Dem
47
GOP
53
We still have a long list of corruption-related items we want to write about, but for now, some news from yesterday has jumped right to the top of the list. A couple of weeks after former FBI Director James Comey was indicted, and a day after he was arraigned, the Trump administration has done exactly what everyone expected it would try to do, and has indicted New York AG Letitia James.
James' "crimes" against Trump are well known. She has overseen several investigations of him, his family, and his businesses, and she is part of the reason he is a 34-times-convicted felon. She is also a Black woman and a Democrat. Those latter factors likely loom larger than you might first think, because it was actually Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg who prosecuted the Trump case, and yet nobody has suggested he's in the White House's crosshairs. James was also personally responsible for the case in which Trump was hit with a nine-figure fine (a case still being litigated). We suppose it's possible that he dislikes being a felon, but he really hates losing money, and so that's why it's James and not Bragg.
The basis for the indictment is a home that James purchased in Virginia in 2020. When she purchased it, she represented it as a second residence. Since then, she has rented it out, which somewhat suggests that it's actually an investment property. That conclusion is not a slam dunk, mind you—people often buy a property for one reason, and then change their mind and use it for a different reason.
James faces two charges, one count of bank fraud and one count of making false statements to a financial institution. If the prosecution gets this before a jury (no sure thing), and is able to get them to agree that James knowingly misrepresented her plans for the property (definitely no sure thing), then it would mean she got an interest rate of 3% rather than 3.815%. If so, then, per the indictment, James defrauded the bank for $18,933. Not chump change, but not an amount that would generally be worth making a federal case over.
Because the house is in Norfolk, VA, that means that it falls under the purview of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Eastern Virginia. And conveniently, that person happens to be Trump's unqualified lackey, Lindsey Halligan. As with the Comey indictment, Halligan is the only attorney who signed off on this one. We have now read many times that this is an indication that no other lawyer in that office believed in the charges being filed, and we have no reason to doubt that is the truth. It could also be that is part of the answer as to why the administration went after Comey and James and not Bragg—the former two committed "crimes" in Eastern Virginia, while the latter did not.
There are some pretty significant barriers to a successful prosecution here. As we note, it's going to be none too easy to prove that James intended to defraud the bank, especially for such a small difference in interest rates. On top of that, like Comey, James has a case for malicious prosecution—aided by all the social media messages from Trump in which he said he wanted to see her indicted. The statute of limitations is also a potential issue; in general, federal crimes have a 5-year window in which they can be charged. James bought the house in August of 2020 and signed the loan paperwork soon thereafter, which means the statute might already have run. The indictment tries to get around that by arguing that James committed a crime every time she made a payment on her mortgage, but a judge might not buy that argument.
And then, on top of all of this, Halligan's appointment may not be legal. If so, the indictment is no good, and the administration would have to start all over, including finding a person who: (1) can get through the Senate's approval process, and (2) would still be willing to do Trump's bidding and wage politically motivated prosecutions. This is clearly a tall order; if Trump could find such a person easily, he wouldn't be relying on Halligan right now. Recall that the basis for questioning her appointment is that Trump used up his one opportunity to appoint an acting U.S. Attorney with Erik Siebert, so he won't be able to get by with a different acting U.S. Attorney if Halligan is disqualified. He will only be able to get it done with the real, fully approved, article.
We don't pretend to understand the thought process here from a political standpoint. Is the base really excited when the administration tries to "punish" its enemies in this way? And does that benefit outweigh the embarrassment that will come when the administration (almost certainly) loses in court? Maybe Trump's personal need for revenge is so great that it's "politics be damned," especially since he will never personally be before voters again. That's our best guess, but we really just don't know. (Z)