- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 10/9/25 at 12:15 pm to IvoryBillMatt
I meant to add that i do not believe the Federal Vacancies Act applies here. It applies in the similar Habba case, but this one is a straight - 28 usc 546 case, at least I think so.
Regardless, this case so far has an air of being un-serious. Just like the criminal case against Garcia - the "Maryland father." Rushed and done just for show. Hopefully I am wrong - but not to file for recusal?????
Regardless, this case so far has an air of being un-serious. Just like the criminal case against Garcia - the "Maryland father." Rushed and done just for show. Hopefully I am wrong - but not to file for recusal?????
This post was edited on 10/9/25 at 12:17 pm
Posted on 10/9/25 at 12:24 pm to JimEverett
Jim, just so we can hone it down, do you agree that Halligan is disqualified under the Vacancies Reform Act...not having been Senate-confirmed to another post or having served in the DOJ for the requisite 90 days?
Posted on 10/9/25 at 12:30 pm to IvoryBillMatt
I do not think she was appointed under the Vacancies Reform Act. She was appointed by the Attorney General under 28 usc 546
Posted on 10/9/25 at 12:37 pm to JimEverett
Jim, thanks again for that report, but I think you got your facts wrong. Everything I can find shows that Seibert served over 120 days in that position. Here's the ChatGPT summation:
Eric (Erik) Siebert served as Interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia from January 21, 2025 until September 19, 2025, when he submitted his resignation effective that day.
Thus, he served in that interim role for roughly 8 months.
Eric (Erik) Siebert served as Interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia from January 21, 2025 until September 19, 2025, when he submitted his resignation effective that day.
Thus, he served in that interim role for roughly 8 months.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 12:46 pm to IvoryBillMatt
I misspoke if/when I said he served less than that.
The District Court had the power to appoint someone but they refused to exercise that power. President fired Siebert and therefore Bondi had the power to appoint under 28 usc 546.
At least one district court has found that such successive appointments by the AG is allowable: LINK
The Habba case involved the FVRA, not this one.
The District Court had the power to appoint someone but they refused to exercise that power. President fired Siebert and therefore Bondi had the power to appoint under 28 usc 546.
At least one district court has found that such successive appointments by the AG is allowable: LINK
The Habba case involved the FVRA, not this one.
This post was edited on 10/9/25 at 12:48 pm
Posted on 10/9/25 at 12:48 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
It's a fact. I know facts don't concern you.
What is a fact, specifically, about your copy/paste?
By the way, anyone notice the progression already?
"Prosecuting Comey is taking revenge on your political enemies"
"Trump doesn't have a case"
"Comey did nothing wrong"
"Ok, but no court will convict him"
"well, the case is going to be dismissed because someone wasn't appointed at some time"
Denial
Refusal
Defense
Acceptance
This post was edited on 10/9/25 at 12:51 pm
Posted on 10/9/25 at 12:53 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
Eric (Erik) Siebert served as Interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia from January 21, 2025 until September 19, 2025, when he submitted his resignation effective that day. Thus, he served in that interim role for roughly 8 months.
Siebert served in two different capacities. He served 120 days from Trump’s appointment and the balance on the judges appointment. Trump also avers that Siebert was fired. Thus, the issue is whether there is a new vacancy after the firing of a judge appointed US atty or if it’s the same vacancy. If it’s a new vacancy, Trump has leave to appoint anew
Posted on 10/9/25 at 12:55 pm to JimEverett
I should expand on what I mean.
In the Habba case, she was nominated to be the U.S. Attorney. She was appointed interim by Bondi under 28 usc 546. as her 120 days came to a close the District Court exercised its power in nominating/appointing (not sure how it works) the deputy AG. White House acted quickly in firing or removing the deputy AG, and appointing Habba in the position meaning under the FVRA she bacame acting U.S. Attorney. The problem was that the Senate had refused to give her advice and consent so her elevation has been ruled unlawful and waiting appeal.
That is not what happened in Halligan's case. The appointment of Siebert was left by the District Court - they did not act on their power. So, when Trump fired Siebert the U.S. AG has the power to appoint someone for 120 days (or longer if the District Court signs off like they did with Siebert. There was not need for the White house to use the FVRA.
EDIT - not the deputy AG, but the deputy U.S. AAttorney in NJ.
In the Habba case, she was nominated to be the U.S. Attorney. She was appointed interim by Bondi under 28 usc 546. as her 120 days came to a close the District Court exercised its power in nominating/appointing (not sure how it works) the deputy AG. White House acted quickly in firing or removing the deputy AG, and appointing Habba in the position meaning under the FVRA she bacame acting U.S. Attorney. The problem was that the Senate had refused to give her advice and consent so her elevation has been ruled unlawful and waiting appeal.
That is not what happened in Halligan's case. The appointment of Siebert was left by the District Court - they did not act on their power. So, when Trump fired Siebert the U.S. AG has the power to appoint someone for 120 days (or longer if the District Court signs off like they did with Siebert. There was not need for the White house to use the FVRA.
EDIT - not the deputy AG, but the deputy U.S. AAttorney in NJ.
This post was edited on 10/9/25 at 12:58 pm
Posted on 10/9/25 at 12:56 pm to dukkbill
You seem to have a better handle on this than I do.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 12:56 pm to JimEverett
quote:
I do not think she was appointed under the Vacancies Reform Act. She was appointed by the Attorney General under 28 usc 546
This article (previously linked) argues that 28 USC 546 doesn't apply because the 6 months had expired and adds that not even the Vacancies Reform Act could save the appointment.
It's a short read. Do you disagree with it?
Halligan Appointment Invalid
Posted on 10/9/25 at 1:04 pm to BugAC
quote:
What is a fact, specifically, about your copy/paste?
I think Comey is an enemy of the Republic. He should have been tried and (based on what I saw) convicted on multiple charges.
This particular case, unfortunately, appears to be DOA because Halligan couldn't legally sign the indictment because she wasn't validly appointed as interim US Attorney.
Two posters have challenged the conclusion that Halligan wasn't authorized to sign the indictment. I'm wading through their points.
This wasn't just a cut and paste conclusion on my part.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 1:05 pm to IvoryBillMatt
Yeah - I disagree with that. I pointed out that such successive appointments under section 546 are common historically. I also have that one district court case supporting successive appointments.
The author of that piece just posits that a natural reading of the statute forbids such practice and that Alito wrote a memo in the 80s stating that successive appointments went against Congressional intent.
The author of that piece just posits that a natural reading of the statute forbids such practice and that Alito wrote a memo in the 80s stating that successive appointments went against Congressional intent.
This post was edited on 10/9/25 at 1:07 pm
Posted on 10/9/25 at 1:14 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:very likely.
Comey case will be dismissed b/c Halligan's appointment was unlawful
and intentional by Bondi.
Swamp will never drain itself, only get muddier.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 1:16 pm to dukkbill
quote:
Siebert served in two different capacities. He served 120 days from Trump’s appointment and the balance on the judges appointment. Trump also avers that Siebert was fired. Thus, the issue is whether there is a new vacancy after the firing of a judge appointed US atty or if it’s the same vacancy. If it’s a new vacancy, Trump has leave to appoint anew
Thanks, Dukkbill. That DOES add a wrinkle. Reading through the legislative history that Jim provided, however, I think the Court would find that it's the same vacancy.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 1:20 pm to IvoryBillMatt
I see the beltway lawyer class got its talking points distributed. 
The game was to protect the bad actors by running out the clock on the statute of limitations for these shite bags. There are at least two reasons to do this. The vast majority of DOJ lawyers are leftist ivy leaguers and 1) don't really have a problem weaponizing federal agencies so long as it helps team blue and 2) prosecuting a swamp rat acting on behalf of Obama and his lackeys is a career and society limiting move.
My gut tells me that the smoke show is there because no other DOJ trash was willing to take-on the case for the reasons listed above.
The game was to protect the bad actors by running out the clock on the statute of limitations for these shite bags. There are at least two reasons to do this. The vast majority of DOJ lawyers are leftist ivy leaguers and 1) don't really have a problem weaponizing federal agencies so long as it helps team blue and 2) prosecuting a swamp rat acting on behalf of Obama and his lackeys is a career and society limiting move.
My gut tells me that the smoke show is there because no other DOJ trash was willing to take-on the case for the reasons listed above.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 1:26 pm to I20goon
quote:
Halligan's appointment was unlawful
So... you are saying that NOBODY connected with the White House... not a single person... thought to see if her appointment was lawful or not? They just said... "Hey, what about her? Let's appoint her"... and boom, she was appointed. Didn't check the legalities of it beforehand?
Posted on 10/9/25 at 1:34 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
Comey case will be dismissed b/c Halligan's appointment was unlawful
This is a completely retarded reason to dismiss a case. If the prosecutor can't prosecute it, then you get a new prosecutor. Anyone ok with letting a criminal go for such a dumb reason can't be taken seriously. Once again, it's people more concerned with the process instead of results. I can't understand that way of thinking. It's how we end up with EMS being investigated for saving a man's life with an "unauthorized procedure." It's an asinine POV.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 1:38 pm to JimEverett
quote:
Yeah - I disagree with that. I pointed out that such successive appointments under section 546 are common historically. I also have that one district court case supporting successive appointments.
Thanks for the discussion. We could be here all day to chase down every rabbit hole. The legislative history you cited made it clear that the purpose behind the amendment was to increase the independence of USAs.
I'm still leaning toward Halligan wasn't validly appointed...but the comments made by Dukkbill and you give me pause. Much appreciated.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 1:42 pm to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
This is a completely retarded reason to dismiss a case. If the prosecutor can't prosecute it, then you get a new prosecutor. Anyone ok with letting a criminal go for such a dumb reason can't be taken seriously. Once again, it's people more concerned with the process instead of results.
I agree the law can lead to some absurd results. How else do you suggest we determine who is and who isn't a criminal? Popular vote? Who gets to vote?
This post was edited on 10/9/25 at 1:44 pm
Page 4 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News