The Trump administration has downplayed Lindsey Halligan’s brief and turbulent stint as a prosecutor against her former client’s adversaries, labeling it as “harmless.” They contend that the legal victories by former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, which resulted in dismissals, should not be viewed as lasting triumphs.

In a brief submitted on Friday to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche defended Halligan’s appointment. They argued that the Attorney General possesses the authority to make successive 120-day interim appointments under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA), although this argument did not hold up in lower court proceedings.

Recognizing the potential weakness of this claim, the Department of Justice presented a fallback position. They stated that Bondi acted to retroactively validate Halligan’s actions before the grand juries by appointing her as a special attorney. Bondi asserted that this retroactive measure “resolved any potential issues” and maintained that even if Halligan’s role as interim U.S. Attorney was questionable, Bondi had legally empowered her to oversee the office and lead prosecutions.

In November, Senior U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the criminal cases against Comey and James, citing that Bondi’s attempt to ratify Halligan’s actions came “too late.” This was particularly concerning because Halligan was the sole prosecutor to sign the indictments and present them to the grand jury.

Bondi has since argued that the validity of Halligan’s signature on Comey’s indictment is moot, as the retroactive ratification effectively meant that Bondi herself authorized and signed the indictments.

“The Attorney General did not employ ratification to accomplish something beyond her powers. On the day of ratification, she had the authority to issue and sign an indictment against Comey,” the brief emphasized.

Moreover, the DOJ said, to the extent the signature was defective, dismissal wasn’t the necessary or right remedy.

Ridiculing the defendants and “their squad of amici,” referring to several non-party briefs supporting the positions of Comey, James, and several courts, the DOJ cast as absurd the position that the fact of Halligan’s appointment was the only reason President Donald Trump’s perceived enemies were indicted.

“Defendants suggest that they would not have been indicted had Halligan not been appointed. But that is not the relevant question. The question is whether the grand jury would have made a different decision had Halligan been appointed lawfully,” the government said. “And the answer is plainly no.”

What the brief did not address is that neither Comey nor James have been indicted since the dismissals and Halligan’s exit two months later. The DOJ struck out in renewed efforts to indict James and had to deal with a separate legal quagmire in its pursuit of Comey, one which highlighted the grand jury and Fourth Amendment issues that threatened the prosecution on another front. Separately, a federal judge quashed grand jury subpoenas of James’ office because the acting U.S. attorney who issued them was not lawfully appointed. The subpoenas were issued over the summer as part of the DOJ’s criminal investigation into the Democratic AG’s civil fraud lawsuit against Trump and his family business, and James’ lawsuit against the NRA.

Amid it all, the DOJ said Comey and James have not demonstrated Halligan’s appointment was a harm or “prejudice” requiring dismissal, as the defendants themselves “do not dispute that the Attorney General could have appointed Halligan as a prosecutor through some other mechanism.”

“To date, neither defendant nor the district court has been able to articulate how the Attorney General’s use of Section 546 instead of another statute affected the grand-jury proceedings at all, let alone rendered them ‘fundamentally unfair,’” the brief said.

Bondi also stated that Comey and James’ doomsday scenario is “most unlikely to come to pass,” one in which the AG could simultaneously staff all of the U.S. Attorney’s Offices in the country with interim appointees aligned with the Trump administration who were never confirmed by the U.S. Senate — only to rinse and repeat that “burden” of a process every 120 days.

“Defendants worry that, if the government wins this case, the Executive Branch might exclusively rely on successive 120-day appointments and thus prevent the district court from ever exercising its appointment authority, rendering subsection (d) ‘superfluous,’” the filing said, without definitively ruling out the scenario. “Such machinations would burden the Attorney General with the need to personally appoint every 120 days interim U.S. Attorneys in 94 different U.S. Attorney’s offices and thus seem most unlikely to come to pass. The Executive Branch has taken the view that the Attorney General has parallel appointment authority alongside the district court since at least 1987 and has never behaved in that way.”