Lindsey Halligan’s Appointment as U.S. Attorney Was Illegal—And That Makes the James Comey Indictment She Signed Invalid, Unconstitutional, and Headed for Dismissal
Executive Summary
Attorney General, Lindsey Halligan, was never lawfully appointed as U.S. Attorney, and the indictment she signed against James Comey was void the moment it was filed. That means the indictment will be dismissed. It also means her filing did not stop the statute of limitations from running. And because the five-year deadline expired the very next day after Halligan filed the indictment, the government lost its chance forever. The case cannot be revived, the charges cannot be refiled, and under the law James Comey cannot be prosecuted again.
Overview
The indictment of James Comey charges him with false statements and obstruction tied to his handling of FBI records and communications during and after the 2016 election investigations. The case was first overseen by Erik S. Siebert, who was lawfully appointed by the Eastern District of Virginia judges after the Attorney General’s interim authority expired, and whose office reportedly concluded there were not sufficient facts to support charges against Comey. Trump then pushed Siebert out of office. Siebert says he resigned and Trump claims to have fired Siebert.
In September 2025, Lindsey Halligan was sworn in to take Siebert’s place and take over the file and keep the prosecution of Comey moving forward. It’s a maneuver that has drawn sharp criticism as a politically motivated attempt by the Trump Justice Department to target one of the president’s most visible critics. I shared the details, the actual indictment and videos in my September 25th post, James Comey Indicted: Charges, Evidence, Video, Key Players, and What This Case Really Means.
Fast forward to today, the Trump administration faces a serious problem. Halligan’s appointment was made outside the limits of the law. As a result, her filing and signature on the Comey indictment carries no legal force, and once Comey’s defense counsel makes the formal legal motion, the indictment will be dismissed.
Valid Attorney Signature Required
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(c)(1) requires that an indictment be signed by an attorney for the government. An attorney for the government includes a United States Attorney or an Assistant United States Attorney acting within proper authority.
When the signer acts as the United States Attorney, the appointment must be valid under 28 U.S.C. § 546. That statute gives the Attorney General power to appoint an interim U.S. Attorney for up to 120 days. After that period expires, only the district court may appoint someone to serve until a Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorney is in place.
In this case, Halligan, who was sworn in as the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, signed the indictment. Her signature would satisfy the requirement if her appointment under 28 U.S.C. § 546 was valid. It wasn’t.
The Timeline Matters
On January 21, 2025, the Attorney General appointed Erik S. Siebert as interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. On May 21, 2025, when the Attorney General’s 120 days expired, the judges of the district court unanimously appointed Siebert under § 546(d). The court issued a public notice and order to that effect.
Siebert’s office found no legal case against Comey, declined to file charges, and Trump pushed him out of office.
To take Siebert’s place, Halligan was sworn in as interim U.S. Attorney for the same district on September 22, 2025. The official records show that by May 20, 2025, the Attorney General’s 120-day authority had been fully used, and at that point the vacancy moved into the judicial appointment phase under § 546(d). That means Siebert, not Halligan, was the lawful appointee when she attempted to assume the office.
Now keep in mind, under 28 U.S.C. § 546(a) and (c), the Attorney General may appoint an interim U.S. Attorney, but that appointment lasts only until the earlier of two events: either a presidentially appointed and Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorney takes office, or 120 days pass from the date of the Attorney General’s appointment. The 120-day period begins on the date the Attorney General makes the appointment, not when the vacancy first occurs. The statute does not restart the Attorney General’s 120-day clock once it has been used. Summaries from the Office of Legal Counsel and the Congressional Research Service confirm this interpretation.
The argument that the Attorney General’s 120-day authority had already run its course is supported by three points.
The clock applies to the vacancy, not the individual. Once the Attorney General exercises the 120-day appointment power for a single vacancy, the statute shifts authority to the district court under § 546(d) until a Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorney takes office. Nothing in the statute allows the Attorney General to restart the 120-day period by naming a different person to the same vacancy.
The First Circuit’s decision in United States v. Hilario confirms this sequential structure: the Attorney General has up to 120 days, then the district court holds the power until a presidentially appointed U.S. Attorney is confirmed. A recent Congressional Research Service review highlights a trial court ruling that, while the Attorney General may appoint more than one person during the initial window, the total remains 120 days from the first appointment. That interpretation forecloses attempts to recycle or extend the period through multiple appointees.
The Eastern District of Virginia’s own records confirm the office is in the § 546(d) phase. On May 21, 2025, the district judges issued an order appointing Erik S. Siebert under § 546(d). From that date forward, only the court could appoint an interim U.S. Attorney until the Senate confirmed a permanent one. The Attorney General’s authority had been fully used. The September appointment of Halligan to the same vacancy directly conflicted with both the statute and the court’s order.
Additionally, recent case law cuts against attempts to extend authority beyond 120 days. Two district courts, one in New Jersey and one in Nevada, struck down similar efforts by the administration to keep control past the statutory limit by reshuffling titles and roles. Both courts held those arrangements unlawful and disqualified the prosecutors who continued serving beyond the 120-day structure. Although these rulings are not binding in Virginia, they demonstrate how judges are now interpreting § 546 strictly and enforcing the cap as written.
In summary, the record is clear that on May 21, 2025, the district judges placed the office into the § 546(d) phase when they appointed Erik S. Siebert. From that point forward, only the court had authority to make an interim appointment until a Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorney took office.
Halligan’s September 22 appointment by the Attorney General came after the 120-day window had already been used for that same vacancy. Her appointment therefore falls outside the statutory sequence established by § 546. As such, any actions she took at a U.S. Attorney, including signing the indictment, are invalid.
Statute of Limitations Problems
For most federal felonies, including charges such as false statements or obstruction, the statute of limitations is five years under 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a). Once that period expires, the government cannot pursue prosecution unless the clock was tolled or a valid indictment was returned before expiration.
The statute is tolled when an indictment is found by the grand jury and filed in court, but only if the indictment is valid. That means it must be properly returned, signed by the grand jury foreperson, and signed by an attorney for the government who had lawful authority under Rule 7(c)(1) and § 546.
Because Halligan’s appointment was unlawful because the Attorney General’s 120-day authority had already run, then she was not a valid attorney for the government. As such, the indictment she signed was not properly instituted under Rule 7(c)(1). An invalid indictment would not toll the statute of limitations on the date it was filed.
The statute of limitations expired the day after the filing of this indictment. As such, the government would be unable to refile a superseding indictment if the original is later ruled invalid. Once the clock runs out, it cannot be restarted with a new indictment unless the first one was valid and tolled the statute, or unless a statutory exception applies, such as fugitive tolling under 18 U.S.C. § 3290 or fraud tolling under § 3293. Neither exception appears to apply to Comey.
Defenses and Anticipated Counterarguments
The government has several defenses, but each is weak. It may argue that removing the court-appointed U.S. Attorney created a new vacancy and restarted the Attorney General’s 120-day clock. Section 546 does not allow this; once the 120 days are used, the office remains in the court-appointment phase until a Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorney takes office, and no confirmation occurred here.
The government may also claim the Attorney General can make successive appointments, but that is true only within the original 120-day window. A recent trial court ruling, summarized by the Congressional Research Service in August 2025, confirmed this reading.
The government’s strongest fallback is the de facto officer doctrine, which preserves acts taken under the appearance of lawful authority. Courts sometimes use it to avoid retroactively voiding official acts, yet recent rulings in New Jersey and Nevada disqualified U.S. Attorneys who served past the 120-day cutoff and warned their later actions “may be declared void.”
As for retroactive cures, a superseding indictment can only relate back if the original was valid. If the first indictment was void for lack of authority (like this one), it is treated as a nullity and cannot toll the statute.
Conclusion
Once Comey’s defense counsel makes the motion, the court will find that Halligan’s appointment is invalid, her signature on the indictment is invalid, and the indictment will be treated as void from the outset. The case will be dismissed against Comey.
Because the statute of limitations has expired, the government does not have the ability to bring a new indictment, leaving the charges permanently time-barred.
Mitch Jackson, Esq.
Become Part of the Uncensored Objection Community
Details matter. Facts matter. In politics, in business, and in life, the truth is the difference between justice and abuse, between accountability and corruption.
When you subscribe (free and premium), you are not only reading articles, you are supporting a voice committed to laying out the facts that authoritarians want buried. For $7 a month or $70 a year, you help keep truth alive and make sure accountability never leaves the table.
Use the button below to share today’s post with someone you care about. Democracy survives only when we defend it together.
This is a great piece of news in an otherwise chaotic week of MAGA nonsense!
I have not heard or watched MSNBC yet today. Has everything you've said here already come to fruition? That is, has all this already been announced by the federal government, and by the judge? Has the case already been dismissed? Or, are you merely surmising what SHOULD come to pass?
I hope it's already been dismissed, even though I personally gontcgicmve a damn what happens to Coney, because he gave the election to the Felon-Fuhrer in 2016. But, since his indictment is unlawful and the bubble-headed "prosecutor"/insurance lawyer is a fraud, I didn't want him prosecuted.
So, has the case been officially dismissed today?