By John Q. Hosedrinker 
New York State Attorney General Letitia James pleaded not guilty to bank fraud and false statements charges, which followed public calls for her prosecution from Donald Trump. The indictment alleges James falsely claimed she would use a Virginia home as a secondary residence to obtain favorable loan terms, while actually using it as an investment property. However, the charges were filed by Trump-appointed U.S. attorney Lindsey Halligan over the objections of career prosecutors, who cited insufficient evidence and a lack of material profit by James. James is expected to move to dismiss the indictment, alleging Halligan’s improper appointment and asserting the case should be thrown out as a result.
Read the original article here
Letitia James pleads not guilty in Virginia mortgage fraud case.
Okay, let’s unpack this whole situation. Letitia James, as we now understand, has entered a not-guilty plea in a Virginia case that, at least according to the various opinions circulating, seems incredibly flimsy. The central issue appears to revolve around a single form she allegedly filled out incorrectly. The consensus leans towards this being a minor error, one that she promptly tried to correct. The whole notion of mortgage fraud based on a clerical mistake on one form, especially when the person involved attempted to fix it, sounds far-fetched, doesn’t it? It’s easy to see why some people are calling it a “frivolous suit.”
The accusation of the prosecutor being “incompetent” or even “corrupt” is circulating. And there are accusations that the prosecutor wasn’t even properly appointed to the position in the first place, which potentially throws the entire process into question. This alone suggests a shaky foundation for the charges, doesn’t it? If the individual leading the charge doesn’t have the proper legal authority, then every indictment obtained could be invalid. Adding to this, Letitia James is reportedly filing motions to dismiss the case based on both the prosecutor’s legitimacy and the idea of vindictive and selective prosecution.
Considering the potential for similar motions to be filed in related cases, it raises the possibility that these cases could be dismissed based on these legal issues. It’s difficult to avoid the feeling that these charges might be designed to tarnish James’s reputation or to distract from other issues. It appears the case is DOA (dead on arrival).
The narrative seems to hinge on James’s alleged failure to accurately declare the intended use of a property on a mortgage application, specifically regarding whether it would be her primary residence. The situation might become more complicated, as the paperwork she signed may have explicitly permitted partial rental use. If she rented it out for a few months but it’s since mainly been occupied by a relative, that complicates the situation. The real question is whether this was a deliberate act of fraud. If she self-reported the error and attempted to correct it, it certainly weakens the argument that this was an intentional attempt to deceive.
The fact that she self-reported the error and sought corrections is a critical piece of the puzzle. This suggests a lack of intent to defraud. To paint this as a deliberate act of mortgage fraud when she took steps to rectify the mistake seems like a stretch. It certainly seems that the case is going to hinge on how the prosecution can spin this into a deliberate attempt at fraud. The claim is that the indictment was secured by misrepresenting facts to the grand jury. That’s a serious accusation.