• fodor@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    4 hours ago

    "And because Ms. Halligan had no lawful authority to present the indictment, I will grant Ms. James’s motion and dismiss the indictment without prejudice.

    That’s a big issue. It should certainly be with prejudice, especially for Comey, because the statute of limitations has run on his actions. A fake prosecutor can’t reset the clock on the statute, can it? That’s not a reasonable legal position.

    • collar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Disagree. The answer is not to dismiss with prejudice. The issue before the judge was, at its heart, whether the prosecutor had the legal authority to bring the indictment. The answer was no. As such, it’s not up to the court to tell the government they cannot bring the case again in a proper manner from qualified prosecutor.

      The beauty of the decision is that – by issuing the order in this manner – the government is screwed anyway because (unless they successfully appeal this decision) the statute of limitations has tolled on Comey’s case,so even if Halligan or some other prosecutor were able to bring charges, the window to do so has closed. Case dismissed.

      This is essentially dismissing with prejudice without prejudice. The case is over, at least for Comey, unless government is successful on appeal.