Podcast Summary

Podcast: Bulwark Takes
Episode: BREAKING: Comey Indictment DISMISSED, Halligan Appointment “Invalid” (w/ Kyle Cheney)
Date: November 24, 2025
Host(s): The Bulwark Team (mainly Host B and Andrew Egger), Guest: Kyle Cheney (Politico)

Episode Overview

This episode of Bulwark Takes focuses on the breaking legal and political news of the court’s decision to dismiss the indictments against James Comey and Letitia James. The key reason: Lindsay Halligan’s appointment as U.S. Attorney, who brought the indictment, was deemed invalid by the court. The discussion, featuring guest Kyle Cheney of Politico, unpacks the legal technicalities, the immediate and broader political consequences for the DOJ and the Trump administration, and the potential next moves in these and related cases.

Main Themes and Discussion Points

1. Background: The Halligan Appointment and Indictment

• Chronology Recap:
  • Eric Seibert served as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia beyond the legal 120-day limit, despite support from Democratic senators for his full appointment ([01:57]).
  • After resistance to bringing a weak case against James Comey (regarding possible perjury about leaks during the Trump-Russia investigation), Trump fired Seibert and installed Lindsay Halligan, his former personal attorney with no prosecutorial experience ([02:41], [03:11]).
  • Halligan then brought indictments against Comey (and Letitia James).

2. Legal Ruling: Appointment Clause Violation

• Key Ruling: The judge found Halligan's appointment violated the Appointments Clause and federal law; after Seibert's 120-day interim period, only a Senate-confirmed replacement was permissible ([01:07]).
• Impact:

  • The court essentially rewound all actions after the invalid appointment, erasing the indictment’s legal standing ([01:57]).

  • Any subsequent prosecutorial action must now start from scratch, under proper legal authority ([04:49], [05:31]).

    Notable Quote:
    “The judge rewound the clock to pre-indictment and said everything else after that is invalid.”
    — Kyle Cheney ([01:57])

3. Relief for Halligan and Broader DOJ Embarrassment

• For Halligan:
  • The technical dismissal is arguably a relief for Halligan personally, as it avoids scrutiny over her inexperience and procedural errors ([04:02], [04:49]).
• DOJ Image:

  • Host and guest agree this episode has been a "deeply unprofessional" embarrassment for the DOJ, marked by rushed and sloppy processes ([13:11], [13:24]).

    Notable Quote:
    “This is a humiliation... a deeply unprofessional series of events.”
    — Host B ([12:14])

4. Questions on Re-Indictment and the Statute of Limitations

• Dismissal Without Prejudice:
  • While theoretically allowing re-indictment, the statute of limitations presents a hurdle.
  • There’s a legal debate whether DOJ can invoke a six-month grace period post-dismissal ([06:01], [07:00]).
• DOJ’s Path Forward:

  • DOJ could try to reappoint Halligan in a different (valid) capacity, such as a special assistant U.S. attorney, but retroactive fixes aren’t possible ([09:13]–[10:04]).

    Notable Quote:
    “Maybe she could do it the right way the next time.”
    — Kyle Cheney ([09:42])

5. Wider Context: Executing U.S. Attorney Appointments

• District Court’s Role:
  • After 120 days, authority to appoint U.S. attorneys shifts to a panel of district judges ([11:05]). Multiple districts are currently litigating similar issues ([11:05]–[11:43]).
• Potential for Supreme Court Involvement:
  • The Trump administration may push for executive authority, challenging the statute as unconstitutional ([11:43]–[12:02]).

6. Political Fallout and Narrative Spin

• Prosecution as Political Tool:
  • The discussion wrestles with whether Trump’s priority was conviction or humiliating adversaries by dragging them through legal proceedings ([15:02]).
• "Deep State" and Base Reaction:
  • There’s debate on whether the base will remain satisfied with blaming “deep state” actors versus demanding real results ([24:30], [25:02]).
• Risk of Elevating Adversaries:

  • Failed prosecutions give public figures like Comey renewed public sympathy and media opportunities, counter to Trump’s intentions ([31:03]–[31:28]).

    Notable Quote:
    “All it’s going to do for Comey is rehabilitate his sort of resistance cred.”
    — Andrew Egger ([31:22])

7. Other Pending Political Prosecutions

• Adam Schiff and Mark Kelly Cases:
  • The episode briefly touches on DOJ’s scrutiny of Adam Schiff and the DOD investigation of Mark Kelly and other Democrats for alleged “fomenting insurrection” through public statements ([16:37], [26:09]–[29:24]).
  • Hosts are highly skeptical these will lead to meaningful prosecutions, characterizing them as political overreaches ([29:51], [32:13]).

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the cleanest outcome for Halligan:
  “This is the cleanest outcome for her personally because every other outcome involves her screwing up or doing something pernicious like the, the vindictive prosecution angle...”
  — Kyle Cheney ([04:49])

• On DOJ embarrassment:
  “Starting with the mishap, the sort of ham fisted indictment itself and the appointment and now this dismissal, this is really sort of a deeply unprofessional series of events...”
  — Host B ([12:14])

• On Trump’s objectives:
  “Does Trump care about a conviction or does he just want to drag someone through the process as make it humiliating, make it expensive, make it long?”
  — Kyle Cheney ([15:02])

• On narrative spin possibilities:
  “They get to yell deep state...You get to yell Biden appointed judge rigged the trial...”
  — Kyle Cheney ([15:49])

• On administration’s approach:
  “They are kind of scraping the bottom of the barrel of their actual talent pool in some respects here...as far as actually staffing out these different U.S. attorney’s offices with people who have absolutely no qualms about just doing whatever the president wants...That’s not necessarily an incredibly deep well.”
  — Andrew Egger ([34:27]–[35:17])

Key Timestamps

| Timestamp | Segment | |-----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 00:17 | Introduction and overview | | 01:07 | Kyle Cheney explains the dismissal and appointment issue | | 02:41 | Detailed chronology of the US attorney appointments and Comey case | | 04:49 | Discussion on relief for Halligan and broader DOJ implications | | 06:01 | Discussion about re-indictment possibilities and statute of limitations | | 09:13 | Debate about how Halligan (or another) could be legally reappointed in the process moving forward| | 11:05 | Procedural breakdown: district courts’ authority after 120 days of interim | | 12:14 | Analysis of the embarrassment for the DOJ | | 15:02 | Question of Trump’s motivations and the politics of prosecution | | 16:37 | Mention of similar political prosecutions (e.g., Schiff, Kelly) | | 24:30 | Debate over how the base will react to the legal defeat | | 31:03 | Discussion about the administration’s poor choice of legal/political battles | | 34:27 | Reality check on the administration’s shallow legal bench |

Conclusion

The episode provides a brisk, incisive assessment of the Comey indictment’s dismissal, emphasizing both the legal technicalities and the broader political implications. The Bulwark hosts, with Kyle Cheney’s expert input, conclude that this latest DOJ episode is both a professional embarrassment and, potentially, a political misfire for the Trump administration, which has prioritized high-profile prosecutions without solid legal or institutional support. The future of similar cases—and the administration’s appetite for risky political prosecutions—remains uncertain, but both the legal and political lessons are clear: partisan ambitions cannot paper over weak legal footing.