Mark Joseph Stern - re James Comey and a "validly appointed U.S. Attorney" bringing a NEW indictment [View all]

I respectfully disagree with Kyle. Currie says Bondi couldn't ratify Halligan's indictment after the statute of limitations. She does NOT say that a future, validly appointed U.S. Attorney (interim or otherwise) is barred from bringing a NEW indictment under §3288 (she leaves that possibility open).

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjsdc.bsky.social) 2025-11-24T18:25:01.913Z

As a practical matter, it may be that no validly appointed U.S. Attorney will be willing to indict Comey—that's why Trump installed Halligan in the first place. But nothing in today's decision, as I read it, bars them from trying.

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjsdc.bsky.social) 2025-11-24T18:25:47.415Z

Put differently: The judge says Bondi couldn't ratify Halligan's invalid indictment after the statute of limitations had run.

The judge did NOT say that a future U.S. Attorney is prohibited from bringing a new, valid indictment within the six-month grace period prescribed by law.

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjsdc.bsky.social) 2025-11-24T18:27:40.685Z

Exactly right: bsky.app/profile/brad...

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjsdc.bsky.social) 2025-11-24T18:28:11.017Z

There's at least an argument that this dismissal will give DOJ more time to bring new charges against Comey, and this time to avoid the landmines it seems to have stepped on during its first attempt.

18 U.S.C. § 3288 grants six months to re-charge after an indictment is dismissed "for any reason."

— Brad Heath (@bradheath.bsky.social) 2025-11-24T18:08:08.355Z