this post was submitted on 25 Nov 2025
243 points (99.6% liked)

politics

26466 readers
2251 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

A judge ruled Lindsey Halligan was unconstitutionally appointed. Donald Trump’s team doesn’t care.

The Justice Department is still signing criminal indictments with Lindsey Halligan’s name—almost a day after a judge ruled that she was unlawfully appointed as interim U.S. attorney.

Federal prosecutors were initially instructed to sign court filings in the name of Halligan’s first assistant, after U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie concluded Monday that Halligan had no authority to preside over the Eastern District of Virginia since she was never confirmed by the U.S. Senate. But just an hour later, internal emails instructed the department to continue using Halligan’s name, labeling Currie’s decision “premature,” reported MS NOW’s Lisa Rubin.

The move is a flagrant violation of Currie’s court order, which threw out Donald Trump’s cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip 9 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (2 children)

Does double jeopardy come into play if a prosecution is thrown out for not being a validly appointment AG, or is it like an annulment where it kind of never happened?

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 12 points 18 hours ago

Double jeopardy is not a factor in this situation, because the first jeopardy "does not attach" until a jury is seated and sworn in for trial, or when a guilty plea is accepted. The trial by jury is the "jeopardous" part of the criminal justice process. If the case is tossed before that point for any reason, then there is no jeopardy bar to refiling.

If a trial starts, but ends in a mistrial, then it is usually possible to go to another trial, even though jeopardy "has attached". A mistrial ruling effectively "unwinds" the entire trial like it never happened.

or is it like an annulment where it kind of never happened?

This is what Judge Currie said in her opinion. The indictments didn't happen because they were run entirely by a pretend US attorney.

[–] ccunning@lemmy.world 9 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

Well weren’t they falsely indicted on the very last day of the statute of limitations for the crimes in question?

I don’t think double jeopardy would apply, but that would…

(…this is just the opinion of regular guy without formal education or training in the field in question …)

[–] meco03211@lemmy.world 6 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

There's like a 6 month grace period after the SoL if there's a problem with the indictment, where they could refile. I'm not sure what issues they're allowed to fix with that grace period, but there is some time there.

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 5 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Is there not being an indictment a problem with the indictment?

[–] meco03211@lemmy.world 3 points 8 hours ago

A question I certainly feel pretty much answers itself. Though, with this administration and how they have bent judges to their will before, I haven't the foggiest fucking idea how the courts will answer it.

[–] Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip 1 points 17 hours ago

For Comey's. I was more concerned with these new ones. Like if whatever this power play was they were pulling, if it was hurting their revenge scheme or of it really didn't matter much more than wasted time.