No One Is Above the Law: The Indictment of Letitia James

1. 84

   Sharlee01posted 2 days ago

   
   
   An indictment by a grand jury is a serious matter and must be judged on its merits. New York Attorney General Letitia James has been indicted on allegations of mortgage fraud, accused of falsely claiming a Virginia property as her primary residence and misrepresenting certain property details to secure favorable loan terms, charges she strongly denies.
   
   Some of these allegations bear resemblance to the civil fraud case James previously won against Donald Trump, in which a court found he and his organization misrepresented asset values to obtain favorable financial terms. However, there are key differences: Trump’s case was civil, meaning no possibility of prison and a lower burden of proof, whereas James now faces criminal charges, which carry potential prison time, fines, and restitution if convicted. The allegations against her appear more limited in scale and scope than Trump’s years-long civil case, but the principle is the same: misleading lenders or misstating property/financial information is taken seriously under the law.
   
   Regardless of politics or position, no one is above the law. Every individual is entitled to the presumption of innocence, and the judicial process must be allowed to proceed impartially. In federal cases like this, it’s unlikely that a mug shot would be released publicly, unlike in Trump’s local booking in Georgia, because DOJ and federal rules typically keep such photographs confidential unless there is a law enforcement need.”

   replyreport
   1. 86

      GA Andersonposted 2 days agoin reply to this

      If the charges are true, a lot of folks are going to be chuckling at the irony of karma.
      
      Trump 'did it' as a private citizen and look at the book they threw at him. She 'did it' as a sworn official, will they throw two books at her?
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 84

         Sharlee01posted 2 days agoin reply to this

         GA,   the legal system applies the same standards to elected officials as it does to private citizens. Trump’s civil case carried huge financial consequences but no prison risk, while James now faces potential criminal penalties, even though the alleged scale seems smaller.
         
         It also makes me wonder about precedent: how often have elected officials actually faced criminal charges for mortgage or financial misstatements? And when they have, were the consequences applied consistently, or did political status influence outcomes? It’s an important question because it really tests whether the principle that no one is above the law holds in practice.
         
         Shar
         
         Thank you for sharing...

         replyreport
2. 60

   Willowarborposted 2 days ago

   Have they even found an attorney who will go forward with this case? Or does the inept inexperienced Halligan have to do this one too?
   
   They dug out two attorneys from North Carolina to put their name on the Comey case LOL
   
   Between that case and now this one... We are guaranteed some EPIC  mich needed comic relief from this bunch.
   
   Incoming?  The Adam Schiff indictment?  These fools are too dumb to know when to stop.

   replyreport
3. 60

   Willowarborposted 2 days ago

   Trump's "law and order" presidency now resembles a mob boss directing hits through his consigliere at Justice. The man who vowed to drain the swamp just installed his personal lawyer as federal prosecutor to settle old scores.
   
   When James won her $450M fraud case against Trump in 2024, he vowed revenge. Now witness the machinery...U.S. Attorney Erik Siebert resigned 9/28/25 after refusing to indict. Enter Lindsey Halligan...Trump's former attorney  who charged James 10/9/25. Same script for Comey: acting prosecutor ousted 9/15/25, Halligan takes over, indictment filed 10/2/25. The ACLU calls it "stunning violation" of judicial independence.
   
   This isn't justice... it's a loyalty racket with subpoenas.

   replyreport
   1. 77

      wildernessposted 2 days agoin reply to this

      Perhaps they can produce a victim, unlike the case against Trump.  You know - someone that was harmed by the actions taken.
      
      Would that make a difference?

      replyreport
      1. 84

         Sharlee01posted 2 days agoin reply to this

         Dan, she did win her appeal, but here’s what actually happened: Donald Trump successfully challenged the $450 million civil fraud judgment in New York. On August 21, 2025, the appellate court confirmed that Trump had engaged in fraudulent conduct by inflating his wealth to secure better loan terms. However, the court found that the $464 million penalty imposed by Judge Arthur Engoron was excessive under the Eighth Amendment, so it was voided, relieving Trump of the financial obligation.
         
         As for Attorney General James, she will get her day in court, as she has emphasized several times, “no one is above the law.” From what I’ve seen, this case will likely hinge largely on documents, which can make things very straightforward. At the same time, while it hasn’t been confirmed who the witnesses will be, it’s standard practice for prosecutors to reach out to tenants, property managers, or anyone who rented the home to corroborate or challenge the claims in the indictment.
         
         So, we may see some tenants called, or maybe not. The judge could end up using the same strategy that was used on Trump: “No, you can’t call your witness.” LOL.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Willowarborposted 47 hours agoin reply to this

            Tenants? What do tenants have to do with anything?

            replyreport
         2. 77

            wildernessposted 41 hours agoin reply to this

            Yes.  Trump was found guilty...but without a victim.  No one was harmed at all, but he was still guilty.

            replyreport
            1. 71

               Ken Burgessposted 35 hours agoin reply to this

               He was found guilty in a NY State rigged kangaroo court... Those cases did as much to help win him the election as anything.
               
               Those cases run by a corrupt process got plenty of billionaires that would have been content to sit on the sidelines to sit up and pay attention...
               
               Recognizing that could easily be them, that it could easily be their fortunes some politically motivated Leftist AG, DA and/or Judge could collude to destroy.
               
               A former President and billionaire was almost stripped of his fortunes and freedom by just a couple of people at the State level who openly and publicly stated that was what they were going to do.
               
               This country is that close to going to the extreme Leftist cult... They almost pulled it off.  It's probably the biggest of wake up calls that pushed people to support Trump... and the Left during the Biden Administration gave us plenty of them.

               replyreport
4. 60

   Willowarborposted 2 days ago

   So when this case and the Comey case implode... Let me guess,, CORRUPT JUDGES...LMFAO.

   replyreport
5. 84

   Sharlee01posted 2 days ago

   Interesting tidbit---
   
   Letitia James' own words come back to haunt her after federal bank fraud charges filed
   'Every day Americans cannot lie to a bank to get a mortgage,' James posted in 2024
   
   Well, I feel justice is on the right course; she has been charged, and will have her day in court as any other citizen who is charged with a crime.   She will be given every opportunity to defend the charges brought against her.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Willowarborposted 2 days agoin reply to this

      Lol.... So you're assuming she's guilty???

      replyreport
6. 60

   Willowarborposted 2 days ago

   The Justice Department’s Dangerously Weak Case Against Letitia James...
   
   The indictment asserts that James financed her purchase of a three-bedroom, one-bathroom property in Norfolk with a loan involving a “Second Home Rider”—a document attached to second-home mortgages that restricts the borrower’s ability to rent the property out. “Despite these representations,” prosecutors say, the property “was not occupied or used by James as a secondary residence and was instead used as a rental investment property.” They note that she filled out Schedule E tax forms indicating she received rental income from the property, and reported zero “personal use” days.
   
   The rider bars James from entering into “a timesharing or any other shared ownership arrangement or agreement that requires her either to rent the property or give any other person any control over the occupancy or use of the property”—just as the indictment explains it does. But prosecutors don’t even bother to allege she ever entered into such an arrangement. All they allege is that she rented out the property, and that she didn’t personally use it....
   
   That behavior, the rider doesn’t prohibit. On the contrary, it explicitly allows short-term renting during the first year according to certain conditions. One of those conditions does concern occupancy: The home must be “available primarily as a residence for [her] personal use”—but only available. James need not actually have used it. After the first year, renting is even fairer game. Regulators deliberately rewrote the standard rider in 2019 to make renting easier for second-home owners.
   
   Exactly how James used, or didn’t use, the property remains to be seen. The evidence so far appears almost laughably flimsy: The Schedule E forms the indictment references aren’t publicly available, but James provided financial disclosures to the state of New York, and she only notes having received rental income from the Norfolk property in one year, 2020. The amount? $1,000 to $5,000. The indictment’s otherwise odd wording around the “thousand(s) of dollars in rents received” that James recorded on her taxes suggests the amount indicated therein is similar or the same—and consistent with a short-term rental.
   
   Even proving that James made a false statement to a bank seems like a tall task, given it’s unclear she violated the guidelines for second homes. Proving that she intended to deceive the bank—that she had a firm belief those squishy rules forbade her behavior, and so concealed her intentions from her lender—is a more difficult endeavor still.
   
   That doesn’t matter to President Trump’s indefatigable team of loyal lawyers. The case against James for which the Justice Department received a criminal referral didn’t appear strong enough, so Weaponization Working Group Director and Special Attorney for Mortgage Fraud Ed Martin seems to have gone searching for a stronger one. This one ended up too weak for career prosecutors to feel comfortable with it either, so Lindsey Halligan went ahead and took it to a grand jury on her own....
   
   GOOD LUCK TO TRUMPS  BACK BENCH LEGAL TEAM ON THIS ONE...
   
   https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/th … itia-james

   replyreport
7. 60

   Willowarborposted 2 days ago

   I wonder why the grand jury indicted Letitia James for fraud despite the fact that other evidence showed that she  was truthful about the house not being a primary residence.
   
   Alternatively, I wonder whether the grand jurors were told about that conflicting evidence.??
   
   
   
   Not sure this one will ever make it to trial either

   replyreport
8. 60

   Willowarborposted 46 hours ago

   I’m unaware of the federal government having previously charged anyone for fraud based on renting out a second home,... Anyone else?
   
   James doesn’t appear to have made any misrepresentation in her mortgage because the mortgage does not directly prohibit rentals....GO FIGURE.
   
   The best part of all of this will be the revelation of what Lindsay Halligan said to these Grand Jurors...

   replyreport
9. 84

   Sharlee01posted 46 hours ago

   Link to James’ indictment documents: Reading these five pages feels like following a step-by-step roadmap to a guilty verdict. The indictment lays everything out clearly, no speculation needed. Anyone looking for the facts should read it; the path to breaking the law is unmistakably spelled out.   
   
   https://www.documentcloud.org/documents … ndictment/

   replyreport
10. 60

    Willowarborposted 24 hours ago

    Wow looks like this one is unraveling too...
    
    NYT reports that Letitia James’s great niece lives in the home that is the subject of the indictment.
    
    The niece reportedly testified before a *different* grand jury, telling them that she had lived there for many years without paying rent. James visited regularly.
    
    This is important exculpatory evidence because  the indictment accuses James of seeking a “second home” mortgage when in reality she intended to use it as an “investment” home by renting it.
    
    Crazy that Halligan did not have theis individual testify before the grand jury that actually indicted James. It’s almost like they were trying to hide something. LOL
    
    Halligan is presenting very selective evidence to these Grand Juries to get indictments.
    
    
    
    https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/11/us/p … house.html

    replyreport