Grand jury rejections, particularly when concerning high-profile figures, can say a lot about the legal process and public perception. The recent refusal by a federal grand jury in Norfolk, Virginia, to indict New York Attorney General Letitia James on alleged mortgage fraud charges is a prime example. This outcome, coming shortly after the dismissal of an earlier case based on a technicality, highlights some interesting dynamics. The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) attempts to refile the case, and the subsequent “no true bill” returned by the grand jury, sends a very clear message: the evidence, or the way it was presented, wasn’t strong enough to warrant charges.… Continue reading
After a federal judge dismissed the initial charges, a grand jury declined to indict New York Attorney General Letitia James in a mortgage fraud case for the second time. The Justice Department, however, may seek indictment a third time, indicating the intensity of their efforts. The charges stemmed from accusations of false statements and bank fraud, but were initially thrown out due to the unlawful appointment of the prosecutor. The defense argued the appointment of Trump’s handpicked prosecutor was invalid, and the case has been met with claims of selective and vindictive prosecution.
Read More
A federal judge invalidated the criminal cases against James Comey and Letitia James due to the unlawful appointment of the prosecutor, Lindsey Halligan. Judge Cameron McGowan Currie ruled that Halligan, appointed as interim US attorney by the Trump administration, lacked the authority to present the indictments, deeming her appointment invalid. The ruling was a major victory for both Comey and James, who faced charges of lying to Congress and mortgage fraud, respectively, with both denying any wrongdoing. The decision also highlighted concerns about potential political motivations behind the charges and questioned the proper procedures in obtaining the indictments.
Read More
The White House responded to the dismissal of criminal cases against James Comey and Letitia James, asserting the Department of Justice (DOJ) will appeal the ruling. Judge Cameron McGowan Currie dismissed the cases due to the disqualification of interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, whose appointment was deemed legally invalid. White House officials maintain the indictments’ facts remain unchanged, emphasizing the president’s commitment to accountability and correcting alleged weaponization of the justice system. The DOJ is expected to consider an appeal, which would move the case to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, or it could refile the charges with new leadership.
Read More
A federal judge dismissed the indictments against James Comey and Letitia James due to the improper appointment of the prosecutor, Lindsey Halligan. Judge Currie agreed with Comey’s motion to dismiss, citing Halligan’s lack of lawful authority to present the indictments, as she lacked prosecutorial experience and was appointed without proper legal procedure. The dismissals were made without prejudice, but the statute of limitations may prevent the cases from being refiled. This decision, which stemmed from concerns about political motivations, may also affect other cases handled by Halligan’s office.
Read More
In a significant legal blow to the Trump administration, a federal judge dismissed criminal cases against James Comey and Letitia James. The ruling stemmed from the judge’s conclusion that the prosecutor, Lindsey Halligan, who brought the charges at President Trump’s urging, was unlawfully appointed by the Justice Department. The dismissals centered on the appointment process of Halligan, a former White House aide, rather than the substance of the allegations against Comey and James. The judge determined that the Justice Department’s appointment of Halligan as interim U.S. attorney was invalid, thus invalidating all actions, including the indictments, that she secured.
Read More
As the House prepares to vote on a bill mandating the Department of Justice release of all Epstein files, Republican lawmakers are bracing for potential defections. Democratic Rep. Jasmine Crockett and Republican Sen. John Kennedy have offered their perspectives on the upcoming vote and its implications. Furthermore, the political landscape is being shaped by ongoing legal battles, including New York Attorney General Letitia James’s challenges to Trump’s U.S. attorney’s qualifications.
Read More
Evidence appears to undercut claims against Letitia James, prosecutors found: Sources.
It seems the ground is shifting under the claims against Letitia James, and the emerging picture suggests the accusations might not be as solid as they initially seemed. The heart of the matter revolves around a loan James obtained for a property, with the assertion being that she secured favorable terms by misrepresenting its use. Specifically, the argument is that she portrayed it as a primary residence to get the loan, but then used it as a rental property, thus benefiting financially. However, early indications are that this narrative is crumbling under scrutiny.… Continue reading
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 More
The Trump administration dismissed two federal prosecutors from the Eastern District of Virginia, Kristin Bird and Elizabeth Yusi, who reportedly opposed the criminal case against New York Attorney General Letitia James. This move follows a series of terminations within the office, including the removal of Erik Siebert, who also did not pursue cases against James or James Comey. This office has seen multiple departures, including the top national security official and the First Assistant U.S. Attorney, leaving uncertainty about representation at James’ upcoming arraignment. Ultimately, the Justice Department has declined to comment on the matter.
Read More
Matt Underwood 
John Q. Hosedrinker