Listen to the article
The Justice Department suffered a significant setback Thursday when a grand jury in Virginia declined to indict New York Attorney General Letitia James on mortgage fraud charges, according to sources familiar with the proceedings. This development follows a judge’s earlier dismissal of the original indictment against James and another Trump critic, former FBI Director James Comey.
The failed indictment attempt represents the latest obstacle in the Trump administration’s efforts to prosecute political opponents through the justice system. Despite this rejection, prosecutors are expected to make another attempt to secure charges against James, according to a person with knowledge of the situation who spoke on condition of anonymity.
James had initially been charged with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution related to a home purchase in Norfolk, Virginia, in 2020. The case was personally presented to a grand jury in October by Lindsey Halligan, a former Trump lawyer who was controversially installed as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia amid pressure from President Trump to pursue charges against both James and Comey.
The original allegations centered on James’ purchase of a modest house in Norfolk where she has family connections. Prosecutors claimed she signed a “second home rider” document agreeing to keep the property primarily for personal use for at least one year, but instead rented it out to a family of three. This arrangement allegedly allowed James to obtain more favorable loan terms not typically available for investment properties.
James has consistently maintained her innocence and framed the prosecution as political retribution. In a statement released Thursday, she said: “It is time for this unchecked weaponization of our justice system to stop.”
Her attorney, Abbe Lowell, was more pointed, stating: “This should be the end of this case. If they continue, undeterred by a court ruling and a grand jury’s rejection of the charges, it will be a shocking assault on the rule of law and a devastating blow to the integrity of our justice system.”
The failed indictment attempt against James follows a pattern of unprecedented resistance from grand juries during the second Trump administration. Traditionally, grand jury proceedings heavily favor prosecutors – leading to the well-known saying that they could “indict a ham sandwich” if desired. However, the Justice Department has recently encountered multiple instances where grand jurors have declined to return indictments in high-profile cases.
Even if prosecutors eventually secure a new indictment against James, legal obstacles remain. Her defense team has argued the case represents vindictive prosecution designed to punish a prominent Trump critic. James spent years investigating the former president’s business dealings and won a significant judgment against him in a lawsuit alleging he defrauded banks by misrepresenting the value of his real estate holdings. That ruling was later overturned by a higher court, with both sides now pursuing appeals.
The defense has also alleged “outrageous government conduct” preceding the initial indictment, which they argue warrants dismissal. U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie dismissed the original case last month before ruling on these arguments, instead focusing on improper appointment procedures for Halligan.
Judge Currie took issue with how the Trump administration appointed Halligan to lead one of the Justice Department’s most prestigious offices. Halligan replaced Erik Siebert, a veteran prosecutor and interim U.S. attorney who resigned in September amid administration pressure to file charges against Comey and James.
The politically charged nature of the case became evident when, following Halligan’s nomination, Trump publicly urged Attorney General Pam Bondi to act against his political opponents. In a Truth Social post, Trump wrote: “We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility” and “JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!”
Comey was indicted just three days after Halligan was sworn in by Bondi, with James charged two weeks later. Although the Justice Department attempted to defend Halligan’s appointment by later designating her as a “Special Attorney,” Judge Currie ruled such retroactive measures could not salvage the cases.
The failed indictment attempt against James highlights growing tensions between the justice system’s independence and political pressure from the White House, raising significant questions about the separation of powers and the rule of law in the current administration.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
9 Comments
The failed indictment attempt against New York AG Letitia James represents a setback for the Trump administration’s efforts to use the justice system against political opponents. The grand jury’s rejection of the new charges raises questions about the strength of the case and any potential political motivations behind the prosecution.
The failed indictment attempt against New York AG Letitia James appears to be the latest setback for the Trump administration’s efforts to use the justice system against political opponents. It will be worth following how this case develops and what the broader implications may be.
Prosecutors’ inability to secure an indictment against New York AG James is significant, especially given the Trump administration’s apparent push to pursue charges. This seems to indicate the legal case may be on shaky ground. I wonder what the implications will be going forward.
The grand jury’s rejection of new mortgage fraud charges against Letitia James is an interesting development. It raises questions about the strength of the case and the potential political motivations behind the prosecution. I’ll be curious to see if the DOJ makes another attempt.
The grand jury’s decision to not indict AG James on mortgage fraud charges is an important development. It raises questions about the strength of the case and the potential political motivations behind the prosecution. I’ll be curious to see if the DOJ makes another attempt.
This failed indictment effort against Letitia James appears to be the latest setback for the Trump administration’s attempts to use the justice system against political opponents. The implications of the grand jury’s rejection will be worth watching closely.
The dismissal of the original indictment and now the grand jury’s rejection of new charges against Letitia James indicate the Trump administration’s efforts to prosecute political opponents through the justice system may be facing significant challenges. This is an important development to follow.
Interesting development in the ongoing legal battle between the Trump administration and Letitia James. While the grand jury rejected the latest indictment, it seems the prosecutors may try again. This case highlights the political tensions and challenges around white-collar crime allegations.
The dismissal of the original indictment and now the grand jury’s rejection of new charges against AG James suggests the Trump administration’s efforts to prosecute political opponents through the justice system may be facing difficulties. It will be worth following how this case unfolds further.