The Daily: "A Disastrous Day in Court for Trump"

Date: November 25, 2025
Host: Michael Barbaro
Guest: Devlin Barrett (The New York Times)
Episode Theme:
A federal judge tossed out high-profile indictments—brought at President Trump's urging—against James Comey (former FBI director) and Letitia James (New York attorney general). The episode unpacks why the cases collapsed, the technicalities involved, and what this means for Trump’s wider campaign of legal retribution.

Main Theme and Purpose

The episode unpacks the stunning dismissal of two politically charged prosecution cases—those targeting James Comey and Letitia James. It explores the legal technicality that doomed the Trump administration's attempt at retribution and considers what the ruling signals for the strategy underpinning Trump’s second-term justice efforts.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Context: Trump’s Retribution Campaign

• The dismissed prosecutions of Comey and James were seen as exemplars of Trump’s promised drive to target perceived enemies in his second term.
• Devlin Barrett: “This retribution campaign by the president has delivered some incredible scalps for the president and what he wants. But it did so in a very legally risky way.” (02:04)

2. The Cases Against Comey and James

• James Comey: Indicted on allegations he lied in Congressional testimony in 2020, despite internal Justice Department doubts about the case’s merits.
• Letitia James: Prosecuted for alleged mortgage fraud, following her successful lawsuit against Trump for business fraud.
• Both prosecutions were greenlit by Lindsey Halligan, a Trump loyalist with no prosecutorial experience, after career prosecutors refused to act.
  • Devlin Barrett: “Trump cycles through as many prosecutors, basically, as it takes until he can get someone, a loyal aide.” (06:17)

3. Appointment of the Prosecutor: The Technicality

• Halligan appointed as a “double temporary” U.S. Attorney, bypassing customary Senate confirmation and precedent.
• Defense argued her appointment was unlawful, violating longstanding rules about Justice Department appointments.
  • Devlin Barrett: “You can’t just keep adding temporaries on top of temporaries.” (07:42)

4. The Courtroom Drama & Hearing

• Judge scrutinized the grand jury process and Halligan’s qualifications.
• Halligan conceded in court that the indictment paperwork voted on by the grand jury didn't perfectly match the version filed, raising procedural doubts.
  • Devlin Barrett: “Halligan’s answers seemed to raise new doubts as to whether the grand jury had actually approved the final version of the case.” (10:55)

5. The Ruling: A Technical, But Deep, Cut

• The judge threw out both indictments on the basis of Halligan’s invalid appointment—not (yet) addressing the broader, potentially incendiary issue of “vindictive prosecution.”
  • Judge’s quote (paraphrased by Devlin Barrett): “It would mean the government could send any private citizen off the street into the grand jury room to secure an indictment so long as the attorney general gives her approval after the fact. That cannot be the law.” (15:20)
• The judge cited as precedent an earlier ruling (by Aileen Cannon) dismissing Trump’s classified documents charges due to another improper prosecutor appointment, creating a "legal boomerang."
  • Co-host: “It’s the ultimate legal boomerang because the argument used here ... was used by a judge to dismiss a case against the president.” (16:19)

6. Vindictive Prosecution: Still Unanswered

• The judge’s opinion sidestepped the defense’s argument that the prosecutions were acts of presidential revenge—an issue now “in a coma” unless the government revives the cases.
  • Devlin Barrett: “That issue is just sort of in a coma. Unless ... this case is revived ... I don't think you can have arguments or have a ruling about the vindictive prosecution question.” (17:26)

7. What Comes Next?

• The cases were dismissed “without prejudice,” so the administration could try again.
• However, finding a qualified, willing prosecutor is increasingly difficult, especially as career DOJ lawyers continue to resist.
• The broader rejection of Trump’s strategy—cycling through loyalists to pursue political enemies—seems likely.
  • Devlin Barrett: “They have pushed the department into a bunch of situations and scenarios that really haven’t been contemplated before.” (19:41)
• Trump’s quest for retribution is not over; alternative paths (like finding sympathetic judges) are being explored.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

On Legal Risk and Retribution

• Devlin Barrett: “As important as these cases are, and as alarming as it has been to some people to see the president publicly order prosecution of people he doesn’t like, ... the first answer to that question is an emphatic no.” (02:04)

On the Boomerang Precedent

• Co-host: “It’s the ultimate legal boomerang ... the argument used here to dismiss a case the president wants ... was used ... to dismiss a case against the president.” (16:19)

James Comey’s on-air reaction (Post-ruling)

• James Comey: “I'm grateful that the court ended the case against me, which was a prosecution based on malevolence and incompetence and a reflection of what the Department of Justice has become under Donald Trump, which is heartbreaking.” (22:04)
• James Comey: “This case mattered to me personally ... but it matters most because a message has to be sent that the president ... cannot use the Department of Justice to target his political enemies.” (22:39)

Important Segment Timestamps

• 00:38 – Introduction of the news: Trump’s flagship retribution prosecutions tossed out.
• 02:04 – The legally and factually risky nature of the cases.
• 06:17 – Lindsey Halligan’s controversial appointment and DOJ resistance.
• 10:55 – Courtroom drama: grand jury confusion and procedural missteps.
• 14:23 – Judge’s ruling: Halligan's appointment “cannot be the law.”
• 16:19 – “Legal boomerang”: same argument that helped Trump now sinks his cases.
• 17:26 – Status of the “vindictive prosecution” argument.
• 18:17 – Cases dismissed “without prejudice”; could be refiled.
• 22:04 & 22:39 – Comey’s statements on the implications for the rule of law.
• 24:22 – New act of retribution: Senator Mark Kelly under investigation (briefly discussed).

Episode Takeaways

• The Trump administration’s drive to prosecute political enemies hit a major legal wall—ironically, by a technical argument that previously benefited Trump.
• The federal judiciary proved, at least in this instance, to be a bulwark against legally questionable political prosecutions.
• Broader questions about misuse of the Justice Department and the unresolved issue of “vindictive prosecution” remain open.
• Trump’s team may pursue new paths—finding loyal judges, seeking new prosecutors—but resistance from the legal system is mounting.
• James Comey’s closing words highlight the fundamental stakes: “You have to see [this] as fundamentally un-American and a threat to the rule of law that keeps all of us free.” (22:39)

This summary provides a detailed, accessible snapshot of the episode’s reporting, giving context, analysis, and direct quotes for those who need to understand the story without listening.