Listen to the article
New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a motion Friday asking a federal judge to dismiss mortgage fraud charges against her, characterizing the case as a politically motivated prosecution orchestrated by President Donald Trump as retaliation for her previous legal actions against him.
In the strongly worded filing, James’s attorneys detailed a pattern of personal attacks by the president, arguing that the case stems directly from her fraud lawsuit against Trump in her role as New York’s attorney general. The motion documents numerous derogatory terms Trump has used when referring to James, including calling her “crooked,” “scum,” “a monster,” and “criminal.”
“This lawsuit, and AG James’ outspoken criticism of the President, triggered six years of targeted attacks,” her lawyers wrote in the court filing, arguing that the prosecution represents retaliation “for the exercise of her rights and fulfillment of her statutory duties.”
James faces allegations of lying on mortgage documents to secure favorable loan terms when purchasing a modest house in Norfolk, Virginia, where she has family connections. She pleaded not guilty last month and publicly characterized the case as the Trump administration using the justice system as a “tool of revenge.”
The attorney general’s defense team points to what they describe as selective prosecution, claiming the Justice Department has scrutinized James while ignoring similar inconsistencies in mortgage records of other public officials. The filing asserts that the only meaningful distinction between James and these unnamed individuals is that she is “a Democratic Attorney General who spoke out against the President, while the others are his allies and cabinet members.”
James’s legal strategy mirrors that of former FBI Director James Comey, another Trump adversary who has pleaded not guilty to charges of making false statements and obstructing Congress. Comey has similarly claimed his prosecution is vindictive and motivated by the president’s desire for retribution against perceived enemies.
Both cases share significant procedural similarities. They were filed in Virginia by Lindsey Halligan, a hastily appointed U.S. attorney with no previous prosecutorial experience who was named to the position by Trump. Halligan’s appointment came after the administration effectively forced out Erik Siebert, the prosecutor who had been overseeing both investigations without bringing charges.
The political nature of the prosecutions appears to be further supported by Trump’s own public statements. Following Siebert’s resignation, the president made an extraordinary social media post urging Attorney General Pam Bondi to prosecute James and other political opponents. “JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!” Trump wrote, claiming delays were “killing our reputation and credibility.”
James has been a prominent figure in New York politics since 2018, when she became the first woman elected as the state’s attorney general after previously holding elected positions in New York City government.
Her most significant confrontation with Trump came through a civil fraud lawsuit in which she secured a judgment against the president and the Trump Organization for allegedly defrauding banks by overstating the value of his real estate holdings. While an appeals court eventually overturned the fine, which had grown to more than $500 million with interest, it upheld the lower court’s fundamental finding that Trump had committed fraud.
The case against James represents another chapter in the increasingly contentious relationship between the president and those who have challenged him legally, raising serious questions about the independence of the Justice Department and the potential weaponization of federal prosecutorial powers against political opponents. Legal experts will be watching closely as the court considers her motion to dismiss, which could have significant implications for the separation of powers and prosecutorial discretion in politically charged cases.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
8 Comments
The AG’s characterization of the case as ‘vindictive’ is quite strong. However, the president’s past rhetoric against her is also troubling. Ultimately, the court will need to weigh the evidence objectively to determine the merits of the charges.
This case seems highly politically charged. It will be interesting to see if the judge agrees with AG James’ argument that the charges are retaliation for her actions against Trump. Hopefully the facts and law will take precedence over partisan politics.
This is a complex situation that highlights the challenges of maintaining the rule of law in a highly polarized political environment. I’ll be watching closely to see how the judge navigates this delicate case.
Allegations of mortgage fraud are serious, but the president’s hostility towards the AG raises red flags. I hope the court can cut through the political noise and arrive at a fair and impartial decision.
This case has significant political implications, but the law should be applied fairly regardless of partisan affiliations. I’ll be interested to see how the judge approaches this challenging situation and whether the decision can withstand scrutiny.
While mortgage fraud should be investigated thoroughly, the AG’s claim of political retaliation is concerning. I hope the court can determine the facts objectively and rule based on the evidence, not partisan agendas.
Mortgage fraud is a serious issue, but the president’s personal attacks on the AG raise questions about the motives behind this case. I hope the judge will carefully examine the evidence and context before making a decision.
Agreed. It’s important that the legal process be fair and impartial, regardless of the political dynamics at play.