Legal Scrutiny Over Prosecutors’ Appointments

Alexandria, Virginia — During a hearing on Thursday, a judge nominated by Clinton expressed doubts regarding the legitimacy of the appointments of attorneys prosecuting former FBI Director James Comey and former New York State Attorney General Letitia James.

The lawyers for Comey and James argued that Lindsey Harrigan’s role as chief prosecutor for the Eastern District of Virginia was improperly established just days before the indictment against Comey, which they claimed violated basic constitutional principles that justify dismissing both cases.

According to federal law, the attorney general has the authority to appoint an interim U.S. attorney for a period of 120 days to fill a vacancy. The defense contends that this window has passed, as the term of former interim U.S. Attorney Eric Siebert expired, meaning Attorney General Pam Bondi cannot merely make consecutive appointments to keep Harrigan in power.

Siebert had resigned in October. Sources suggested that Bondi is under pressure from President Trump to pursue charges, leading to Harrigan’s appointment under the president’s directives. In a now-deleted post from September 20 on Truth Social, Trump questioned why no actions had been taken against Comey, James, and Democratic Senator Adam Schiff from California.

The government, however, described any concerns regarding Harrigan’s appointment as simple “administrative errors” and said they shouldn’t warrant his removal.

Justice Cameron Curry, a district judge from South Carolina appointed by Clinton, raised the issue of whether Harrigan’s appointment would diminish the Senate’s role in confirming federal prosecutor nominees.

Comey’s attorney, Ephraim McDowell, cautioned that if the judiciary endorses the government’s interpretation of the law, it could mean there’s no need for future Senate confirmations.

Curry also inquired about the rationale for needing governmental approval for Harrigan’s appointment after it had already occurred.

To clarify the legitimacy of Harrigan’s position, Bondi signed a new order on October 31, designating Harrigan as a “special prosecutor” with the authority to lead prosecutions in the Eastern District of Virginia.

Lowell, representing James, argued that allowing such ratification could potentially enable non-attorneys, like Steve Bannon or Elon Musk, to seek grand jury indictments simply by obtaining the attorney general’s endorsement.

At one point, Curry expressed concern over missing excerpts in the grand jury transcripts of Comey’s case, questioning how Bondi’s ratification could be valid without a complete record.

Curry also probed whether the government believed the decision to disqualify special counsel Jack Smith from prosecuting President Trump regarding classified documents was a mistaken one. DOJ Attorney Henry Whitaker responded that the ruling was not “controlling” in this particular situation.

A Pattern of Avoiding Confirmation?

In his concluding remarks, McDowell suggested that Harrigan’s appointment is indicative of a larger strategy by the Trump administration to bypass Senate confirmation processes.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals is examining Alina Haba’s appointment as Interim U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, with Curry indicating he had heard arguments challenging that appointment.

Lowell also criticized Haba’s appointment and mentioned his eagerness for the upcoming decision.

Defense lawyers have also expressed concerns regarding various interim U.S. attorney appointments, noting that creative legal tactics have been employed by the Department of Justice to maintain temporary positions without local court involvement.

If Harrigan’s appointment is deemed invalid, defense attorneys argue it should lead to the dismissal of the case, as he was the sole individual to sign and present the indictment to the grand jury. They pointed out that career prosecutors had doubts about the existence of the case.

Curry has indicated intentions to reach a decision by Thanksgiving.