https://www.cbsnews.com/news/james-comey-case-dismissed-judge-lindsey-halligan/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5801823&forum_id=2).#49456283)

Not that anybody with a modicum of common sense would.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5801823&forum_id=2).#49456400)

https://x.com/kyledcheney/status/1993018304768983056?s=46

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5801823&forum_id=2).#49456397)

the fact that trump agrees and surely signed off ok this is a great argument for ratifying the indictment.

c'mon forget about partisanship for a second amd think aboit whether this is good policy in general.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5801823&forum_id=2).#49456533)

Looked at a different way, what are the categories of laws that you'd say a POTUS *is required to follow?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5801823&forum_id=2).#49457409)

would you be ok with POTUS not being held accountable for an illegal action he directed an agent to do if it turned out that agent wasn't properly appointed?

there are innumerable balancing tests that consider a matter's significance and that dismissing me factoring that in here with "oh so potus only has to follow important laws?" is facile, and you know it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5801823&forum_id=2).#49457479)

But perhaps you're just saying, "I have an idea for a different way it could work."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5801823&forum_id=2).#49457495)

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136.213.0_1.pdf

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5801823&forum_id=2).#49457512)

Your argument is that because the word "ratif*" appears in the opinion, the legal issue is whether our Beautiful Leader wanted Lindsay to be the USA?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5801823&forum_id=2).#49457537)

my point is that POTUS has the power to indict and when there is evidence that he approved of an indictment the SOL should be satisfied even if his agent was unqualified for some reason.

fwiw when the comey indictment came down my reaction here on xo was wishing trump pardoned him or gave some other sort of olive branch in an attempt to put an end to these political prosecutions. you're framing this with "Beautiful Leader" to imply i'm biased against the dismissal because i just want trump to win, but if i have any political bias here it's that this thinly-justified dismissal of a matter with major public interest appears politically motivated and will only exacerbate political lawfare.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5801823&forum_id=2).#49457587)

Where the fuck did you learn that? Jesus H Christ

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5801823&forum_id=2).#49459496)

what branch of the federal government is tasked with enforcing the law? where do federal prosecutors get their authority from? is it an indepdent authority or does it complete derive from article 1?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5801823&forum_id=2).#49459536)

this doesn't serve the interests of the policy behind the SOL at all. comey was indicted before the SOL expired. whether or not the interim AG was appointed properly or not has no impact on what the SOL is supposed to protect him from.

if you had an attorney file a civil claim before the SOL was expired, and it turns out his bar license had lapsed because he didn't pay his dues, would it be fair for the claim to be barred by the SOL?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5801823&forum_id=2).#49457201)

maybe not fair, but that is what would happen, wouldn't it?

at this point, the courts can answer whether the defect was able to be cured. in criminal cases, i tend to err on the side of the charged party.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5801823&forum_id=2).#49457211)

and that's the crux of what i don't like about this: the whole point of the SOL is to ensure people aren't perpetually under the specter of litigation for past conduct. filing a case tolls it because they are on notice.

a defect in the filing should only prevent the SOL from tolling if the defect arose from something related to the SOL. for example, if an indictment is dismissed for insufficient evidence but sufficient evidence has been gathered in the interim. the capacity for the prosecutor to file an indictment has nothing to do with that, *especially* in a case where the person who actually holds the power to indict publicly supported it!

i'm sympathetic to the idea that criminal shit construed favorably for the accused. but i think that should only apply when it's related to what the policy favoring the accused. for example, if evidence is suppressed for a retarded chain of custody snafu, that's fair because the accused has an interest in ensuring evidence is handled properly. a retarded snafu in the AG's appointment isn't related to the accused rights at all.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5801823&forum_id=2).#49457300)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5801823&forum_id=2).#49457565)

i don't buy your arguments ITT. the statute is clear - interim appointment for 120 days, then the district court has the sole authority to appoint the acting US atty. court didn't do that here.

under the plain language of the statute, the president fucked up here, full stop. there have to be consequences for that. if you look at what he actually did, btw, he basically just told one of his personal shitlaw attorneys to go act as the US attorney in in a pretty important district. that's ridiculous. where do you draw the line. if a "concerned citizen" files an "indictment" within the SOL, and after the SOL passes, a qualified official "ratifies" the indictment, is it timely? i know that's not the case here, but it's an extreme example in furtherance of the argument that the onus is on the govt to make sure prosecutors and other officials are properly appointed.

you make the point that you don't agree that the president's authority should be limited in this way. that is an entirely different argument, and you're suggesting the appointment statute should be invalidated. i'm not really a fan of the unitary executive theory, but we will see what happens on that front. i'd imagine the admin is going to argue that the statute is unconstitutional.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5801823&forum_id=2).#49458891)

odd case

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5801823&forum_id=2).#49456509)

2. Suing the Trump Administration (Bivens Claims)

Would require proving constitutional violations (e.g., malicious prosecution, due process violation)

Malicious prosecution requires: (1) criminal proceeding initiated, (2) favorable termination, (3) no probable cause, (4) malice

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5801823&forum_id=2).#49456519)

Sorry libs, this year is just a warmup/“shootaround,” it’s game on in January.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5801823&forum_id=2).#49456551)

Just refile past the statute of limitations, bro

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5801823&forum_id=2).#49456721)

https://x.com/macfarlanenews/status/1993048181341331799?s=46

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5801823&forum_id=2).#49457159)

https://x.com/edkrassen/status/1993042386214412561?s=46

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5801823&forum_id=2).#49457160)

libs good with prosecuting someone for something they didn't do, but you did

libs have shit for brains

libs have scum for brains

libs lie

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5801823&forum_id=2).#49457281)

Generally, “[t]he return of an indictment tolls the statute of limitations on the charges contained in the indictment.” United States v. Ojedokun, 16 F.4th 1091, 1109 (4th Cir. 2021). “An invalid indictment,” however, “cannot serve to block the door of limitations as it swings closed.” United States v. Crysopt Corp., 781 F. Supp. 375, 378 (D. Md. 1991) (emphasis in original); see also United States v. Gillespie, 666 F. Supp. 1137, 1141 (N.D. Ill. 1987) (“[A] valid indictment insulates from statute-of-limitations problems any refiling of the same charges during the pendency of that valid indictment (that is, the superseding of a valid indictment). But if the earlier indictment is void, there is no legitimate peg on which to hang such a judicial limitations-tolling result.” (emphasis in original)).

IOW there was no valid indictment so the 6 month clock never starts. It would be no different than if you or me or LeBron James had secured the indictment since none of us are US attorneys. You can’t just have random people who aren’t us attorneys filing charges in an effort to toll the SOL. 18 U.S.C. § 3288 is meant for things like clerical errors, typos, etc. it doesn’t work when any random citizen who has no power to bring charges does so right before the limitations period expires.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5801823&forum_id=2).#49460285)

3288 does not save a prosecution that never lawfully existed in the first place. it’s meant for technical errors like typos and things like that. it doesn’t give Lindsey Halligan the constitutional authority to file criminal charges before the SOL expires when she had no constitutional authority to do so in first place

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5801823&forum_id=2).#49460394)

https://x.com/emptywheel/status/1993074064454566240?s=46

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5801823&forum_id=2).#49457576)

as for Comey, he committed perjury in response to Grassley but that idiot Cruz muddied the waters when he tried to get Comey to repeat the perjury. for that reason alone, i've expected Comey to win pre-trial if it ever gets to consideration of the merits.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5801823&forum_id=2).#49458400)

posted by Hannity Staff - 11.25.25

https://hannity.com/media-room/immediate-appeal-bondi-warns-comey-and-james-that-doj-not-done-with-them/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5801823&forum_id=2).#49459411)