How Strong Are Letitia James’ Arguments in Motion to Dismiss? – Liberty Nation News
A visibly defiant, and sometimes angry, Letitia James basked in the adulation of a cheering crowd outside the federal courthouse in Norfolk, Virginia, on Friday morning. She relished the high-profile status of her alleged victimhood. By their signs and chants, the crowd appeared to share James’ condition of what some have dubbed “Trump Derangement Syndrome.”
Inside the courtroom, James pleaded ‘not guilty’ to one charge of bank fraud and another for making false statements to a financial institution. Her attorneys filed a Motion to Dismiss the case against her before US District Judge Jamar Walker, a Biden appointee.
### Challenging the Authority of Interim US Attorney Lindsey Halligan
James is challenging the authority of interim US Attorney Lindsey Halligan to prosecute the case, arguing that Halligan’s appointment violates the Appointments Clause of the US Constitution. Her attorneys wrote:
> “The Executive Branch violated the Appointments Clause by purporting to appoint Ms. Halligan as interim U.S. Attorney without the advice and consent of the Senate and without any alternative statutory authority to do so. The Appointments Clause establishes that the President shall not appoint ‘Officers of the United States,’ i.e., principal officers, without ‘the advice and consent of the Senate…’”
This argument traces back to Halligan’s predecessor, interim US Attorney Erik Siebert, who was appointed by US Attorney General Pam Bondi on January 21, 2025. President Trump submitted Siebert’s nomination to the Senate, but his interim appointment expired 120 days later, on May 21.
The district court judges of the Eastern District of Virginia exercised their statutory appointment authority to retain Siebert, who reportedly did not find sufficient evidence to charge James. Siebert resigned in September, reportedly hours after Trump called for his ousting. On September 22, Bondi appointed Halligan as interim US Attorney.
James’ attorneys contend that Bondi’s authority to appoint Halligan expired on May 21, making the appointment invalid. This mirrors an argument made by former FBI Director James Comey’s attorneys in his criminal case.
### Upcoming Judicial Review on Halligan’s Appointment
The question of the validity of Halligan’s appointment in both cases will be decided by another judge. The Fourth Circuit designated Clinton-appointed Judge Cameron McGowan Currie from the US District of South Carolina to handle Comey’s motion.
Andrew McCarthy, attorney and senior fellow at the National Review Institute, wrote in National Review that there are grounds to disqualify Halligan based on her appointment:
> “Since that term expired under Siebert, Halligan could not lawfully be appointed absent the court’s consent (which the Trump administration never sought, and which would surely be rebuffed if it were sought due to Halligan’s lack of prosecutorial experience). The Trump Justice Department’s counter-position — namely, that the statute should be construed to allow the president to make serial interim appointments for the same vacancy — would defeat the statutory text, and thus the appointments clause’s mandate that the appointment of inferior officers must be in accordance with statutory law.”
McCarthy notes that the Department of Justice has until November 3 to file its response to Comey’s motion.
Jonathan Turley, attorney, author, and professor of public interest law at George Washington University, discussed the Halligan challenge in an interview with FOX News on October 10. Turley explained that the case would present difficulties for the Justice Department:
> “There’s an argument that the Trump administration could make against that,” Turley said. “But it means there’s going to be a threshold challenge that could delay a trial. And I think that’s what they’re counting on.”
### Claims of Vindictive Prosecution
During Friday’s court proceedings, Judge Walker reportedly referred to a motion to dismiss for “selective or vindictive prosecution” that is pending in Comey’s case. He asked James’ attorney, Abbe Lowell, whether he also intended to request dismissal on the grounds that the Department of Justice unfairly prosecuted James — a claim James has consistently maintained.
Outside the federal court, James stated:
> “This justice system, which has been used as a tool of revenge, and a weapon against those individuals who simply did their job and who stood up for the rule of law.”
However, Turley cautions that this line of argument will be more difficult than the challenge to Halligan’s appointment:
> “Those types of cases, I’ve made those types of arguments in court, as a criminal defense attorney. They’re very hard to make. Judges do not like to look at motivations if there’s an otherwise valid crime in the indictment.”
Judge Walker reportedly allowed James’ legal team until November 7 to request dismissal based on selective or vindictive prosecution. The government will have until November 21 to respond. A hearing on this motion is scheduled for December 5.
### The Road Ahead: Additional Challenges and Trial
Forensic accountant Sam Antar told Newsmax that he helped gather documents forming the DOJ’s prosecution basis against James. Antar alleges James has committed “serial mortgage fraud” involving two other properties in Norfolk and Brooklyn, with 13 mortgages spanning 43 years.
> “The media would have you believe that this is an isolated incident because they don’t want to talk about the other properties that she’s going to be indicted for, which I believe she’s going to be indicted. This is just the beginning,” Antar said. “There’s going to be a superseding indictment. But when you look at one property by itself, it makes it easier for them to say it’s a one-off. It’s a mistake. Okay. But when you look at the pattern of behavior spanning to 1983, you say every single mortgage that she signed contained false information.”
Judge Walker reportedly scheduled any additional challenges to the charges to be filed by November 17, with a hearing on those requests set for December 17.
James’ trial is scheduled to begin on January 26, 2026.
### Conclusion
What unfolds before trial is expected to be a complex, technical procedural battle. Challenges to the legitimacy of prosecutorial appointments and claims of vindictive prosecution could delay proceedings and add layers of legal intricacies before the substantive case moves forward.
https://www.libertynation.com/how-strong-are-letitia-james-arguments-in-motion-to-dismiss/
You may also like
Leave a Reply