Letitia James Is PANICKING as Lindsey Halligan EXPOSES Her Desperation Move

.
.

🚨 Panic at the Top: Letitia James and James Comey Exposed in Desperate Legal Maneuver

New York Attorney General Letitia James and former FBI Director James Comey have been exposed in a coordinated, desperate legal maneuver aimed at stopping their respective criminal cases entirely. Instead of fighting the allegations of mortgage fraud (James) and obstruction/lying to Congress (Comey), their legal teams have filed a highly technical motion arguing that the prosecutor pursuing their cases, Lindsey Halligan, was unlawfully appointed and thus lacks the authority to bring the indictments.

The extraordinary motion, described by critics as the legal equivalent of “pulling a fire alarm because you’re losing the game,” attempts to frame a technicality as a “grand constitutional violation.” However, prosecutor Halligan has responded forcefully, line by line, dismantling their claims and laying bare their strategy to stall rather than prove innocence.

I. The Hail Mary: Attacking the Prosecutor’s Authority

The cases against James and Comey share the same prosecutor, Lindsey Halligan, and are being heard in the Eastern District of Virginia. As they face their parallel legal challenges, both figures have chosen to unite in a single argument: they are not guilty because the person charging them is not legally authorized to do so.

The Argument of Convenience

James’s and Comey’s lawyers are arguing that Halligan was not lawfully appointed to her position as U.S. Attorney by the previous administration. The essence of their complaint is procedural:

The Claim: Halligan’s appointment violates the Appointments Clause and the Vacancies Reform Act, suggesting she was not properly vested with the power to prosecute.

The Analogy: Critics have mocked this approach, comparing it to “showing up to court for a murder charge and saying, ‘Your honor, you can’t convict me because the bailiff clocked in late.'” This strategy reveals a focus on process and procedure rather than the merits of the evidence itself.

Halligan’s Swift Counter-Attack

Lindsey Halligan and the Department of Justice (DOJ) immediately countered, arguing that her appointment was, in fact, lawful. Halligan’s response dismantles the defense’s technical twists with sharp adherence to the law:

U.S. Attorneys as Inferior Officers: Halligan affirmed that U.S. Attorneys are designated as “inferior officers.” Under the Constitution, Congress has the authority to vest the power to appoint such officers in the Attorney General, which is precisely how the system operates.
Statutory Clarity: She cited the relevant statutes and the Vacancies Reform Act, arguing that the Attorney General absolutely has the authority to appoint a U.S. Attorney when the office is vacant. She noted that the law specifically authorizes this path.

The defense’s attempt to frame their argument as some “grand constitutional violation” was exposed as a “Hail Mary dressed up as a legal brief.”

II. Dismantling the Stall Tactics: The 120-Day Rule

The defense teams for James and Comey sought to exploit specific statutory time limits to invalidate Halligan’s authority, primarily relying on a “120-day rule.”

The Expired Clock Myth

The defense argued that once the Attorney General appoints someone, that interim appointment expires after 120 days, rendering any subsequent action, like the indictments, invalid. They treated the 120 days as an unbendable, sacred number.

Halligan swiftly debunked this interpretation:

The Resetting Clause: Halligan clarified that the law allows the Attorney General to make additional appointments when the office remains vacant. She pointed out that each new appointment effectively resets the 120-day clock. This is a recognized practice intended to prevent handcuffing the DOJ while the Senate confirmation process is pending.
Congressional Intent: She noted that Congress intentionally avoided limiting the Attorney General to a single, one-time-only appointment. The law is designed to work as a sequence of interim appointments until the Senate confirms a permanent U.S. Attorney.
Historical Precedent: Halligan provided receipts, documenting that the government has repeatedly reappointed interim U.S. Attorneys after the 120-day limit passed, and these appointments have been consistently upheld by the courts.

The Separation of Powers Issue

Halligan also leveraged a fundamental constitutional principle against the defendants: the separation of powers.

Judiciary Overreach: She reminded the court that the Constitution vests the power to prosecute crimes squarely with the Executive Branch (the President and his appointed officers). Article III (the Judiciary) requires the courts to “stay out of it” and avoid embracing these inter-branch conflicts.
The Court’s Narrow Role: Courts are given a narrow role to fill a vacant seat only when the political branches fail to act. Halligan’s argument was essentially: “This isn’t your lane,” reminding the defense that they cannot twist the separation of powers just because they are scared of prosecution.

III. The Hypocrisy of Transparency

Leticia James has built her career on being the champion of accountability, frequently using her office to prosecute major figures and companies. However, her actions in her own defense suggest a profound hypocrisy.

The Allergy to Transparency

James has spent years running the “accountability show,” calling other people corrupt and demanding transparency. Yet, now that the spotlight has swung back in her direction, she has become “allergic to transparency.”

Dodging the Facts: Instead of facing the charges of mortgage fraud and presenting evidence of her innocence, her team is focused entirely on “hiding behind process and procedure,” desperately trying to stop the clock.
Fighting for Survival: Her legal strategy suggests a fundamental weakness in her defense. If the case were truly baseless, as she often claims publicly (“no fear, no fear”), she would welcome her day in court. Instead, her motions feel like a “frantic attempt to stop the clock rather than prove innocence,” indicating she is fighting for survival, not justice.

The Media Silence

Adding a layer of concern to the entire situation is the remarkable silence from mainstream media outlets. News organizations that aggressively cover every twist and turn in other high-profile political and legal battles have largely ignored this complex yet highly consequential legal maneuver against a progressive power player.

The Narrative Constraint: This radio silence suggests that the story of a prominent progressive figure being credibly charged with financial crimes and subsequently resorting to desperate legal stall tactics does not fit the preferred narratives of certain major networks.
The Fragility of Justice: This event exposes how fragile the concept of equal justice truly is, and how quickly the defenders of the law can become its biggest critics when they are the ones under the microscope.

The motion to dismiss is highly likely to fail, and the criminal trial against Letitia James and James Comey is slated to begin in January. The attempt to frame a procedural argument as a constitutional crisis has not only failed but has put the sheer desperation of their defense on full display.

.