James Comey Seeks to Toss Criminal Case Due to Trump-Appointed Prosecutor

Disgraced former FBI Director James Comey is once again trying to escape accountability — this time by challenging the legality of President Donald Trump’s appointment of Lindsey Halligan as acting U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Comey’s legal team argues that Halligan’s appointment was “unlawful” and that all actions taken under her authority — including his own indictment — should be thrown out.

In a notice filed Tuesday with the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Comey’s attorneys informed the court that they plan to formally move to dismiss the case next week. The filing claims Halligan’s appointment violated federal law and precedent, referencing two recent lower court cases in Nevada and New Jersey involving Trump-appointed prosecutors.

“The Court advised at arraignment that such motion will require designation of and assignment to an out-of-district judge to hear and resolve that motion,” the filing stated, referring to a prior Oct. 8 order. The defense said the notice was filed “in the interest of efficiency and to avoid any unnecessary delay.”

Comey’s Defense Cries Politics

Comey’s team has already signaled plans to seek dismissal on separate grounds of “vindictive prosecution,” alleging that the charges were politically motivated — retaliation for his firing by President Trump in 2017 after the FBI’s mishandling of politically charged investigations during the 2016 election.

Halligan — a former White House aide and one of Trump’s trusted legal advisors — was appointed last month to head the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia following the resignation of interim U.S. Attorney Erik Siebert, who had been overseeing both the Comey and Letitia James cases.

The upcoming motion will reportedly argue that Trump’s direct appointment of Halligan violated constitutional and statutory requirements mandating Senate confirmation for U.S. attorneys. Comey’s lawyers cited United States v. Garcia (Nevada) and United States v. Giraud (New Jersey) as precedents in which judges questioned whether acting appointments without Senate approval exceeded executive authority.

Legal analysts note, however, that the President retains broad interim appointment powers under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act — especially in cases where urgency or continuity of government functions are at issue. Halligan’s defenders argue that Trump acted within his authority to fill a temporary vacancy pending formal nomination.

Judge Rejects DOJ’s Evidence Limits

Tuesday’s filing wasn’t the only courtroom drama for Comey this week. Just hours earlier, U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff rejected a Justice Department request to restrict Comey’s access to sensitive discovery materials.

The DOJ had sought a protective order to keep certain classified or confidential evidence out of Comey’s personal review. Nachmanoff denied the request, writing:

“Protective orders addressing the confidentiality and privacy interests of others should not override a defendant’s right to a fair trial. The government’s proposed order does not sufficiently define the information constituting ‘protected material,’ thereby making it overbroad.”

Comey’s legal team celebrated the ruling as a win, claiming the government had been attempting to “hamstring the defense” and restrict discovery access under Halligan’s leadership. They also painted Comey as a seasoned public servant with decades of experience handling sensitive information:

“Mr. Comey is a licensed attorney admitted to practice in the Eastern District of Virginia and has been entrusted with some of the most highly classified information in the United States,” his lawyers wrote. “To assert now that he cannot be trusted with discovery in his own case controverts his record of distinguished public service.”

Indictment and Stakes

Comey, who served as FBI director from 2013 until his 2017 dismissal by President Trump, was indicted last month on two felony counts — making false statements to Congress and obstruction of justice. He has pleaded not guilty to both.

The forthcoming motion could determine whether the charges stand or if the case will need to be reassigned to another federal office. Legal observers expect a ruling on Halligan’s appointment could carry significant implications for future Justice Department actions taken during Trump’s second term.

For now, the court has not set a date for Comey’s motion hearing — leaving the former FBI director’s fate in legal limbo as President Trump’s Justice Department continues its broad accountability campaign against entrenched Washington corruption.