Did you see the citation by Comeys legal team in his motion to dismiss for unlawful appointment of his insurance lawyer Halligan?
He argues that there is precedent to dismiss w prejudice. And the precedent is Trumps bathroom case where Cannon corruptly ruled Jacks Smith was not appropriately appointed and tossed that case.
if that isn’t a swift kick in the nutz I don’t know what is.
That's Comey's attorney's claim, not a fact relevant to the case. Cannon dismissed the case after the Attoney Gwneral, not Congress or the Presidenr appointed a Special Counsel (in that case, Smith):
Aileen Cannon in her opinion wrote:
The Superseding Indictment is DISMISSED because Special Counsel Smith’s appointment violates the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution,” wrote Cannon, who was appointed to the bench by the former president. She said the Constitution gives only Congress or the president the authority to appoint a special counsel — not the U.S. Attorney General.
So for this to be a parallel, Pam Bondi, and not Trump would have to appoint a Special Counsel, not a prosecuting attorney. Trump has the authority to appoint an attorney here. The question at hand is the time frame for the appointment. Comey argues that since the attorney who was fired for not prosecuting the case had served for 120 days, Trump had no right to replace that attorney.
I'm skeptical. In 1973, Nixon fired Special Counsel Archibald Cox and Deputy Attorney General William D. Ruckelshaus as the smoke around Watergate turned into fire:
Historian Stephen Ambrose wrote in his three volume biography of Tricky Dick that this, in essence, wasn't a good look for Nixon, but that he absolutely had the authority to do it by virtue of the Constitution, which, again, gives the Chief Executive authority to hire and fire as he sees fit.
Trump does not have authority. Trump had authority to appoint ONE interim AG for 120 days. Seigal was that one appointee and he quit (Trump says fired) because he would not do Trump's corruption. The statute backed by the constitution's separation of powers means the next appointee must come from the court.
So Comey's citing of Cannon is perfectly relevant. If both are appointed improperly the judge can toss the case. Trump's side argued this with the help of Cannon. (And Clarence Thomas)
The White House has an account on Bluesky? Shocked they want to be on such a woke platform. Should be Truth Social or nothing - how else will Trump build that social media platform?
Did you see the citation by Comeys legal team in his motion to dismiss for unlawful appointment of his insurance lawyer Halligan?
He argues that there is precedent to dismiss w prejudice. And the precedent is Trumps bathroom case where Cannon corruptly ruled Jacks Smith was not appropriately appointed and tossed that case.
if that isn’t a swift kick in the nutz I don’t know what is.
I did see that, although Trump's Bathroom case was not dismissed with prejudice, as far as I can tell.
Comey also cites this case Giraud case regarding appointment of Alini Gabba in Jersey as well, which deals with 28 USC 546. Complicated stuff. You can see "multi-step maneuver" Trump used to try and keep Gabba in as Jersey attorney on pages 7-10. Trump and Bondo appointed Gabba to FOUR different jobs on one day, for Christ's sakes. That hasn't happened to that degree with Halloran (yet), but it's the kind of artifice the courts aren't going to allow.
But none of Gabba's cases were dismissed with prejudice either, as far as I can tell.
Prosecution's response due 11/3/25. The judge had to transfer this particular motion to a judge in South Carolina to "maintain public confidence in the impartial administration of justice."
Did you see the citation by Comeys legal team in his motion to dismiss for unlawful appointment of his insurance lawyer Halligan?
He argues that there is precedent to dismiss w prejudice. And the precedent is Trumps bathroom case where Cannon corruptly ruled Jacks Smith was not appropriately appointed and tossed that case.
if that isn’t a swift kick in the nutz I don’t know what is.
I did see that, although Trump's Bathroom case was not dismissed with prejudice, as far as I can tell.
Comey also cites this case Giraud case regarding appointment of Alini Gabba in Jersey as well, which deals with 28 USC 546. Complicated stuff. You can see "multi-step maneuver" Trump used to try and keep Gabba in as Jersey attorney on pages 7-10. Trump and Bondo appointed Gabba to FOUR different jobs on one day, for Christ's sakes. That hasn't happened to that degree with Halloran (yet), but it's the kind of artifice the courts aren't going to allow.
But none of Gabba's cases were dismissed with prejudice either, as far as I can tell.
Prosecution's response due 11/3/25. The judge had to transfer this particular motion to a judge in South Carolina to "maintain public confidence in the impartial administration of justice."
James filed a similar motion regarding Halliran. This motion also got transferred to that South Carolina judge and consolidated with Comey's motion on 28 USC 546.
MOTION to Dismiss the Indictment and Enjoin the Prosecution by Letitia A. James. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order MTD the Indictment and Enjoin the Prosecution)(Bosse, Andrew) (Entered: 10/24/2025)
James' motion looks very similar to Comey's. I notice that James threw in an opinion by Judge Alito when he was working at the DOJ (prior to being a SC judge) saying that "“it does not follow that the Attorney General may make another appointment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 546(a) after the expiration of the 120-day period.” It's pretty clear why they put that in -- this is expected to go higher and they want to remind Alito that he was normal once.
Dummies. Suffer. Suffer very badly. Lose your farms, go bankrupt. You knew this was coming and you voted for it. The chickens do come home to roost.
Since siding with Barack Obama twice, Iowa has become a stronghold for Mr. Trump. Yet perhaps no state has struggled more with his economic policies. During the first quarter of 2025, Iowa’s gross domestic product dropped by 6.1 percent, more than any other state aside from neighboring Nebraska.
Manufacturing, which drives 17 percent of Iowa’s economic output, has been hit with higher production costs in part because of steep tariffs on inputs like aluminum and steel. Meatpacking plants, which help make Iowa the nation’s leading pork producer, rely heavily on foreign-born workers, hundreds of thousands of whom saw their legal status stripped away by the president. Mr. Trump’s war on renewable energy also threatens the wind industry that produces more than half of Iowa’s electricity.
This strategy of shaming will definitely get voters back on the dems side. This attitude is just as repugnant as the MAGA crowd.
Senate Democrats have now voted 12 times to not fund the food stamp program, also known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Bottom line, the well has run dry. At this time, there will be no benefits issued November 01. We are approaching an inflection point for Senate Democrats. They can continue to hold out for healthcare for illegal aliens and gender mutilation procedures or reopen the government so mothers, babies, and the most vulnerable among us can receive critical nutrition assistance.
Did you see the citation by Comeys legal team in his motion to dismiss for unlawful appointment of his insurance lawyer Halligan?
He argues that there is precedent to dismiss w prejudice. And the precedent is Trumps bathroom case where Cannon corruptly ruled Jacks Smith was not appropriately appointed and tossed that case.
if that isn’t a swift kick in the nutz I don’t know what is.
Historian Stephen Ambrose wrote in his three volume biography of Tricky Dick that this, in essence, wasn't a good look for Nixon, but that he absolutely had the authority to do it by virtue of the Constitution, which, again, gives the Chief Executive authority to hire and fire as he sees fit.
That seems to be a very different issue with ArchBald COX. That article doesn't even mention the Constitution. And the Constitution certainly does NOT "give the Chief Executive authority to hire and fire as he sees fit." Not even close. The Appointments Clause of Art. II of the Constitution (Am. Ver.) recites of the President:
". . . and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."
So that latter two bolded bits are what 28 USC 546, enacted by Congress, is partially about ("If an appointment expires under subsection (c)(2), the district court for such district may appoint a United States attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled.").
Dummies. Suffer. Suffer very badly. Lose your farms, go bankrupt. You knew this was coming and you voted for it. The chickens do come home to roost.
Since siding with Barack Obama twice, Iowa has become a stronghold for Mr. Trump. Yet perhaps no state has struggled more with his economic policies. During the first quarter of 2025, Iowa’s gross domestic product dropped by 6.1 percent, more than any other state aside from neighboring Nebraska.
Manufacturing, which drives 17 percent of Iowa’s economic output, has been hit with higher production costs in part because of steep tariffs on inputs like aluminum and steel. Meatpacking plants, which help make Iowa the nation’s leading pork producer, rely heavily on foreign-born workers, hundreds of thousands of whom saw their legal status stripped away by the president. Mr. Trump’s war on renewable energy also threatens the wind industry that produces more than half of Iowa’s electricity.
This strategy of shaming will definitely get voters back on the dems side. This attitude is just as repugnant as the MAGA crowd.
BS. Having no sympathy for people who consciously enabled an authoritarian and then directly suffer from his actions is not anywhere near as bad as enabling an authoritarian. It’s not “just as repugnant,” it’s NOWHERE NEAR as repugnant. In fact, it’s not repugnant at all. Just unsympathetic.
This strategy of shaming will definitely get voters back on the dems side. This attitude is just as repugnant as the MAGA crowd.
BS. Having no sympathy for people who consciously enabled an authoritarian and then directly suffer from his actions is not anywhere near as bad as enabling an authoritarian. It’s not “just as repugnant,” it’s NOWHERE NEAR as repugnant. In fact, it’s not repugnant at all. Just unsympathetic.
yeah the difference is that if the IA farmers reversed themselves and said 'my bad, I voted for Trump and that was a big mistake, I should have voted for that black asian lady so I could have someone to sell my soybeans to' then I would be stupid to insult them. I should welcome them to the Democratic Party.
But there's no sign of that. Farmers are backing their executioner. So they deserve scorn and ridicule.
BS. Having no sympathy for people who consciously enabled an authoritarian and then directly suffer from his actions is not anywhere near as bad as enabling an authoritarian. It’s not “just as repugnant,” it’s NOWHERE NEAR as repugnant. In fact, it’s not repugnant at all. Just unsympathetic.
yeah the difference is that if the IA farmers reversed themselves and said 'my bad, I voted for Trump and that was a big mistake, I should have voted for that black asian lady so I could have someone to sell my soybeans to' then I would be stupid to insult them. I should welcome them to the Democratic Party.
But there's no sign of that. Farmers are backing their executioner. So they deserve scorn and ridicule.
Those same farmers hire most of the undocumented people because they pay them less than minimum age, while not pay taxes. It is not surprising that ICE raids on conservative farms are non-existent.
This strategy of shaming will definitely get voters back on the dems side. This attitude is just as repugnant as the MAGA crowd.
BS. Having no sympathy for people who consciously enabled an authoritarian and then directly suffer from his actions is not anywhere near as bad as enabling an authoritarian. It’s not “just as repugnant,” it’s NOWHERE NEAR as repugnant. In fact, it’s not repugnant at all. Just unsympathetic.
Dummies. Suffer. Suffer very badly. Lose your farms, go bankrupt. You knew this was coming and you voted for it. The chickens do come home to roost.
Since siding with Barack Obama twice, Iowa has become a stronghold for Mr. Trump. Yet perhaps no state has struggled more with his economic policies. During the first quarter of 2025, Iowa’s gross domestic product dropped by 6.1 percent, more than any other state aside from neighboring Nebraska.
Manufacturing, which drives 17 percent of Iowa’s economic output, has been hit with higher production costs in part because of steep tariffs on inputs like aluminum and steel. Meatpacking plants, which help make Iowa the nation’s leading pork producer, rely heavily on foreign-born workers, hundreds of thousands of whom saw their legal status stripped away by the president. Mr. Trump’s war on renewable energy also threatens the wind industry that produces more than half of Iowa’s electricity.
That's Comey's attorney's claim, not a fact relevant to the case. Cannon dismissed the case after the Attoney Gwneral, not Congress or the Presidenr appointed a Special Counsel (in that case, Smith):
So for this to be a parallel, Pam Bondi, and not Trump would have to appoint a Special Counsel, not a prosecuting attorney. Trump has the authority to appoint an attorney here. The question at hand is the time frame for the appointment. Comey argues that since the attorney who was fired for not prosecuting the case had served for 120 days, Trump had no right to replace that attorney.
I'm skeptical. In 1973, Nixon fired Special Counsel Archibald Cox and Deputy Attorney General William D. Ruckelshaus as the smoke around Watergate turned into fire:
Historian Stephen Ambrose wrote in his three volume biography of Tricky Dick that this, in essence, wasn't a good look for Nixon, but that he absolutely had the authority to do it by virtue of the Constitution, which, again, gives the Chief Executive authority to hire and fire as he sees fit.
Trump does not have authority. Trump had authority to appoint ONE interim AG for 120 days. Seigal was that one appointee and he quit (Trump says fired) because he would not do Trump's corruption. The statute backed by the constitution's separation of powers means the next appointee must come from the court.
So Comey's citing of Cannon is perfectly relevant. If both are appointed improperly the judge can toss the case. Trump's side argued this with the help of Cannon. (And Clarence Thomas)
Do you have a citation for your claim that Trump does not have Constiutional authority to appoint a prosecutor to prosecute crimes as he sees fit? You also claimed that the next appointee must come from the judicial branch. Could you point out where in the Constitution it says that. Both points are key to Corey's argument. You may well be right, but...
The question is going to be answered by the court, anyway. So we will see what happens.
And I disagree. Here's an article that is not pro-Trump that gives me reason to believe that case won't be thrown out on these grounds:
The indictment of James Comey has shattered decades of post-Nixon norms governing a president's relationship with the Justice Department. But is it illegal?
Here is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court on the President's role in investigations (admittedly, only one vote out of 9...this is quoted in the article I linked.
John Roberts wrote:
'Investigation and prosecution of crimes is a quintessentially executive function,'" wrote Chief Justice John Roberts, quoting from a 1986 opinion in the case of Morrison v. Olson. "And the Executive Branch has 'exclusive authority and absolute discretion' to decide which crimes to investigate and prosecute.
You have to remember that, although it is clear that Trump does not like Comey, he also unironically thinks he is a criminal (as you do of Trump). .
I don't think the motion to dismiss will succeed. And I'm repeating myself, twice, but we'll see.
This post was edited 44 seconds after it was posted.
