Pam Bondi Is Trying To Break Into Prison
A court filing that confesses to a crime.
The Justice Department’s criminal prosecution of James Comey is on the verge of collapse. His defense team has filed a motion to dismiss the entire case, based on a simple, devastating fact: the U.S. Attorney who secured the indictment, Lindsey Halligan, was appointed unlawfully.
Attorney General Pam Bondi installed Halligan to lead the Eastern District of Virginia on September 22, 2025. Bondi’s authority to make such an appointment, however, had expired months earlier.
Federal law is clear. The Attorney General gets 120 days to fill a U.S. Attorney vacancy. After that, the power to appoint transfers exclusively to the district’s federal judges. Bondi appointed Halligan long after that 120-day window had closed, making her appointment void.
Comey’s motion argues this defect is fatal. Halligan was the only government attorney present in the grand jury room. An indictment obtained by an unauthorized person is a legal nullity.
The “Cure” That Confesses the Crime
The Department of Justice filed its response to Comey’s motion on October 31, 2025. That filing contained a stunning document: a new order from Pam Bondi, also dated October 31.
This order desperately tries to fix the fatal error. It retroactively appoints Halligan to an entirely different position, “special attorney,” under a different statute.
The order claims a retroactive effect, using the legal term nunc pro tunc, or “now for then.” It claims to be effective as of Halligan’s first day (Sept. 22) and “ratifies” all her past actions, including the grand jury proceedings.
This legal gambit is an implicit confession. The government’s main brief argues Halligan’s first appointment was perfectly legal. This backup “special attorney” order proves the DOJ knows its primary argument will fail.
Bondi’s Retroactive Order: Obstruction of Justice?
Attorney General Bondi’s October 31 order is more than just a desperate legal tactic. It appears to be a fabricated document filed to influence an active court case.
A retroactive order, legally known as nunc pro tunc, is a limited judicial tool. It is meant only to correct minor clerical errors in the court record, such as fixing a typo in a date.
It can never be used to retroactively change reality. It cannot invent a new appointment that never happened to cure a fatal, unfixable defect in a prosecution.
Halligan’s original September 22 appointment letter only cited the expired U.S. Attorney law. This new claim that she was also secretly a “special attorney” is a fiction.
By creating and filing this back-dated order, Bondi may be obstructing justice. Federal law criminalizes creating a “false... document” with the “intent to impede, obstruct, or influence” a federal proceeding.
Bondi’s order was filed for the specific purpose of defeating Comey’s motion to dismiss. This is not just unethical; it is potentially criminal.
The “Smoking Gun” for Malicious Prosecution
This October 31 order is the “smoking gun” that proves Comey’s separate claim of malicious prosecution.
The DOJ’s defense rests on a “presumption of regularity.” This retroactive fabrication shatters that presumption. A prosecutor acting in good faith concedes a fatal error. A prosecutor driven by malice manufactures a “cure” to keep a politically motivated case alive.
The sequence of events shows a clear pattern of corruption : Trump issued a public order to prosecute Comey. The ethical prosecutor (Siebert) who found “no basis” for a case was fired.
An unqualified loyalist (Halligan) was illegally installed. She rushed a tainted indictment to beat the statute of limitations.
When caught, the Attorney General fabricated a retroactive order to deceive the court. This is not “justice.” This is an attempt to break the law to jail a political opponent.
⚡Outraged by Trump administration corruption? Turn that energy into action—hit subscribe now and join thousands of other followers.⚡
The Original Sin: A Political Vendetta
Halligan’s initial, unlawful appointment appears to be the result of a political vendetta.
President Trump issued a public demand on social media on September 20, 2025. He ordered Attorney General Bondi to prosecute his political enemies, naming Comey specifically.
This directive came immediately after the prior U.S. Attorney, Erik Siebert, was forced to resign. Siebert and his senior prosecutors had reviewed the case and “found no basis to bring criminal charges against Mr. Comey.”
Trump’s post conveniently named his preferred replacement: Lindsey Halligan. Halligan was a former personal attorney for Trump with no prosecutorial experience. (She worked as an insurance lawyer and was a beauty pageant semi-finalist prior to her appointment.)
Bondi unlawfully appointed her just two days later. This timeline is the foundation of Comey’s separate motion to dismiss for malicious prosecution. It shows a president firing a prosecutor who refused to indict and installing a loyalist to get the job done.
A Defect That Cannot Be Cured
Comey’s argument is that this legal error is not a simple technicality. It is a structural failure that kills the case.
The law governing U.S. Attorney vacancies is absolute. The Attorney General can appoint an interim replacement for 120 days. The power then transfers exclusively to the district court judges.
The 120-day clock on this specific vacancy expired in May 2025. The district court correctly used its authority to re-appoint Siebert at that time. When Siebert resigned in September, the appointment power remained with the court.
Bondi had no authority left to use. Halligan was therefore an imposter. Federal rules strictly forbid unauthorized persons from being present in the grand jury room. An indictment obtained by an unauthorized prosecutor is invalid from the start.
The Statute of Limitations Is a Brick Wall
This fatal defect is permanent because the clock has run out. Halligan secured the void indictment just days before the five-year statute of limitations expired. The case is now time-barred.
The government’s only hope is a federal “saving statute” that grants six more months to fix a merely defective indictment. But Comey’s team argues this indictment is not “defective.” It is “void ab initio,” or invalid from the very beginning. A legal nullity has no power. It cannot “toll,” or pause, the statute of limitations.
Additionally, the saving statute itself contains a critical exception: it cannot be used if the dismissal reason would “bar a new prosecution”.
An expired statute of limitations is the definition of a bar to a new prosecution. The government cannot get a do-over. This is why Comey is asking for a dismissal “with prejudice,” which would end the case forever.
Sources:
NORTH CAROLINA SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES’ BENCHBOOK ..., accessed November 4, 2025, https://www.sog.unc.edu/sites/default/files/course_materials/Jurisdiction%20and%20Judicial%20Authority%20All%20Materials%20Combined.pdf
1.602-3 Ratification of unauthorized commitments. - Acquisition.GOV, accessed November 4, 2025, https://www.acquisition.gov/far/1.602-3
Case 1:24-cr-00768-MWB Document 116 Filed 08/01/25 ... - GovInfo, accessed November 4, 2025, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-njd-1_24-cr-00768/pdf/USCOURTS-njd-1_24-cr-00768-0.pdf
18 U.S. Code § 3288 - Indictments and information dismissed after ..., accessed November 4, 2025, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3288
Subject Matter Index: Disciplinary Obligations - ACJE | NYCOURTS.GOV, accessed November 4, 2025, https://ww2.nycourts.gov/ip/acje/SMI-reporting.shtml
BAR HOLDING INTERNATIONAL CLE PROGRAM THIS SPRING IN IRELAND ALSO INSIDE: - State Bar of Montana, accessed November 4, 2025, https://www.montanabar.org/Portals/MONTANA/Site%20Resources/Montana%20Lawyer/Past%20issues/2022/montana%20lawyer%20feb%20march%20web.pdf?ver=DGOgwkDMaWTgp2RdKus7hg%3D%3D×tamp=1650914937995
042721-03.1 - CA.gov, accessed November 4, 2025, https://docs.danville.ca.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=232037&dbid=0&repo=danville
No. 23-0694 - State Court Report, accessed November 4, 2025, https://statecourtreport.org/sites/default/files/2024-09/commission-for-lawyer-discipline-opening-brief.pdf
ETHICS UPDATE 2010 - State Bar of California, accessed November 4, 2025, https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/ethics/COPRAC/Recent%20Developments/2010%20Ethics%20Update.pdf
20-2236 Reply Brief of Michael D. Markham - www.justiceforroryandrowan.com, accessed November 4, 2025, https://www.justiceforroryandrowan.com/uploads/1/3/0/4/130464404/20-2236_reply_brief_of_michael_d._markham.pdf
I really hope Bondi is held accountable for Obstruction of Justice and any other charges that can be brought against her. She is a vile human being who talks down to elected Senators who are charged with oversight of her department and treats anyone who disagrees with her with disdain. Karma is coming to get you, Pam
PB deserves to go to prison herself. For this and for so many other things. She needs to be prosecuted for this and held accountable. What will it take for justice to finally be served?