criminal case

WASHINGTON — A federal judge’s dismissal of criminal cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, two political foes of President Trump, won’t be the final word on the matter.

The Justice Department says it plans to immediately appeal a pair of rulings that held that Lindsey Halligan was illegally appointed interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. It also has the ability to try to refile the cases, though whether it can successfully secure fresh indictments through a different prosecutor is unclear, as is whether any new indictments could survive the crush of legal challenges that would invariably follow.

A look at the possible next steps:

What exactly did the rulings say?

At issue is the slapdash way the Trump administration raced to put Halligan in charge of one of the Justice Department’s most elite offices. A White House aide with no prior experience as a federal prosecutor, Halligan was named interim U.S. attorney in September after the veteran prosecutor who held the job, Erik Siebert, was effectively forced out amid Trump administration pressure to charge Comey and James.

U.S. attorneys, top federal prosecutors who oversee regional Justice Department outposts across the country, are typically nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, though attorneys general do have the authority to directly appoint interim U.S. attorneys who can serve in the job for 120 days.

But lawyers for Comey and James argued that the law empowers only one such temporary appointment and that, after that, federal judges in the district have say over who fills the vacancy until a Senate-confirmed U.S. attorney can be installed.

Since Halligan replaced an interim U.S. attorney who had already served for more than 120 days, the lawyers said, her appointment was invalid and the indictments she secured must be dismissed as a result.

U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie overwhelmingly agreed. Currie, an appointee of President Bill Clinton who was assigned to hear the dispute despite serving in South Carolina, not only dismissed the cases but also concluded that Halligan had been serving illegally in her position since the day she was sworn in.

Could the Justice Department appeal?

Yes, and Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi indicated that the department would do exactly that.

Any appeal would first be considered by the Richmond, Va.-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but theoretically could go all the way up to the Supreme Court and present a fresh constitutional test about the Justice Department’s appointment authority.

Interestingly, Currie implied that her interpretation of the law might be well-received by at least one current conservative member of the Supreme Court.

In a footnote, she cited a 1986 legal memo from Samuel Alito, then a deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, that concluded that the Justice Department could not make another temporary appointment after a first 120-day period expired.

Can the cases be filed again?

Since the cases were dismissed “without prejudice,” the Justice Department is clearly able to seek a new indictment against James using a different prosecutor with lawful authority to present to the grand jury.

The question, however, is much trickier in Comey’s case. It’s complicated by the fact that the five-year statute of limitations — or the limited time in which charges can be filed — expired at the end of the September, just days after Halligan raced to present to the grand jury.

Federal law allows prosecutors to return a new indictment within six months of dismissal even after the statute of limitations has passed. But Comey’s lawyers said they will argue the judge’s ruling makes the indictment “void,” and therefore “the statute of limitations has run and there can be no further indictment.”

The judge noted in her ruling that the deadline had passed and suggested that the statute of limitations is not tolled — or paused — in the case of an “invalid indictment.” Quoting from an earlier ruling, the judge wrote that “if the earlier indictment is void, there is no legitimate peg on which” to extend the deadline.

Regardless, the Justice Department in either case would have to convince a new grand jury to return new indictments, and that may be harder given the intense publicity around the cases. Widespread media coverage of the allegations and the defense claims of improper conduct by prosecutors could make it more difficult to find grand jurors who can view the cases impartially.

What happens to the other challenges to the indictments?

For now, those arguments are all moot as the Justice Department labors to salvage the indictments.

But in the event prosecutors do succeed in getting new indictments, they’ll likely have to fend off some of the same challenges that Comey and James had already raised and that remain pending as of Monday’s rulings.

Comey is charged with lying to Congress about whether he authorized an associate to serve as an anonymous source for the news media. James was charged with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution in connection with a home purchase in Norfolk, Va., in 2020.

Both have pleaded not guilty and had urged judges to throw out their indictments on grounds that the prosecutions were illegally vindictive and emblematic of a Justice Department that’s been weaponized to pursue the president’s adversaries. Those arguments would presumably be revived in the event of any new indictments.

Comey, for his part, has challenged a series of irregularities in Halligan’s presentation to the grand jury after a different judge who reviewed a record of the proceedings said he had identified a series of flaws — including the fact that the prosecutor apparently suggested to the panel that Comey did not have a Fifth Amendment right to not testify at trial.

He has also said that the testimony he gave to the Senate Judiciary Committee that underpins his criminal case was truthful and that, in any event, the question he was responding to was so vague and ambiguous as to make a false statement prosecution a legal impossibility.

Tucker and Richer write for the Associated Press.

In the days and weeks after the 2020 election, partisans across the country used lies and deceit to try to defraud the American people and steal the White House.

Although Joe Biden was the clear and unequivocal winner, racking up big margins in the popular vote and electoral college, 84 fake electors signed statements certifying that Donald Trump had carried their seven battleground states.

He did not.

The electoral votes at issue constituted nearly a third of the number needed to win the presidency and would have been more than enough to reverse Biden’s victory, granting Trump a second term against the wishes of most voters.

To some, the attempted election theft is old (and eagerly buried) news.

The events that culminated in the violent assault on the Capitol and attempt to block Biden from taking office occurred half a decade ago, the shovel wielders might say, making them as relevant as those faded social-distancing stickers you still see in some stores. Besides, Trump was given a second turn in the White House by a plurality of voters in 2024.

But it’s only old news if you believe that justice and integrity carry an expiration date, wrongdoing is fine with the passage of enough time and the foundational values of our country and its democracy — starting with fair and honest elections — matter only to the extent they help your political side prevail.

It bears repeating: “What we’re talking about here is an attempt to overturn the outcome of a presidential election,” said Sean Morales-Doyle, who heads the Voting Rights and Elections Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, a law and policy think tank at New York University. “If people can engage in that kind of conduct without consequence or accountability, then we have to worry about it happening again.”

Which is why punishment and deterrence are so important.

Last week, the Nevada Supreme Court unanimously reinstated the criminal case against six Republicans who signed certificates falsely claiming Trump had won the state’s electoral votes. Those charged include Nevada’s GOP chairman, Michael McDonald, and the state’s representative on the Republican National Committee, Jim DeGraffenreid.

The ruling focused on a procedural matter: whether the charges should have been brought in Douglas County, where the fake certificates were signed in the state capital — Carson City — or in Clark County, where they were submitted at a courthouse in Las Vegas. A lower court ruled the charges should have been brought in Douglas County and dismissed the case. The high court reversed the decision, allowing the prosecution on forgery charges to proceed.

As well it should. Let a jury decide.

Of course, the Nevada Six and other phony electors are but small fry. The ringleader and attempted-larcenist-in-chief — Donald “Find Me 11,780 Votes” Trump — escaped liability by winning the 2024 election.

This month, he pardoned scores of fake electors and others involved in the attempted election heist — including his bumbling ex-attorney, Rudolph W. Giuliani — for any potential federal crimes. The move was purely symbolic; Trump’s pardoning power does not extend to cases brought in state courts.

But it was further evidence of his abundant contempt for the rule of law. (Just hours after taking office, Trump pardoned nearly 1,600 defendants — including some who brutalized cops with pepper spray and wooden and metal poles — who were involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.)

Efforts around the country to prosecute even those low-level schemers, cheaters and 2020 election miscreants have produced mixed results.

In Michigan, a judge threw out the criminal case against 15 phony electors, ruling the government failed to present sufficient evidence that they intended to commit fraud.

In New Mexico and Pennsylvania, fake electors avoided prosecution because their certification came with a caveat. It said the documentation was submitted in the event they were recognized as legitimate electors. The issue was moot once Trump lost his fight to overturn the election, though some in Trump’s orbit hoped the phony certifications would help pressure Pence.

Derek Muller, a Notre Dame law professor, looks askance at many of the cases that prosecutors have brought, suggesting the ballot box — rather than a courtroom — may be the better venue to litigate the matter.

“There’s a fine line between what’s distasteful conduct and what’s criminal conduct,” Muller said. “I don’t have easy answers about which kinds of things should or shouldn’t be prosecuted in a particular moment, except to say if it’s something novel” — like these 2020 cases — “having a pretty iron-clad legal theory is pretty essential if you’re going to be prosecuting people for engaging in this sort of political protest activity.”

Other cases grind on.

Three fake electors are scheduled for a preliminary hearing on forgery charges next month in Wisconsin. Fourteen defendants — including Giuliani and former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows — face charges in Georgia. In Arizona, the state attorney general must decide this week whether to move forward with a case against 11 people after a judge tossed out an indictment because of how the case was presented to grand jurors.

Justice in the case of the 2020 election has been far from sure and swift. But that’s no reason to relent.

The penalty for hijacking a plane is a minimum of 20 years in federal prison. That seems excessive for the fake electors.

But dozens of bad actors tried to hijack an election. They shouldn’t be let off scot-free.

As Gov. Gavin Newsom flew around the country last year campaigning for President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, his chief of staff Dana Williamson — known as one of California’s toughest political insiders — was not only helping to helm the ship in Sacramento, but under criminal investigation by federal law enforcement.

The resulting criminal case, which splashed into public view with Williamson’s arrest Wednesday, does not implicate Newsom in any wrongdoing. Williamson’s alleged misdeeds occurred in private work prior to her joining his staff, and his office said it placed her on leave in November 2024 after she informed him she was under investigation.

Nonetheless, the bombshell allegations struck at the center of the political power circle surrounding Newsom, rattling one of the nation’s most prominent and important hubs of Democratic state power at a time when President Trump and his Republican administration wield power in Washington.

Williamson was charged with bank and tax fraud for allegedly siphoning campaign and COVID-19 recovery funds into her and an associate’s pockets and claiming personal luxuries as business expenses on tax forms. According to the indictment, the campaign funds were drawn from a dormant state account of another top California Democrat: gubernatorial candidate and former U.S. Health and Human Services secretary Xavier Becerra.

Two other well-connected aides in state politics were also charged — and struck plea deals confirming the scheme — while a third, with deep ties to one of the most well-connected circles of political and business consultants in the country, appeared in charging documents as an uncharged co-conspirator.

Williamson’s attorney McGregor Scott, a former U.S. attorney in Sacramento, told The Times on Wednesday that federal authorities had approached Williamson more than a year ago, seeking help with some kind of probe of the governor himself.

“She told them she had no information to provide them, and then we wind up today with these charges,” Scott said. The nature of that alleged probe is unclear.

Newsom’s office on Thursday said it was “not aware of any federal investigation involving the governor.”

Lauren Horwood, a spokesperson for the U.S. attorney’s office in Sacramento, said she could not confirm or deny the existence of any investigation involving Newsom, in accordance with Justice Department policy. None of the charging documents released in the cases against the three aides mention Newsom.

A loquacious liberal foil to Trump and likely 2028 presidential contender, Newsom has been in Brazil since Sunday and on Wednesday left for a planned trip into the Amazon with a small delegation after attending the United Nations climate summit known as COP30. He left the conference before news of Williamson’s arrest, and could not be reached directly by The Times for comment.

In his absence, Newsom’s representatives have tried to draw a connection between the federal case and the contentious relationship between California and the Trump administration, though offered no evidence that the investigation was influenced by the White House.

“At a time when the president is openly calling for his attorney general to investigate his political enemies, it is especially important to honor the American principle of being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of one’s peers,” a Newsom spokesperson said Wednesday.

“Under the Trump administration, the DOJ routinely targets the state, which has resulted in us suing the federal administration 46 times,” a Newsom spokesperson said Thursday.

Trump and his administration have been accused of using their power — and control over the Justice Department — to go after his political enemies. Charges reportedly deemed weak and unfounded by career prosecutors have been brought forward anyway against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James, while Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) is being investigated for years-old occupancy claims in mortgage documents. All have denied wrongdoing.

The case against Williamson and the other California aides, however, is something different — originating years ago under the Biden administration.

“Today’s charges are the result of three years of relentless investigative work, in partnership with IRS Criminal Investigation and the U.S. Attorney’s Office,” FBI Sacramento Special Agent in Charge Sid Patel said Wednesday.

Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, rejected the notion that the case was in any way driven by the Trump administration or politically motivated.

“What an absurd claim to make when public reporting has already noted that this investigation began under the Biden DOJ,” Jackson said. “The Trump administration is restoring integrity and accountability to the Justice Department.”

Prosecutors also have plea deals with two of the primary suspects in the case, in which they corroborate some of the allegations.

According to the 23-count indictment, unsealed Wednesday morning, Williamson conspired with Sean McCluskie — a former top aid to Becerra — and lobbyist Greg Campbell to bill Becerra’s dormant state campaign account for bogus consulting services. The three allegedly used shell companies to funnel money out of the campaign fund starting in 2022.

Federal authorities alleged the bulk of the payments were made to McCluskie’s wife, who did not actually provide consulting services, and deposited into an account accessed by McCluskie. Becerra, who has not been accused of wrongdoing, said Wednesday’s charges alleging “impropriety by a long-serving trusted advisor are a gut punch,” and that he was cooperating with authorities.

In addition, Williamson was charged with falsifying documents for a COVID-era small business loan, and with claiming luxury goods and services — including a $15,353 Chanel purse, $21,000 in private jet travel and a $150,000 birthday trip to Mexico, complete with an $11,000 yacht trip — as business expenses on her tax returns, federal prosecutors said.

Williamson appeared in federal court in Sacramento on Wednesday afternoon, and pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Williamson’s attorney said he has been in “regular communication” with federal prosecutors about the case for some time, and had asked to meet with prosecutors to “present our side” before any charges were brought, but that request “was not honored.”

Instead, officials “chose grandstanding instead of the normal process” and arrested Williamson at home Wednesday, despite her being seriously ill and in need of a liver transplant, Scott said. Williamson could not be reached for comment directly.

Williamson previously worked as a Cabinet secretary to former Gov. Jerry Brown, who also could not be reached for comment Thursday.

The case against Williamson is bolstered by acknowledgments of guilt from at least two others.

McCluskie — a former chief deputy attorney general of California when Becerra was attorney general — pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit fraud and is cooperating with authorities, court filings show. He could not be reached for comment.

Campbell pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit fraud and conspiracy to defraud and commit offenses against the U.S. government. Campbell’s attorney Todd Pickles said his client “takes full accountability for his actions and is cooperating fully with the legal process.”

The case also involves another longtime California political insider: Alexis Podesta, a former secretary of the California Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency who Newsom appointed to the State Compensation Insurance Fund board of directors in January 2020. A spokesperson for the board confirmed Podesta remained a member as of Thursday morning.

Bill Portanova, Podesta’s attorney, confirmed to The Times that Podesta is the person identified as “Co-Conspirator 2” in charging documents — including McCluskie’s plea agreement, which alleges she funneled the campaign funds to him.

Portanova said Podesta inherited responsibilities for handling the Becerra account from Williamson when Williamson left to become Newsom’s chief of staff. Podesta did not perceive anything “unusual about the accounts, how they were set up or who had set them up,” so continued making payments as previously arranged, Portanova said.

However, “when confronted with the information that it was improper payments,” Portanova said, she immediately stopped the payments, and “has been fully cooperative with the federal authorities at every stage of these proceedings.”

He said she is not charged, and “should not be charged” moving forward. He otherwise declined to comment, as “investigations are ongoing.”

Podesta had close ties to some of the most influential Democratic political consultants in California, adding to the intrigue surrounding the case.

In September 2020 — about eight months after Newsom had appointed Podesta to the insurance board for workers’ compensation — Politico reported on a new “influence superteam” of Democratic political consultants forming in California.

The project, it said, would be called the Collaborative. Among its “architects” were Williamson and Campbell, as well as Jim DeBoo, another former Newsom chief of staff. Its managing director, the outlet reported, would be Podesta.

Among its enlisted consultants, it said, would be Sean Clegg of Bearstar Strategies, another senior advisor to Newsom, and Shannon Murphy, of M Strategic Communications, who has ties to Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass.

DeBoo, Clegg and Murphy have not been accused of any wrongdoing.

“Bearstar participated in a joint marketing press release with the Collaborative and worked on one campaign with the Collaborative’s members in 2022. Bearstar and its partners had no interest, stake or other involvement with this entity,” David Beltran, a representative of Bearstar, said in a statement Thursday.

Murphy also released a statement about the enterprise: “Five years ago, our firm participated in a joint-marketing effort. We had zero ownership or role in the business entity that was created and had no knowledge of its finances or operations until yesterday’s news stories.”

DeBoo did not respond to requests for comment Thursday.

Members of the Collaborative advise some of the largest companies in not just the country, but the world.

The Collaborative’s website was recently scaled down to a simple landing page, but it previously touted itself there as “the hub for the most talented public affairs, campaign, crisis management, communications and lobbying firms in California,” providing clients “the ability to choose one or several firms that work together — rather than compete — to provide their clients with the best possible outcomes.”

The website led with what it called a proverb: “If you call one wolf, you invite the pack.”

WASHINGTON — Hurling a sandwich at a federal agent was an act of protest for Washington, D.C., resident Sean Charles Dunn. A jury must decide if it was also a federal crime.

“No matter who you are, you can’t just go around throwing stuff at people because you’re mad,” Assistant U.S. Atty. John Parron told jurors Tuesday at the start of Dunn’s trial on a misdemeanor assault charge.

Dunn doesn’t dispute that he threw his submarine-style sandwich at a U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent outside a nightclub on the night of Aug. 10. It was an “exclamation point” for Dunn as he expressed his opposition to President Trump’s law enforcement surge in the nation’s capital, defense attorney Julia Gatto said during the trial’s opening statements.

“It was a harmless gesture at the end of him exercising his right to speak out,” Gatto said. “He is overwhelmingly not guilty.”

A bystander’s cellphone video of the confrontation went viral on social media, turning Dunn into a symbol of resistance against Trump’s months-long federal takeover. Murals depicting him mid-throw popped up in the city virtually overnight.

“He did it. He threw the sandwich,” Gatto told jurors. “And now the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia has turned that moment — a thrown sandwich — into a criminal case, a federal criminal case charging a federal offense.”

A grand jury refused to indict Dunn on a felony assault count, part of a pattern of pushback against the Justice Department’s prosecution of surge-related criminal cases. After the rare rebuke from the grand jury, U.S. Atty. Jeanine Pirro’s office charged Dunn instead with a misdemeanor.

Customs and Border Protection Agent Gregory Lairmore, the government’s first witness, said the sandwich “exploded” when it struck his chest hard enough that he could feel it through his ballistic vest.

“You could smell the onions and the mustard,” he recalled.

Lairmore and other agents were standing in front of a club hosting a “Latin Night” when Dunn approached and shouted profanities at them, calling them “fascists” and “racists” and chanting “shame.”

“Why are you here? I don’t want you in my city!” Dunn shouted, according to police.

Lairmore testified that he and the other agents tried to de-escalate the situation.

“He was red-faced. Enraged. Calling me and my colleagues all kinds of names,” he said. “I didn’t respond. That’s his constitutional right to express his opinion.”

After throwing the sandwich, Dunn ran away but was apprehended about a block away.

Later, Lairmore’s colleagues jokingly gave him gifts making light of the incident, including a subway sandwich-shaped plush toy and a patch that said “felony footlong.” Defense attorney Sabrina Schroff pointed to those as proof that the agents recognize this case is “overblown” and “worthy of a joke.”

Parron told jurors that everybody is entitled to their views about Trump’s federal surge. But “respectfully, that’s not what this case is about,” the prosecutor said. “You just can’t do what the defendant did here. He crossed a line.”

Dunn was a Justice Department employee who worked as an international affairs specialist in its criminal division. After Dunn’s arrest, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi announced his firing in a social media post that referred to him as “an example of the Deep State.”

Dunn was released from custody but rearrested when a team of armed federal agents in riot gear raided his home. The White House posted a highly produced “propaganda” video of the raid on its official X account, Dunn’s lawyers said.

Dunn’s lawyers have argued that the posts by Bondi and the White House show Dunn was impermissibly targeted for his political speech. They urged U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols to dismiss the case, calling it a vindictive and selective prosecution. Nichols, who was nominated by Trump, didn’t rule on that request before the trial started Monday.

Dunn is charged with assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating and interfering with a federal officer. Dozens of Trump supporters who stormed the Capitol were convicted of felonies for assaulting or interfering with police during the Jan. 6 attack. Trump pardoned or ordered the dismissal of charges for all of them.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.