On a recent Wednesday, the legal community watched as another attempt by US Attorney Lindsey Halligan to indict New York Attorney General Letitia James crumbled in spectacular fashion. Politico first reported that the grand jury had returned a "no true bill," effectively dismissing the case in open court, marking yet another failure in Halligan's ongoing legal battles against James.

The initial charges, which were linked to alleged mortgage fraud, were dismissed by Judge Cameron Currie alongside unrelated charges against Jim Comey. Subsequent efforts to secure a new indictment first in Norfolk and then in Alexandria also failed, raising questions about the validity and intent behind the prosecutions.

Interestingly, no attorney from the Eastern District of Virginia was present when the grand jury disclosed their decision on December 11. The government's later attempt to seal the proceedings was denied by Magistrate Judge William Porter, who emphasized the importance of transparency, especially when an individual has been publicly charged with criminal conduct.

The government’s shifting narrative has also come under scrutiny. Initially, Halligan claimed that James had purchased a property under false pretenses, planning to use it as a rental rather than a second home. However, the revised charges suggested that James bought the home for a family member, a far less sinister scenario that hardly supported the original accusations of serious fraud.

Assistant US Attorney Roger Keller, brought in from the Eastern District of Missouri, seemed to have reservations about the prosecutorial strategy, particularly the omission of testimony from James's niece, which contradicted the charges. This discrepancy has led to further doubts about the ethical conduct and judgment of Halligan’s team.

Despite these legal setbacks, Halligan appears undeterred, possibly gearing up for more high-profile indictments against political adversaries, as indicated by CNN's reports of ongoing investigations.

This series of prosecutorial missteps not only undermines the credibility of Halligan’s office but also raises significant concerns about the misuse of legal resources and the potential politicization of the justice system. As the public and legal experts alike scrutinize these developments, the case against James increasingly appears to be baseless, driven more by political motivations than substantial evidence of wrongdoing.