Former FBI director James Comey and New York State Attorney General Letitia James are claiming that their recent legal troubles are politically motivated by former President Donald Trump. They argue that the attorney who filed the charges in Virginia was improperly appointed by Trump, and they cite an old Justice Department memo to support their case. A hearing took place in Alexandria, Virginia, but a ruling is not imminent.
Similar challenges to Trump’s appointments have been successful in New Jersey, Nevada, and California. The issue stems from the appointment of Erik Siebert as interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia without Senate confirmation, which is usually required.
Siebert resigned just before Comey and James were indicted on various charges. Lindsey Halligan succeeded Siebert, but her appointment has been questioned as unconstitutional by some, including former officials. The timing of the indictments has raised suspicions, with some Democrats believing they were politically motivated.
The legal battle revolves around whether Halligan’s appointment violates federal law by allowing repeated interim appointments to bypass Senate confirmation. The Justice Department contends that Halligan’s appointment was lawful and that she has the authority to oversee the prosecutions.
Arguments in court focused on the interpretation of the law and the validity of Halligan’s appointment. The judge presiding over the case is expected to make a ruling before Thanksgiving. Meanwhile, other states have seen similar challenges to Trump-appointed prosecutors, with some rulings favoring the defendants.
The outcome of the legal proceedings will determine the fate of Comey and James. While the statute of limitations has expired for some charges against Comey, James still faces allegations within the statute of limitations. The debate over the validity of the appointments and the prosecutions continues among legal experts.