Legal AF by MeidasTouch

Episode Title: Trump Faces Dismissal as Comey Goes Nuclear on Him
Date: October 20, 2025
Hosts: Michael Popok (Lead host and legal analyst), Ben Meiselas, Karen Friedman Agnifilo

Episode Overview

In this episode, host Michael Popok delivers an in-depth analysis of the explosive legal maneuver by former FBI director James Comey and his legal team to dismiss an indictment against him, centering on the allegedly improper appointment of Lindsey Halligan as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. The discussion examines the constitutional and statutory arguments underlying the motion, with a particular focus on a pivotal 1986 memo authored by then-White House lawyer (now-Supreme Court Justice) Samuel Alito. The episode also explores Trump-aligned attempts to weaponize the Department of Justice, the likely next steps in the case, and the broader implications for the separation of powers and presidential authority.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Central Legal Controversy: Halligan's Appointment

• Lindsey Halligan's Background and Appointment:
  • Popok recaps Halligan’s trajectory from an insurance defense lawyer to a Trump-loyal "interim" U.S. Attorney ([00:01]) and describes her as “the blind ambition puppet of Donald Trump, who's got her bar license in jeopardy.” ([19:39])
  • Trump, desperate for loyalists, allegedly pressured Pam Bondi (then AG) to put Halligan in after firing the more independent Eric Siebert.
  • The appointment, according to Popok, violated the federal Vacancy Reform Act (28 USC 546), which allows the President’s interim pick to serve only once, for 120 days. After that, only the district judges may select the next interim U.S. Attorney. ([03:13])

2. Statutory & Constitutional Underpinnings—The Role of the Alito Memo

• Vacancy Reform Act (28 USC 546):
  • The statute is described as a “single use…you get your ticket punch once,” meaning Trump’s attempt to appoint Halligan after dismissing Siebert was, in Popok’s terms, “riding the roller coaster again”—not permitted by law. ([04:43])
• Alito’s 1986 Memo:
  • Popok reveals that Comey’s legal brief leans heavily on a memo from Samuel Alito (then in Office of Legal Counsel under Reagan), which clearly interprets the law to bar multiple sequential presidential interim appointments. ([07:30])
  • Quote:

    “Sam Alito wrote a memo…in which he said the Congress designed Section 2546 to be a single use statute. Once you appoint, there’s no more appointment.” ([09:12])

  • Alito’s position, ironically, now strengthens Comey’s case—and creates a potential dilemma if the Supreme Court hears the issue, as Popok gleefully notes.

3. Weaponization of DOJ & Political Appointments

• Manipulation Allegations:
  • Popok details how Trump “found his shadow U.S. attorney in the form of Ed Martin…then he conscripted and grabbed Lindsey Halligan and they indicted. Isn’t that great? Except it violated 546.” ([08:23])
  • Trump’s history of pushing partisan, unqualified appointments to pursue political prosecutions (Comey, Letitia James) is scrutinized.
  • Halligan, Popok asserts, was appointed not to administer justice but “to be some sort of acting interim and get indictments that Donald Trump wanted and then slither away under the rock she crawled out from under.” ([11:43])

4. Comey’s Legal Strategy & Motion to Dismiss

• Constitutional Arguments:

  • Comey’s lawyers, led by Pat Fitzgerald, argue the indictment is a “nullity” due to the violation of the Appointments Clause—the government action must be voided if the officer was illegally installed ([17:20]).
  • Quote (from the motion, read by Popok):

    “The indictment in this case is fatally flawed because it resulted directly from a paradigmatic violation of the Constitution’s appointments clause…here are the officials who signed the indictment…and from all indications, the sole official who presented the case to the grand jury, which she had never done before. She’d only been a federal prosecutor for hours, was defectively appointed…” ([17:28])

  • The Supreme Court’s precedents demand that actions by unconstitutionally appointed officers are legally void.

• Reliance on DOJ’s Own Advice & Supreme Court Precedent:

  • The Alito memo is highlighted as “contemporaneous executive branch interpretation”—evidence Congress truly intended to restrict repeated interim appointments ([19:05]).

5. Potential Outcomes & Next Steps

• Procedural Complications:
  • Popok notes the recusal issue: Judge Namikoff, presiding over the case, must send the dismissal motion to another judge (likely outside the Eastern District), due to conflict—possibly to Judge Diaz ([14:58]).
  • He predicts opposition filings within two weeks, likely arguing the statute impinges on executive power, citing Supreme Court decisions about “inferior officers.”
  • If successful, the motion would dismiss Comey’s indictment with prejudice—ending the prosecution based on the appointment flaw ([21:35]).

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Alito’s Memo Facing Alito’s Court:

  • “It’s going to be great when Alito gets this case and he tries to backpedal his way away from a memo that Sam Alito wrote.”
    —Michael Popok, [01:22]

• On Trump’s Appointment Tactics:

  • “Donald Trump thinks through a social media direct message or tweet to Pam Bondi, he can get Lindsey Halligan… I thought I was in middle school.”
    —Michael Popok, [05:10]

• Comey’s Lawyers on the Constitutional Breach:

  • “The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the effect of this fundamental violation of the Appointments Clause is that the defectively appointed officer’s actions are a nullity…the indictment should be dismissed with prejudice.”
    —Michael Popok, reading Comey motion, [18:31]

• On Lindsey Halligan’s Role:

  • “Her job wasn’t to nominate. Her job was to be some sort of acting interim and get indictments that Donald Trump wanted and then slither away under the rock she crawled out from under.”
    —Michael Popok, [11:42]

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 00:01 – Opening and context: The Comey “knockout punch” and background on Halligan
• 03:13 – How the Vacancy Reform Act restricts appointment power
• 07:30 – Introduction of Sam Alito’s 1986 memo and its significance
• 11:43 – Trump’s manipulation of DOJ and Halligan’s MAGA trajectory
• 17:20 – Comey’s legal strategy; Popok reads from the motion to dismiss
• 19:05 – The memo’s impact; preparing for Alito’s Supreme Court reckoning
• 21:35 – What happens next: likely opposition, recusal, and ultimate stakes

Tone and Style

Popok is energetic, amusedly incredulous, and combative, with moments of “legal-nerd” excitement—especially when discussing the irony of Alito’s memo coming back to haunt him. The style is conversational yet rigorous, blending technical legal analysis with sharp, pointed commentary about the Trump administration’s approach to justice and governance.

Conclusion

This Legal AF episode serves as a vivid, layered exploration of the legal and political drama surrounding attempts to remove Comey’s indictment due to the unconstitutional appointment of a key federal prosecutor. Combining statute, Supreme Court precedent, DOJ memos, and vivid personalities, the hosts outline not just a case, but a microcosm of the larger struggle over the separation of powers in America’s institutions.

For the full legal filings, referenced court memos, and additional analysis, visit the Legal AF Substack as recommended by Popok.