A federal grand jury has once again declined to indict Letitia James, New York’s attorney general, on mortgage fraud charges, marking the second such decision in a week. This development has emerged amidst ongoing tensions, as President Trump appears to pursue political retribution against one of his prominent rivals, further complicating the situation for the Justice Department.
The grand jury’s decision is a notable occurrence, as such verdicts are uncommon and typically favor prosecution. Legal experts often refer to the notion that “any good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich,” highlighting the significant influence prosecutors wield in these matters.
Abbe Lowell, James’ attorney, expressed strong condemnation of the Justice Department’s actions, stating, “For the second time in seven days, the Department of Justice has failed in its clear attempt to fulfill President Trump’s political vendetta against Attorney General James.” He further emphasized that the rejection of the case underscores that it should never have been initiated, questioning the integrity of the Department and its use of resources.
James faced charges of bank fraud and making a false statement concerning a home she purchased in Norfolk, Virginia, in 2020. Allegedly, James marked the property as her second home on mortgage documents, despite subsequently renting it out. James has firmly denied any wrongdoing, with experts suggesting that the charges lack substantial evidence. Notably, reports indicate that James’ niece is residing in the home.
Furthermore, the initial indictment was dismissed by a federal judge who determined that the prosecutor, Lindsey Halligan—an ally of Trump who was appointed as the acting U.S. attorney for the eastern district of Virginia—was not properly appointed. Similar rulings had previously affected other cases, including one involving former FBI director James Comey.
Despite the setbacks, the Justice Department retains the option to refile charges against James with a different grand jury. As the legal proceedings continue, questions regarding the motivations and integrity of the Justice Department linger, reflecting the complex intersection of law and politics.