Fully agree on the back-story aspects of the Comey/James "improper appointment of Lindsey Halligan" ruling that broke (temporarily?) the insupportable indictments of the former, where the REAL issue was and is selective and vindictive prosecution of those on tRump's "enemy list". There was so much more wrong with the Comey indictment, detailed elsewhere by several legal writers, that any principled judge would toss out on dismissal, without even getting to what you termed a "seminal test case" in re: "selective and vindictive" prosecution.
In today's charged political climate there are no guarantees that the federal courts through and up to Scotus would in fact come down against the DOJ in cases other than Comey's, on selective and vindictive grounds, including the "mortgage fraud" cases, but one is inclined to believe that the road got a bit more bumpy for hauling tRump's bêtes noires into court given the ignominious collapse of the Halligan cases.
IANAL, but the issue before Judge Currie was strictly the legality of Halligan's appointment, challenged by counsels of both Tish James and James Comey, separate from other aspects of each defendant's contestations of their indictments, and that was definitively disposed of pending appeal, and seemingly ending this round of prosecution.
OTOH, the many other issues raised by both defendants in their respective hearings before other courts would appear to be on hold pending final resolution of the Currie dismissal, and in fact may ultimately be rendered moot...that is, if tRump/Bondi want to refile under extremely clouded circumstances.
Pam Bondi’s Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day
Couldn't happen to a less nice person!
Fully agree on the back-story aspects of the Comey/James "improper appointment of Lindsey Halligan" ruling that broke (temporarily?) the insupportable indictments of the former, where the REAL issue was and is selective and vindictive prosecution of those on tRump's "enemy list". There was so much more wrong with the Comey indictment, detailed elsewhere by several legal writers, that any principled judge would toss out on dismissal, without even getting to what you termed a "seminal test case" in re: "selective and vindictive" prosecution.
In today's charged political climate there are no guarantees that the federal courts through and up to Scotus would in fact come down against the DOJ in cases other than Comey's, on selective and vindictive grounds, including the "mortgage fraud" cases, but one is inclined to believe that the road got a bit more bumpy for hauling tRump's bêtes noires into court given the ignominious collapse of the Halligan cases.
if an appeals court stays the judgment of dismissal, would the issues before Nachmanoff be able to continue?
IANAL, but the issue before Judge Currie was strictly the legality of Halligan's appointment, challenged by counsels of both Tish James and James Comey, separate from other aspects of each defendant's contestations of their indictments, and that was definitively disposed of pending appeal, and seemingly ending this round of prosecution.
OTOH, the many other issues raised by both defendants in their respective hearings before other courts would appear to be on hold pending final resolution of the Currie dismissal, and in fact may ultimately be rendered moot...that is, if tRump/Bondi want to refile under extremely clouded circumstances.