Justice Department Appointments Under Scrutiny: Comey and James Fight Back

In a federal courtroom in Alexandria, Virginia, a heated debate is unfolding. The focus? The legitimacy of the prosecutor who brought charges against two high-profile figures: former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. Their legal teams are arguing that the prosecutor's appointment was not done by the book. The heart of the matter revolves around the rules for appointing U. S. attorneys. Normally, these top prosecutors are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. However, there's a loophole: the attorney general can appoint an interim U. S. attorney for up to 120 days. After that, federal judges in the district take over. But in this case, that didn't happen. Here's what went down. The initial interim U. S. attorney, Erik Siebert, resigned in September. He had been under pressure from the Trump administration to charge Comey and James. After Siebert stepped down, Attorney General Pam Bondi appointed Lindsey Halligan as the new interim U. S. attorney. This move was made at Trump's public urging. Defense lawyers argue that after Siebert's 120-day period expired, the Justice Department lost its power to make another interim appointment. They say the courts should have taken over. But prosecutors disagree. They claim the law doesn't explicitly ban successive interim appointments. Even if Halligan's appointment is invalid, they argue, it shouldn't lead to the dismissal of the indictments. Comey and James have both pleaded not guilty. Comey is facing charges of making false statements and obstructing Congress. James is accused of mortgage fraud. Their lawyers argue that the prosecutions are driven by personal vendettas and should be thrown out. The case raises important questions about the appointment process for U. S. attorneys. It also highlights the ongoing tensions between the Justice Department and those who feel targeted by it.