Posted on 12/05/2025 7:01:12 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Back in October, New York AG Letitia James was indicted with two charges related to mortgage fraud. But by the end of November that indictment, and one against former FBI Director James Comey, were tossed out after a judge ruled the appointment of Lindsey Halligan as prosecutor was improper. Both cases were dismissed without prejudice.
That left the DOJ with two options. They could appeal the ruling dismissing the two cases or they could essentially start over with a new prosecutor. Yesterday, they attempted to start over on the case against Letitia James but the new prosecutor failed to secure an indictment.
On Thursday, Halligan was not involved in the grand jury proceedings. Instead, the administration recruited a Missouri-based prosecutor, Roger Keller, to handle the case.
The old saying goes that a lawyer can indict a ham sandwich which is a recognition of the fact that the grand jury process is really stacked in favor of prosecutors. In fact, it's extremely rare for a prosecutor to fail to get an indictment. But in this case, the grand jury refused to indict Letitia James.
A grand jury in Virginia on Thursday rejected Justice Department efforts to charge New York Attorney General Letitia James with mortgage fraud, declining to indict her again after a judge dismissed the charges last week, according to two people familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak about the proceedings...
It is extremely rare for a grand jury to refuse to indict a case. In 2016, for example, the Justice Department brought charges against 130,000 suspects. Grand juries rejected indictments only six times, according to agency statistics compiled by Niki Kuckes, a professor at Roger Williams University with expertise in the grand jury process.
Grand juries work in secret so we don't know what happened here, but we do know that a grand jury doesn't even need to be unanimous to indict someone. Usually all that's needed is a simple majority. So it's not like a trial where a jury needs to be unanimous to convict someone and therefore one ideologically motivated juror could throw the verdict out of whack. In this case they probably just needed 12 out of 23 grand jurors to agree an indictment was warranted. If the prosecutor couldn't get the case over that low hurdle then he probably had no chance of getting a conviction anyway. James' attorney took it as a vindication.
James’s attorney called the grand jury’s refusal to reindict “a decisive rejection of a case that should never have existed in the first place.”
“This should be the end of this case,” attorney Abbe Lowell said in a statement.
But we may not be done yet. An anonymous person connected to the case said the DOJ warned against premature celebrations.
“There should be no premature celebrations,” said a person familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly, implying that the administration could try a third time to obtain an indictment.
Third time's the charm? That's one option. Or, as noted above, they still have the option of appealing the decision to toss out the initial case. So we'll have to wait and see what comes next but for the moment it appears that Letitia James has dodged an indictment twice.
This isn't the only case being built against James, but the other one also ran into some potential problems this week.
Even as a federal grand jury in Virginia voted down a new indictment, lawyers representing Ms. James’s office appeared before a federal judge in Albany, N.Y., where the Justice Department is pursuing a separate civil rights investigation into her work as the state’s top lawyer. Lawyers for Ms. James’s office are seeking to block the investigation.
That appearance also appeared to have gone poorly for the government. The judge, Lorna G. Schofield, expressed skepticism about whether the interim U.S. attorney overseeing that case was lawfully appointed by the administration — an issue that is becoming increasingly difficult for the president in his quest to use the Justice Department to seek retribution.
While the government sought to argue that the unusual appointment of that U.S. attorney, John A. Sarcone III, was a technicality, a lawyer for Ms. James’s office, Hailyn J. Chen, strongly disagreed, quoting a concurring opinion from Justice Clarence Thomas about the importance of following the law with appointments.
The judge in that case was appointed by President Obama, so it's possible there's a bit of resistance judicial activism taking place here.
Forget it, Jake. It’s Virginia.
Venue is everything now.
Venue is everything now.
Sorry, they can cancel her mortgages, repossess the homes and leave her with zip. There are things they can do but they are flacid panty wastes.
She’s really not worth our time. Nothing would happen...at the most she would be fined...it’s not like she’s going to be behind bars. She’s simply an evil person through and through.
CAN THE MORTGAGE COMPANY SUE HER FOR FRAUD?????
Has DOJ appealed the ruling that the acting US Attorney wasn’t legitimately holding the office?
Again, this is why no one important will ever be properly punished. Weak Sauce and not being properly prepared. Either Pam Bondi is in way over her head, or she is an insider.
“..She’s simply an evil person through and through....”
All their sacred DEI ghettopotumai are....
Hiring one is a deathnell....
Anarcho-tyranny. The laws are ruthlessly enforced on one side only. The other side is impossible to prosecute.
It’s a reality now. People internalizing that is very bad for a society. That is how judges and prosecutors wind up decorating overpasses for morning commuters. They think it’s funny, but it is hideously dangerous to have a completely corrupt judicial system and a legislature that refuses to address it even slightly.
Had nothing to do with preparation. No matter what case could be presented, the judges were going to dismiss it on some pretext.
Same with the guy hitting the federal agent with a sandwich.
Same with Comey...
None of them have the slightest risk in court. DC and NYC circuits are over 90% communist and will never convict a democrat.
Yep. I cringed when DOJ indicted Comey and Shaniqua.
No way in hell they’re getting convicted in those areas, then they get to gloat about fake indictments etc.
I love Trump but I do wish he’d pick his battles a little more wisely sometimes
I can’t believe that this evil woman is getting away with it. It’s astonishing. It looks like if you are a Democrat, you can almost do anything and get away with it.
She committed mortgage fraud. What’s the DOJ’s major malfunction?
Investigate....this is Democrat jury tampering, guaranteed..
Marc Elias and crew, trying to insulate James, because if she goes down, she’s bringing other Dems with her!!!
demoncRATS have deep hold on VA and are in control, and they won’t let go for hell or high water.
Not sure what a Virginia grand jury that’s clearly sympathetic to James has anything to do with Bondi.
“Resistance judicial activism.” No kidding.
Virginia now is just an extension of D.C. She is not going to be indicted there even if she signs an affidavit saying she did it.
Now if it was President Trump using the fame facts, they would not have to leave the Jury Box to indict him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.