In the roller coaster that is today’s political landscape, one would think that the Department of Justice might finally have a handle on proceedings. However, in the latest development, a federal judge has thrown a wrench in the works by dismissing a case against James Comey and Letitia James. The reason? The prosecutor was deemed improperly appointed—a legal technicality if there ever was one. So now the DOJ, steered by the likes of Pam Bondi, is aiming for an appeal. But as always, it feels like we’re watching the sequel to a movie that just won’t end.

Now, in the red corner, we have Pam Bondi, lining up her next move like a chess master. It seems she’s quite confident they’ll win this appeal, especially with Lindsay Halligan newly minted as a special attorney. It’s nice to see the DOJ going out on a limb, hoping to hold Comey and James accountable. There’s just that tiny issue of the statute of limitations possibly slipping past them like a thief in the night. The clock sure knows how to spoil what could otherwise be a triumphant legal victory.

Strategist and lawyer Katie Zacharia popped in to shed some light on the mess. She highlighted some legal mumbo-jumbo involving a Section 546 and the role of the U.S. Attorney versus the District Court. Apparently, Judge Curry—who some aren’t too fond of because he was appointed during the Clinton years—seems to have a flair for complicating things further. But in true courtroom drama style, Bondi’s team believes Pam will emerge victorious. Who needs action movies when you have legal battles like this one?

James Comey, never one to shy away from the limelight, has been celebrating like it’s New Year’s Eve. According to him, this dismissal reflects the sad state of the DOJ, presumably correlating it with the days of Donald Trump. He claims a clean conscience, saying he’s not frightened and every bit the innocent duck he always was. Oh, those saintly acts! It’s almost as if he’s ready for a Hollywood screenplay.

Meanwhile, over on Letitia James’s side of the stage, she’s expressing gratitude, describing it as a victory achieved with the support of many well-wishers. The plot thickens. As the DOJ ponders whether to appeal or start with a fresh slate against her, time is of the essence. Pam Bondi’s strategy might just involve pursuing the appeal while separating the cases. After all, why not? If a system’s ambiguity allows for multiple interpretations, who wouldn’t take a shot at untangling the web?

In this intriguing dance between legal precedence and justice, it’s hard to suppress a smirk at how the wheels of justice sometimes turn. It’s a waiting game now, and while the audience might find themselves at the edge of their seats, one has to wonder how this saga will finally conclude—if it ever does.