IHIP News - Trump Fumbles Court Case with Massive Failure Against James Comey and Letitia James

Episode Date: November 24, 2025

Trump's inept government tried and failed to prosecute former FBI Director James Comey in embarrassing fashion.Order our new book, join our Substack, shop our merch, and more by clicking here: https://linktr.ee/ivehaditpodcast.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Trump's DOJ is full of incompetent lawyers that do not know what they're doing and they keep getting their asses handed to them in federal court. Lindsay Halligan, the beauty queen that Trump rounded up to go charge James Comey just got slammed by a federal judge and charges thrown out. Might as touch is reporting the following. A federal judge has thrown out the criminal indictment of James Comey ruling that Trump-installed prosecutor, Lindsay Halligan, was illegally appointed and had no lawful authority to bring the case. The court found her actions violated federal law and the Constitution's appointments clause. Here, filling in for pumps while she's on vacation

as my criminal defense attorney, Josh Welch, Josh. In a nutshell, what the court is saying is that Pam Bondi violated the appointments clause when she appointed. Lindsey Halligan to serve as interim U.S. attorney, and that's because Eric Seibert had previously been appointed by Pam Bondi. Typically, as a U.S. attorney, that position, there's an appointment made by the president, and the Senate has to confirm that, but they do allow exceptions on an interim basis, and you get one appointment up to 120 days. Mr. Seibert served in excess of 120 days, the court simply said. Her appointment's unlawful, and therefore, We have to dismiss this indictment and Ms. James indictment.

Oh, Letitia James is dismissed as well. That's correct, because the indictment fairs the same as to her in the sense that Ms. Halligan is the appointed, alleged appointed, U.S. Attorney. Okay, share with us, because you were sharing with me over the weekend, because you've been following this case so closely because this is your area of expertise. You were telling me that Lindsay Halligan basically violated some rules and ethics pertaining to the grand jury and could potentially be looking at bar violations. So we all, those of us who practice in the federal courts are aware that the grand jury

process is somewhat safeguarded and it's very particularized. And the U.S. attorneys that conduct grand jury proceedings are very skilled, very educated, very experienced. And I remember when we saw Ms. Halligan being appointed literally the next day, she flies to Virginia, like she puts a Superman cape on and appears in front of the grand jury having no expertise in prosecuting federal criminal cases or working in that particular district. And so she's put in that situation, has no idea what she's doing. And I think the record has bore that out that she stepped into that proceeding, had no idea

what she was doing. There's been a plethora of motions filed by James Comey's lawyers. It's no surprise that the court granted this motion. but there are multiple other motions that had merit that would have caused this case to be dismissed. So are all of those other things that the unethical things that she did, are those just moot now? No, because what I think will happen is that there will be complaints filed to various bar associations about her conduct, her ethical conduct. I know that federal judges have certain obligations if they see violations committed in their presence or they become aware of them. They then have to report those violations to the local bar association.

So I think you'll see an aftermath of fallout from Ms. Halligan based on her conduct in the grand jury. It's clear that she didn't know how to conduct a grand jury proceeding. She had never presented a prosecution or a case in front of a grand jury. She just simply stepped in, made a plethora of errors. It was somewhat comical for those of us on the sideline watching this happen. I know it wasn't comical for Mr. Comey, but I, He has more than experienced lawyers that are representing him. Patrick Fitzgerald is his main lawyer, and he was one of the prosecutors of Scooter Libby

and Carl Rowe back in the early 2000s. So just an extremely experienced attorney that used to work for the Department of Justice for many, many years. So Ms. Halligan just simply stepped in sort of the wrong pasture at the wrong time with the wrong people. Does any of her actions that you've read rise to, like criminal misconduct on her part? Or is this just ethical? It appears in some of the arguments that she admitted that she didn't present the full or revised grand jury indictment to the full grand jury. Instead, just had a four-person sign it. And I think that in the course of that, you make certain attestations under oath. And so I don't know exactly if her conduct would rise

to a level of criminal conduct versus ethical conduct. But it's clear, she's going to have a number of problems on her hands after she's been dismissed from that U.S. Attorney's Office. So do you remember when Biden beat Trump in 2020 and he called Georgia Secretary, State, and Governor, and said, I need for you to find me 11,000 votes? That's right. I feel like with this gal, he said, look, I need for you to go charge James Comey. And he had tried these other U.S. attorneys who a lot of these people you know and you have

had cases with, and these are serious people that are not partisan, that care about the rule of law, and they refuse to charge James Comey. So I think what we're dealing with this president is just this whim. I want James Comey charge because he can't stand James Comey. And she was the only person in the Justice Department that was willing to do this. Well, number one, she wasn't an employee of the Justice Department up until she flew down to the Eastern District of Virginia to prosecute this matter, but it would go something like this. Pam Bondi would be in a room of Trump loyalist and say, hey, who is willing to hop on a flight, go down to Virginia, and try to present this case to a grand jury and make sure that James Comey gets indicted?

And as you look around the room, you see that there's not a whole lot of hands that are being lifted. But somewhere at some point in time, Ms. Halligan thought that, hey, I'm going to raise my hand. I'm a Trump loyalist. I'll go down, I'll go indict that son of a bitch. That's pretty much what happened here. She had zero experience being a federal prosecutor. She's being thrust into a situation where she's being asked to indict the former director of the FBI in a highly volatile environment with other federal judges that have been there

for years. And these federal judges, they take their job very seriously. they take a lawyer's competence and ethical standards and rise those to the highest level. And you can't just sneak in under the radar and say, hey, I'll do this job. Let me do it. You know, this isn't the playground where you can sign up for stuff. It's serious. And so there are also other bases for Mr. Comey's motions to dismiss his case.

One of them was that it was clearly a selective and vindictive prosecution. This doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out. out that when Trump puts on social media, that, hey, you need to go charge this guy. Which was supposed to be a DM to Pam Bondi. Correct. And then he accidentally put it on his public feed, which, okay, just before we get to our next story, just share with our listeners exactly what's happening with the courts. Because I think this is really important as all of us are like, oh, my God, are we going to

make it to the midterms? We all wake up every day with this barrage of authoritarianism and fascism and kank. being a complete nut with incompetent people. The federal courts are doing their job, correct? For the most part, yes, the district courts and the appellate courts. When I say the appellate courts, I mean the appeals courts, the different circuits. All of those courts are holding the line for the rule of law, following the Constitution, following the law, whichever side it falls upon, where the cracks are, or when you see these cases that get appealed to the Supreme Court on this so-called emergency docket or shadow docket.

There's a reason why they call it the shadow docket. There's not a lot of good things that happen in the shadows of day-to-day life. Therefore, hence, the nickname shadow docket. They're going in the evening, basically, at night and basically issuing these orders that are overturning a lot of well-established rules of law that have become important to our society, the norm, of our society as it relates to discrimination, racism, deployment of troops and state. Voting rights. Voting rights. We saw that in the Texas case on Friday where Justice Alito,

again, issued an order overturning the appellate court, and the appellate court was holding the line. But Justice Alito overturned that. So when we say the courts are failing us, it's not really the district courts or the appellate courts. It's the Supreme Court that's failing us. It's devastating. Okay, I want to shift gears because this ties into what just happened to Lindsay Halligan's first federal case getting embarrassingly thrown out because she's such a rookie. It'd be like me rolling up trying to do this. The Pete Hague Seth is also equally unqualified to be the Secretary of Defense, which they have now renamed the Secretary of War. And as you know, the Trump administration is giving troops illegal orders to kill people without evidence, without information in the Caribbean.

These are war crimes. And so a lot of senators have made public statements to the people in the military. And Admiral has already quit because he doesn't want any part of this because Hexeth, we know Kanks has immunity because the Supreme Court gave it to him. But somebody's going to be left holding the bag, and a lot of it's going to be these people that need a paycheck, that need health insurance, that are patriots, that are actual service members. And so Mark Kelly, retired Navy and NASA, now as a U.S. Senator and some other Congresspeople said, do not follow illegal orders. Well, these authoritarians are throwing feces all over the Internet. And now Pete Hagseth, the man who had to have his mother go on to Fox News to make the case for him to be the Secretary of Defense because she had written him scathing letters about his infidelities, his lack of being a leader, all of these things. He is now calling a secret tribunal at the Pentagon to investigate a sitting senator. Put this up.

Pentagon says it's investigating Senator Mark Kelly for video urging troops to defy illegal orders. You would think that this would be a foregone conclusion that the Pentagon would be like, yes, Mark Kelly, we agree with you. We do not want our troops following illegal orders. But here's the problem with this administration. Trump 1.0 people were fired and fired and fired and fired because they kept trying to hold up the guardrails. He learned that he didn't want that. So now he's surrounded by sycophantic dipshits that are only loyal to him and are getting decent Americans to commit crimes. And now they are investigating Mark Kelly and then put this up.

The Department of War, which is really the Department of Defense, Hexeth is now threatening to recall Senator Mark Kelly to active duty in order to court. marshal him. So what you have here is they want to send a message. No, no, no. You can't be loyal to the Constitution. You have to be loyal to this man that gave somebody named Bubba a blowjob and Vladimir Putin has the evidence for it. And somehow now the Republican Party always does this shit. They act like they're so pro-military. And then here you have a draft Dodger, Canks, who is now wanting to court-martial a real military person who cares about the troops so much. And the Republicans feign this patriotism and the support of the troops. And it is such bullshit. They want active members to commit crimes.

And what I would say to that in addition is that when we discussed this earlier today, they're playing by a different set of rules. They're going for things that they weren't going for in the first term for Trump. And they're very unabashed about it, very unapologetic about The only line of defense for Senator Warner or any of the other individuals is going to be the court system. The court has to uphold. They've not violated any law. They have no right to bring him into active duty and court martial him. Those are things that they have every right to make a video like that.

It's protected speech and it's truthful. It's honorable. And so to hold that line, the courts are going to have to make that decision. Okay, let me ask you this for us layman that aren't lawyers. So this goes, the Trump administration appeals to the shadow docket. The court immediately agrees to hear it and makes, is that a temporary ruling until they have time to review it in full?

No, in many cases on the shadow docket, they simply issue an order and send it back and they never agree to accept the case on its merits to have both sides brief it. on the Texas gerrymandering case, they did accept that case. But many of the other cases that are on the shadow docket, they do not. And that's the criticism of it is, number one, the court doesn't hear a full briefing on both sides. The lawyers don't get to argue it. But number two, the court doesn't keep it. So it sort of creates a new ruling on the shadow docket that is or isn't applicable to all the existing years of precedent

that the court may have on that particular topic. So it creates this confusion and uncertainty about what. What is the rule of law and what law should lower court judges follow when hearing similar cases? As it relates to Senator Kelly, I think one of the differences we see with this Trump administration that any sort of opposition, whether it's speech, whatever it is, is not protected. That you're at risk of being prosecuted. You're at risk of being court-martialed. You're at risk of any sort of consequence if you oppose their wishes.

And that's a little bit different than the first term. And let me just remind you as we wrap here that in Trump 1.0, he asked his Secretary of Defense, I believe his last name was Esper. Secretary Esper, if he could shoot protesters in front of the White House in the legs. And that Secretary of Defense said, no, you cannot do that. that is illegal. And so now you have that guardrail is gone. And the people that he picked in Trump 1.0, these are hawks. These are conservatives. These are right wingers, but they believe in the Constitution. What you have right now, these aren't right wingers. These aren't left

wingers. These are people with no principles at all, at all. If Trump tomorrow woke up and said Pam Bondi, I want to rev up the civil rights division and I want to go woke, she would say, sir, yes, sir. These people believe in nothing except for propping up this man with this horribly horrible, horribly fragile, demented sick ego. All right. That's all we have. Josh, thank you for subbing in this week. Pumps will be back next week. She's on vacation with her family. Make sure you subscribe, like, buy our book, and we'll be back later with more news. Thank you.