Stay Tuned with Preet The Vindictiveness of Donald John Trump
16 snips
Oct 22, 2025 Jim Comey's battle to dismiss his criminal charges takes center stage, analyzing the legality of interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan's appointment. The hosts dive into the notion of selective and vindictive prosecution, shedding light on the indictment of John Bolton. They explore the tensions between presidential power and the traditional Senate confirmation process, emphasizing how bypassing this can threaten democratic checks. It's a thought-provoking discussion about the implications for separation of powers and the integrity of appointments.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Appointments Problem Could Void Indictment
- The Comey motion argues the indictment is invalid because Lindsey Halligan's appointment violated the Vacancies Act and Appointments Clause.
- If Halligan lacked authority, the indictment she signed could be voided, potentially defeating the prosecution.
120-Day Limit Protects Senate Role
- The Vacancies Act limits presidential interim appointments to 120 days before the court fills the role.
- Repeated use of 120-day appointments would bypass Senate advice-and-consent, undermining separation of powers.
Separation Of Powers Limits Presidential Reach
- Preet Bharara emphasizes separation of powers limits presidential unilateral control over appointments.
- He warns that Trump treats executive appointments as personal prerogative, challenging constitutional checks.