A federal judge has dismissed criminal indictments against Deep State operatives James Comey and Letitia James after ruling that Trump’s appointed prosecutor lacked legal authority, delivering another setback to efforts at holding the swamp accountable.
Story Highlights
- Judge dismisses cases against Comey and James due to the prosecutor’s unlawful appointment.
- Former Trump attorney Lindsey Halligan ruled to lack prosecutorial authority.
- Cases dismissed “without prejudice,” allowing potential future prosecution.
- Ruling exposes flaws in the Trump administration’s justice reform efforts.
Judge Rules Against Trump’s Prosecutor Choice
U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie delivered a crushing blow to conservative hopes for justice by dismissing criminal indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.
The judge ruled that Lindsey Halligan, Trump’s appointed interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, was unlawfully appointed and lacked authority to prosecute the cases. This decision highlights the ongoing challenges patriots face in reforming a justice system that has long protected establishment figures.
Judge dismisses federal cases against Comey, Letitia James, rules prosecutor unlawfully appointed https://t.co/cY8urNEn50
— John Solomon (@jsolomonReports) November 24, 2025
Deep State Operatives Escape Accountability Again
Comey faced charges for making false statements to Congress and obstructing a congressional investigation, while James was indicted on bank fraud charges and making false statements to financial institutions. Both had pleaded not guilty to all charges.
The dismissal allows these figures, who have repeatedly attacked conservative values and constitutional principles, to escape immediate consequences. James, who has weaponized her office against Trump and his allies, celebrated the ruling as a “victory” while claiming the charges were “baseless.”
Procedural Failures Undermine Justice Efforts
Judge Currie found that Halligan, described as “a former White House aide with no prior prosecutorial experience,” conducted an unprecedented solo prosecution. Career prosecutors in her office reportedly recommended against charging Comey and James, believing there was insufficient evidence for conviction.
The judge characterized Halligan’s appointment as an “unconstitutional” exercise of executive power, noting she acted alone in conducting grand jury proceedings and securing indictments. This procedural breakdown demonstrates the systemic obstacles facing efforts to clean up Washington’s corruption.
Cases May Return Despite Setback
Both indictments were dismissed “without prejudice,” meaning prosecutors could refile charges with proper authority. However, legal expert Carl Tobias from the University of Richmond School of Law expressed skepticism about the government’s ability to overcome this ruling.
The White House maintained that “the facts of the indictments against Comey and James have not changed and this will not be the final word on this matter.”
Meanwhile, both defendants have additional motions pending seeking dismissal “with prejudice,” which would permanently bar prosecution and further protect these swamp creatures from accountability.
