New York Attorney General Letitia James asked a federal judge Friday to dismiss a mortgage fraud case against her, calling it a vindictive and politically motivated prosecution brought at the behest of a president who regards her as an enemy.
TL;DR
- New York AG Letitia James requests dismissal of mortgage fraud case, calling it politically motivated.
- James' lawyers cite President Trump's remarks and alleged hostility as evidence of vindictive prosecution.
- The filing compares James' situation to James Comey's, who also claims retaliatory charges.
- Defense argues James is singled out while Trump allies with similar actions face no scrutiny.
The anticipated motion details numerous remarks from President Donald Trump intended to demonstrate that the lawsuit was motivated by personal hostility stemming from James' fraud action against Trump when she served as state attorney general.
“This lawsuit, and AG James’ outspoken criticism of the President, triggered six years of targeted attacks. President Trump and his allies have used every insulting term in their vocabulary to deride AG James and call for criminal penalties in retaliation for the exercise of her rights and fulfillment of her statutory duties to fulfill her obligations as New York state’s attorney general,” lawyers for James wrote in urging that the case be dismissed.
Trump's insults have referred to James as “crooked,” “scum,” “a monster,” and “criminal,”, as stated in the court document.
This filing resembles one made against James Comey, another individual considered an opponent of Trump, who has pleaded not guilty who faced accusations of providing false statements and obstructing Congress. Comey has stated that the charges against him are similarly retaliatory and driven by the president's wish for vengeance.
James faces allegations of misrepresenting information on mortgage applications to secure better loan conditions for a modest home purchase in Norfolk, Virginia, a location where her relatives reside. She pleaded not guilty last month, she informed journalists outside the courthouse that the Trump administration was employing the judicial system as a “tool of revenge.”
To bolster their claim of a vindictive prosecution, James’ attorneys also assert that the Justice Department has singled her out for scrutiny “while ignoring apparent inconsistencies in the mortgage records of numerous other public officials.”
It's claimed the actions forming the basis of the indictment align with the behavior of other prominent individuals who haven't faced investigation or charges.
“The only meaningful difference between AG James and these individuals is that AG James is a Democratic Attorney General who spoke out against the President, while the others are his allies and cabinet members,” defense lawyers wrote.
Similar to Comey, she faced charges in Virginia, brought by a quickly appointed U.S. Attorney, Lindsey Halligan, who was a White House aide lacking any prior prosecutorial experience who was named to the post by Trump. This occurred after the administration essentially removed the prosecutor, Erik Siebert, who had been overseeing both inquiries but hadn't filed charges in either.
Following Siebert's departure, Trump, in a remarkable social media statement, called on Attorney General Pam Bondi to pursue legal action against James and other political adversaries, mentioning his own multiple impeachments and indictments. Trump penned that the administration “can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility,” with the addition: “JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!”
James secured her initial election in 2018 for the position of New York state's chief legal officer, following her prior elected roles within New York City. She holds the distinction of being the first woman to be voted into the role of the state's attorney general.
James has frequently drawn Trump's anger, particularly after she secured a staggering judgment against the president and the Trump Organization in a legal case claiming he deceived financial institutions by inflating the worth of his properties on financial reports. An appellate court overturned the fine, which had grown to over $500 million with interest, yet affirmed a lower court's determination that Trump engaged in fraud.