On Sunday, December 14, 2025, Michael R. Davis, founder and president of the Article III Project, published an opinion piece on Fox News, criticizing the actions of several judges, including Clinton-appointed Judge Cameron Currie of South Carolina. The op-ed focuses on Currie’s decision to disqualify Eastern District of Virginia U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan from a case involving former FBI Director James Comey.
Halligan, according to Davis, had secured an indictment against Comey for allegedly lying to Congress and obstructing a Senate investigation related to Operation Crossfire Hurricane, often referred to as the Russiagate hoax. The indictment stemmed from Comey’s alleged use of Columbia Law Professor Daniel Richman as a conduit to leak information unfavorable to then-President Donald Trump to media outlets.
Davis’s op-ed alleges that Currie’s disqualification of Halligan was improper, claiming Currie was handpicked by a Biden-appointed judge. The basis for the disqualification is not explicitly stated in the provided text, but Davis characterizes Halligan as a “bold and fearless prosecutor” who was pursuing accountability for Comey’s actions. The government is reportedly appealing Currie’s decision to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The opinion piece also criticizes another Clinton-appointed judge, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the District of Columbia, for interfering with the government’s case against Comey. Kollar-Kotelly ordered the FBI to destroy emails obtained from Richman’s computer and iCloud account, as well as his account at Columbia University. These emails were initially seized six years prior under a warrant signed by Obama-appointed Judge James Boasberg.
Richman sought the return of these emails under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g), which allows individuals to reclaim property obtained through unlawful search or seizure. Kollar-Kotelly granted Richman’s motion, arguing that the seized information relates to a new investigation. Davis contends that this assertion is based on a decision by Eastern District of Virginia U.S. Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick, who issued a suppression-like decision without it being properly briefed by the parties.
Kollar-Kotelly also ordered that a copy of the emails be given to Biden-appointed Judge Michael Nachmanoff, who is presiding over the Comey case in Virginia. Davis argues that even with this copy, the destruction of the original emails will significantly hamper the government’s ability to seek a new indictment against Comey if Currie’s dismissal ruling is upheld on appeal. The statute of limitations allows the government only six months after an indictment’s dismissal, suspended during the appellate process, to seek a new indictment.
Davis further argues that Kollar-Kotelly’s decision implicates the separation of powers, as Richman, a former government contractor, is seeking the destruction of evidence in a criminal case involving Comey, with whom he communicated extensively about government business. Davis suggests that Richman is attempting to assist Comey by running to a partisan Democrat judge outside of the criminal case’s jurisdiction.
The opinion piece concludes by arguing that Currie’s and Kollar-Kotelly’s actions are part of a larger pattern of leftist judges obstructing efforts to hold lawfare perpetrators like Comey accountable. Davis calls for higher courts to intervene and rein in these judges, and suggests that Congress should use oversight, withholding of funds, and impeachment if necessary.
Source: Fox News
