Listen to the article
In a significant legal development, New York Attorney General Letitia James was indicted Thursday by a federal grand jury in Virginia on charges of bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution. The indictment comes after President Donald Trump publicly called for his Justice Department appointees to pursue charges against her.
Federal prosecutors allege James falsely claimed a Norfolk, Virginia property as her second residence, allowing her to secure favorable loan terms. According to the indictment, James obtained a fixed-rate conventional mortgage at 3% by classifying the house as a “secondary residence” when prosecutors claim she used it as a “rental investment property,” which should have carried a 3.815% interest rate.
The charging document states this discrepancy resulted in approximately $17,837 in savings over the life of the 30-year loan – roughly $50 less per month in mortgage payments over the past five years.
James faces up to 30 years in prison and up to $1 million in fines on each count if convicted. Her first court appearance is scheduled for October 24 in Norfolk.
The New York Attorney General strongly denied the accusations. “These charges are baseless, and the president’s own public statements make clear that his only goal is political retribution at any cost,” James said in a statement also shared in a video on social media platform X. “The president’s actions are a grave violation of our Constitutional order and have drawn sharp criticism from members of both parties.”
The case was brought by Lindsey Halligan, the acting U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, who was appointed by Trump after her predecessor, Erik S. Siebert, resigned under pressure last month. Halligan, who previously served as one of Trump’s personal attorneys, lacks prosecutorial experience – a fact that has drawn criticism from legal observers.
NBC News reported in August that Attorney General Pam Bondi appointed a “special attorney” to investigate mortgage fraud allegations against James following a referral from Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte. However, the case reportedly stalled last month because federal agents and prosecutors didn’t believe they had sufficient evidence to secure a conviction.
James previously brought a successful civil fraud case against Trump before he returned to the presidency, resulting in a $500 million judgment that was later overturned by a New York appeals court.
James’ attorney, Abbe Lowell, condemned the indictment as politically motivated. “When a President can publicly direct charges to be filed against someone — when it was reported that career attorneys concluded none were warranted — it marks a serious attack on the rule of law,” Lowell said.
The indictment of James follows a pattern of legal actions against Trump’s critics. Former FBI Director James Comey was indicted in September on charges of lying to Congress and obstructing a congressional proceeding. Halligan also presented that case to a federal grand jury, securing an indictment on two of three counts. Comey has pleaded not guilty and plans to challenge Halligan’s appointment.
Democrats have swiftly condemned the actions as political retaliation. New York Governor Kathy Hochul described it as “nothing less than the weaponization of the Justice Department to punish those who hold the powerful accountable.” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called it “revenge” rather than justice.
Republicans have offered contrasting views. Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma dismissed concerns about Trump’s influence, stating, “The president can’t make a grand jury do anything.” Senator Eric Schmitt of Missouri characterized the indictment as “accountability.”
The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Jamar K. Walker, a Biden appointee who previously served as an assistant U.S. Attorney prosecuting financial and public corruption crimes in the Eastern District of Virginia.
The White House has declined to comment on the indictment.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
10 Comments
Fraud charges against a state Attorney General are certainly newsworthy. However, the alleged savings of only $50 per month seem relatively minor. I wonder if there are other factors at play that are not being reported. It will be interesting to see how this case develops.
Good point. The small financial impact raises questions about the motivations behind the charges. Was this truly a serious case of fraud, or perhaps more of a technicality? I agree, the full context will be important to understand as the legal process continues.
The alleged mortgage discrepancy seems quite technical. I wonder if there are any mitigating factors or gray areas that could explain the differences. It’s a complex case that will require a thorough examination of the evidence and intent.
Agreed, the details here will be crucial. Mortgage and property classification rules can be tricky, so I hope the investigation is rigorous and impartial in determining if any wrongdoing occurred.
Interesting to see a high-profile elected official facing such charges. It raises questions about the motivations and timing involved. Was this a politically-driven prosecution, or a legitimate case of financial wrongdoing? I’m curious to learn more about the specifics.
You make a fair point. The political context can’t be ignored, given the prior calls for charges. But the legal process should play out objectively, without undue influence from either side.
As a New Yorker, I’m following this case with interest. The Attorney General is a high-profile figure, so the outcome could have significant implications. I hope the legal process proceeds fairly and transparently, without undue political influence.
That’s a thoughtful perspective. Maintaining public trust in government institutions is so important, especially when senior officials are accused of misconduct. Transparency and impartiality will be key as this case unfolds.
This is certainly a serious legal matter. It’s important to let due process play out and see the full details before jumping to conclusions. As a public official, the Attorney General should be held to high standards, but the charges seem quite specific and technical.
I agree, the details will be crucial here. Misrepresenting a property’s status for a mortgage could be considered fraud, but the alleged savings seem relatively small. Let’s see what evidence emerges as the case progresses.