The Justice Department faced a significant setback on Thursday when a judge dismissed the attempt to secure a new indictment against New York Attorney General Letitia James. This decision came after a previous mortgage fraud prosecution, which was reportedly encouraged by former President Donald Trump, was halted. According to sources familiar with the situation, the prosecutors returned to a grand jury in Virginia following a judge's ruling that deemed the U.S. attorney who presented the case as illegally appointed.
Despite the Justice Department's efforts, the grand jurors in Virginia rejected the request to bring charges against James. This latest development marks another setback for the Justice Department in its pursuit of a prosecution against one of Trump’s frequent political adversaries. According to a source familiar with the matter, prosecutors are expected to make another attempt at obtaining an indictment, although specific details remain undisclosed due to the sensitive nature of the case.
Initially, Letitia James was charged with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution related to the purchase of a home in Norfolk, Virginia, back in 2020. The case was presented to the grand jury by Lindsey Halligan, a former White House aide and Trump attorney, who was installed as the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia amid pressure from Trump to pursue charges against both James and former FBI Director James Comey.
Letitia James has consistently denied any wrongdoing, asserting that the Trump administration is weaponizing the justice system to retaliate against political opponents. In a statement made on Thursday, she emphasized, “It is time for this unchecked weaponization of our justice system to stop.” Her attorney, Abbe Lowell, echoed her sentiments, stating that if the Justice Department continues to press charges despite the court ruling and grand jury's rejection, it would represent a troubling violation of the rule of law and jeopardize the integrity of the justice system.
The allegations surrounding James involve her purchase of a modest home in Norfolk, where she has family ties. During the sale, she signed a standard document known as a second home rider, committing to keep the property primarily for her personal use for at least one year unless the lender agreed otherwise. However, prosecutors claim that instead of using the property as a second residence, James rented it out to a family of three, which allowed her to secure favorable loan terms not typically available for investment properties.
This incident is just the latest example of how grand jurors have pushed back against the Justice Department's efforts since the beginning of the second Trump administration. It is quite rare for grand jurors to refuse to return an indictment, leading to the notion that prosecutors could easily persuade a grand jury. Nonetheless, the Justice Department has faced a series of challenges in front of grand juries in various recent cases.
Even if the charges against Letitia James are reintroduced, the Justice Department may encounter significant hurdles in securing a conviction. James' legal team has argued that the case represents a vindictive prosecution aimed at punishing her for her years of investigations and lawsuits against Trump, including a significant judgment that alleged he defrauded banks by inflating the value of his real estate holdings. Although that fine was later overturned by a higher court, both parties are currently appealing the decision.
The judge in the case, U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie, raised concerns regarding the process by which Halligan was appointed as U.S. attorney. Halligan replaced Erik Siebert, a veteran prosecutor, who resigned under pressure from the Trump administration to file charges against both Comey and James. The situation escalated when Trump publicly nominated Halligan to the role and called for action against his political foes, emphasizing the urgency of the matter in a post on Truth Social.
As the legal proceedings continue, the Justice Department's strategy and the implications of this case will undoubtedly remain a focal point in the ongoing political landscape.