Comey and James Challenge Appointment of Prosecutor
Former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James are set to argue in court that the prosecutor, Lindsey Harrigan, who brought criminal charges against them, is unlawfully appointed as U.S. attorney. This hearing is scheduled to take place in Virginia where Judge Cameron Curry, who was appointed by Clinton, will evaluate Harrigan’s position.
Harrigan was appointed as the top prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia in September by President Donald Trump, shortly after Eric Siebert, a key political adversary of Trump, was removed from his role. Following this change, Trump made a noteworthy statement on Truth Social regarding his intentions, expressing a desire for revenge concerning past prosecutions and urging Attorney General Pam Bondi to act swiftly.
Harrigan’s background is somewhat unusual—she was previously an insurance lawyer and lacks direct prosecutorial experience. However, she filed charges quickly, with all documents solely bearing her name and no participation from Virginia prosecutors.
Comey and James’ legal teams pointed out that Harrigan’s appointment might not be valid. They argue that Bondi had appointed him improperly after the 120-day term limit for Siebert had already elapsed. Legal experts believe that Harrigan’s sole signature on the grand jury indictment might be a critical misstep if the judge rules against him.
Subsequently, Bondi retroactively endorsed the indictment and designated Harrigan as “special counsel,” ostensibly to clarify any questions about its legitimacy. Notably, Justice Department lawyers commented that “the government supports the prosecution” and that the Attorney General personally approved the indictment to mitigate any doubts surrounding its validity.
Additionally, Harrigan’s appointment was part of a broader strategy by the Trump administration to manage appointments without requiring Senate confirmation, exploiting loopholes within federal law. Some federal judges have already determined that similar appointments in New Jersey, California, and Nevada were disqualified; the New Jersey case is now under appeal and may escalate to the Supreme Court.
Comey and James contend that the government’s actions in this case amount to a conspiracy, asserting that the charges leveled against them should be dismissed due to Harrigan’s alleged improper appointment and the retaliatory nature of the prosecution.
Both men assert their innocence, but uncertainty looms about the possible outcomes if the charges are dismissed. Depending on the court’s rulings, the Justice Department might respond by appealing or attempting to refile the case.
