U.S. attorney has been putatively installed consider whether the appointment was proper.

It’s reassuring to know that some people still care about ethics and conflicts of interest.

Appearing for the Justice Department, attorney Henry Whitaker told the court that any questions about the appointment of Halligan involved, at worst, mere paperwork errors. Whitaker was the Florida Solicitor General until earlier this year. He clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas after law school and worked in the Office of Legal Counsel during the first Trump administration.

Perhaps anticipating problems with the validity of Halligan’s appointment, Attorney General Pam Bondi tried to back-bless the indictments, filing that she had reviewed the grand jury proceedings. But the Judge pointed out this morning that wasn’t possible because they hadn’t been fully transcribed. And, while every attorney general would likely have loved to possess a magic wand that would permit them to fix errors after the fact, that’s not how any of this works. Prosecutors must follow the rules, which are in place to ensure that defendants’ rights are protected and justice is done. Cases are dismissed when they make procedural errors, in part to protect them and in part to deter prosecutors from making future errors. If ever an attorney general needed that sort of a reminder from the courts, it’s this one.

Politico characterized the hearing this way: “A federal judge expressed deep skepticism Thursday about whether a federal prosecutor handpicked by President Donald Trump to bring criminal cases against his political rivals was legally appointed to the role.”

We all know the history by now. Trump’s handpicked appointee to be U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, longtime, highly regarded prosecutor Erik Siebert, concluded there was insufficient evidence to indict either Comey or James. His removal and replacement with Halligan followed. Along the way, Trump stumbled, publicly posting what looked like a text message meant for Attorney General Pam Bondi:

“JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW”

Bondi, apparently persuaded, put Halligan in place, and Halligan promptly indicted Comey, just barely ahead of the expiration of the statute of limitations, following up with the indictment of James.

The allegations that her appointment is improper have to do with the technicalities of the Vacancies Reform Act, which allows a president to replace a vacant U.S. attorney with an appointee for 120 days, after which the district court appoints an acting U.S. attorney until a presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed nominee is put in place. Halligan’s predecessor had already been in place for 120 days when he was removed to make way for Halligan. But the government seems to be suggesting that it can swap out different people for sequential 120-day terms under the law. The defendants’ lawyers argued that if the government can continue making these interim appointments, it could perpetually avoid the constitutional requirement that the Senate confirm U.S. attorney nominees. That would give a president an open invitation to install unqualified loyalists instead of professional prosecutors for these important positions. Under the extreme facts of this case, the defendants have asked the Judge to dismiss the prosecutions with prejudice to deter future maneuvering like this.

Read more: Civil Discourse – Prosecuting Comey – Joyce Vance

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Prosecuting Comey – Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

Tags: 2025, America, Books, Civil Discourse, Donald Trump, Education, Health, History, James Comey, Joyce Vance, Libraries, Library, Library of Congress, Opinion, Politics, Prosecuting Comey, Resistance, Science, Substack, Trump, Trump Administration, United States

#2025 #america #books #civilDiscourse #donaldTrump #education #health #history #jamesComey #joyceVance #libraries #library #libraryOfCongress #opinion #politics #prosecutingComey #resistance #science #substack #trump #trumpAdministration #unitedStates

What Democrats say they won in the 43-day government shutdown – NBC News

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries after a meeting with Republican congressional leaders and President Donald Trump that preceded the shutdown. Allison Bailey / NurPhoto via AP file

Government Shutdown

What Democrats say they won in the 43-day government shutdown

Emotions are raw after eight senators voted to end the shutdown, but Democrats say they demonstrated an ability to take on Trump and shifted the conversation to health care.

Nov. 12, 2025, 2:00 AM PST

By Scott Wong, Ryan Nobles and Lillie Boudreaux

WASHINGTON — Democrats shut down the federal government to secure a key demand: extending health care subsidies for millions of Americans.

After a more than 40-day standoff, they threw in the towel — with no guarantee from Republicans that they would agree to renew the expiring Obamacare tax credits.

More importantly, they said, the grueling shutdown that is expected to end in the coming days has “crystallized” the battle lines in the next major political fight over health care that is sure to spill into the 2026 midterm election year. It also underscored Trump’s cruelty, Democratic leaders said, as the White House fought to halt food stamp payments to states during the shutdown.

While emotions are raw and finger-pointing rampant in the wake of the deal, the Democratic Party was unified during most of the record shutdown, which is now in its 43rd day, demonstrating for the first time it could take on Trump, rev up the progressive base and turn out voters at the polls, as it did in this month’s elections.

“I think the Democrats did … some of the best messaging I think we’ve ever had in terms of talking about affordability and talking about health insurance,” said Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., who voted against reopening the government. “And I think that was the reason why you saw the results coming in, in New Jersey and Virginia, and that you saw that the polling was going our way.”

Small wins

Among the eight Senate Democrats who struck a deal with the White House and Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., four were former governors — pragmatists used to working across the aisle who argue you don’t always get what you want in legislation.

Read more: What Democrats say they won in the 43-day government shutdown – NBC News

Continue/Read Original Article Here: What Democrats say they won in the 43-day government shutdown

Tags: 2025, America, Books, Democrats, Donald Trump, Education, Health, History, Libraries, Library, Library of Congress, NBC, NBC News, Opinion, Politics, Resistance, Science, Shutdown Ends, Trump, Trump Administration, United States

#2025 #america #books #democrats #donaldTrump #education #health #history #libraries #library #libraryOfCongress #nbc #nbcNews #opinion #politics #resistance #science #shutdownEnds #trump #trumpAdministration #unitedStates