Peloni: The most basic institution in civilization is that which supports the notion that laws should be expected to be enforced. For laws to have any meaning at all, a sense of justice must be reinforced at every level of society, and instead the selective application of the laws appears to betray the truth that the West has a two tier legal doctrine, based on ideology and political connections. This is just the most recent demonstration of that fact.
By Pamela Geller |
James Comey’s Wrong Answers. Photo by DonkeyHotey – James Comey’s Wrong Answers, CC BY 2.0, Wikipedia
The judiciary is irretrievably broken. The left imprisons those with whom they disagree while engaging in high crimes and misdemeanors with fear of punishment or accountability.
Clinton-appointed U.S. district Judge Cameron McGowan Currie, just DISMISSED the cases against former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James— alleging that the interim U.S. attorney who secured the indictments, was “unlawfully appointed” to the role.
NEW: A federal judge has dismissed both indictments against Tish James and Jim Comey after determining Lindsey Halligan’s appointment is unlawful. Unbelievable. pic.twitter.com/sPOgyu5iEO
— Julie Kelly ?? (@julie_kelly2) November 24, 2025
Federal judge dismisses James Comey, Letitia James indictments
By Ashley Oliver Fox News, November 24, 2025:
A federal judge threw out the indictments against James Comey and Letitia James on Monday, finding they were illegitimate because they were brought by an unqualified U.S. attorney.
Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the false statements charge against Comey and bank fraud charge against James without prejudice, meaning the charges could be brought again.
The Department of Justice can appeal the decision.
The move to scrap two of the highest-profile criminal cases the DOJ has leveled against President Donald Trump’s political foes comes after the judge voiced skepticism at a recent hearing in Virginia about Lindsey Halligan’s ability to bring the charges as interim U.S. attorney.
Currie, a Clinton appointee based in South Carolina, was brought in from out of state to preside over proceedings about the question of Halligan’s authority because it presented a conflict for the Virginia judges. Comey’s and James’ challenges to Halligan’s appointment were consolidated because of their similarity.
Halligan acted alone in presenting charges to a grand jury days after the prior interim U.S. attorney, Erik Siebert, was ousted. Halligan, who had no prior prosecutorial experience when she took over one of the most high-profile federal court districts in the country, was the lone lawyer to present the cases to the grand jury and sign the indictments. No prosecutors from Virginia joined in on the case.
The DOJ has since put its full backing behind Halligan. Attorney General Pam Bondi attempted to ratify and then re-ratify the indictments after the fact, a move Currie suggested would not have been necessary if Halligan was a valid appointee.
DOJ attorney Henry Whitaker had argued during the hearing that the motions to dismiss Comey’s and James’ cases involved “at best a paperwork error.”
Judge Currie applied legal minutiae of the type that were never used when Biden/Garland/Wray were running roughshod over constitutional protections.
Examples include saying that U.S. citizens lack the standing to challenge elections, while drug-dealing murderers, illegal aliens have standing to challenge and defeat federal deportation orders. Other examples are the Mar-a-Lago raids, the holding of thousands of Jan 6 prisoners without Habeas Corpus, the very questionable actions of prosecutors and judges in the Trump lawfare cases, and, my favorite, the ruling that the President lacks the power to fire temporary provisional federal employees, ones who first-line supervisors can dismiss.
In this context, Currie is acting like a third-world judge ruling like “show me the person, and I’ll show you the law”.
So the recently suggested approach would seem to be that the judges who dismiss cases on the flimsiest of reasons should themselves be brought before a similar judge who will them get them disbarred for applying politics rather than judgment to their decisions against cases that have no “standing”. These judges should not have any standing either and the recent proposal would see them brought before a military court rather than one of their choice. That would still be better than a lynching at the hands of those thousands of Jan 6 prisoners without Habeas Corpus.