Loading summary
Transcript3 lines
- [00:00]
A
In a bit of a surprising, and I guess you can also say, unexpected move, on Monday, November 24th, a federal judge dismissed the indictment against Ms. Letitia James, the Attorney General of New York. However, the reason that it was dismissed, it had less to do with the merits of the actual case itself, and it was more of a technicality, a technicality I should mention, which can actually be fixed and the indictment refiled. And so let me break it down for you, right, Right after you take a super quick moment to smash those like and subscribe buttons that this video can reach ever more people via the YouTube algorithm. Now, let me give you a brief history of the case. And I should mention everything I'm about to go through came directly from the federal court documents, which will all be linked down in the description box below. In 2020, Letitia James purchased a home over in Norfolk, Virginia. And when she was getting the mortgage for that house, she signed something known as a second home rider. It's a document where you basically promise the lender, the one who's actually giving you the mortgage, that you're not going to be using the house as a rental. Instead, you're going to be using this house as a secondary personal residence. You specifically will not be renting it out to others. And by doing it this way, Ms. Leticia James was able to get a better mortgage rate, which the federal prosecutors claim wound up saving her $18,933. And so all was well and good. However, it turned out that she did rent the house. Instead of using it as a secondary home, Ms. Leticia James turned around and she did what she promised not to do, which was to rent out the house and basically make it into an investment property. And so then you fast forward to this year, 2025, and the Trump administration's DOJ indicted Ms. Letitia James on two felony accounts. You can see the indictment up on your screen. One was bank fraud for misleading the lender about how she was actually intending to use the property. And. And then also a separate felony of making false statements to a financial institution, basically for relying on her mortgage paperwork. And these two charges were serious, carrying the possibility of both real prison time as well as heavy fines. And, of course, you can't almost not mention the irony here. It's too big to ignore. These are pretty similar to the exact same charges that she brought forth against President Trump back in 2022. It was Letitia James who filed that civil lawsuit worth over $250 million, which claim that Trump and the Trump Organization inflated the value of their assets in order to get better terms from banks. And so, obviously, there's quite a bit of irony there. Now, for her part, Ms. Letitia James pled not guilty, and she asked the court to dismiss the case against her, arguing that the whole process was politically tainted.
- [02:40]
B
But this is not about me. This is about all of us and about a justice system which has been weaponized, a justice system which has been been used as a tool of revenge.
- [02:57]
A
Essentially, her lawyers, they were arguing that this was revenge and that the prosecution is vindictive and selective because of her past actions against Trump. Again, the irony here is far too palpable given the fact that that was exactly what Trump was arguing back in 2022. However, unlike President Trump, Ms. Letitia James was actually successful at getting her case dismissed, at least temporarily. Quote, a Federal judge on November 24th dismissed indictments of former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, holding that the prosecutor who brought the indictments was invalidly appointed. Now, the judge overseeing this case, who, just for your general reference, is Judge Cameron McGowan Curry, nominated to the bench all the way back In, I believe, 1995 by then President Bill Clinton. The reason he gave for dismissing the whole case had to do with the person who filed it in the first place, which was a woman by the name of Lindsey Halligan. You see, the backstory here is that In September of 2025, amidst alleged pressure from the Trump administration, you had the interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia resign, according to this report here in the Washington Post, which relied on anonymous sources. So take it with a grain of salt. He resigned because he refused to issue an indictment against Letitia James, regardless of why he left. Though once he did resign, the position became vacant. And therefore, you had Pam Bondi tap a woman by the name of Lindsey Halligan to fill that vacancy. She was appointed to be the interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia back in September of 2025. Now, the real position needs Senate confirmation, but there is a caveat in federal law, which is that Pam Bondi can appoint an interim U.S. attorney for upwards of 120 days, which is exactly what she did, although probably not legally, which we'll get to in a moment. Now, Ms. Halligan, once she was in office, almost immediately filed charges against both Letitia James for the mortgage fraud, as well as former FBI Director James Comey for allegedly lying to Congress. However, setting aside the merits of either one of these two cases, it was the way in which Lindsey Halligan was appointed that became a sticking point in both of those cases, two pieces of litigation, and it was exactly her appointment which was used as the reason to dismiss both cases. Let me read to you a good explanation of the whole situation and the explanation, it's a little bit lengthy, but it does break down for us exactly the technicality that's at play for why the case against Letitia James and James Comey was dismissed. Quote, Letitia James argued that their indictments were invalid because Halligan's appointment violated 28 U.S. code 546, which addresses vacancies in U.S. attorney's offices. That law authorizes the Attorney General to appoint a temporary replacement who can then serve no more than 120 days unless the judges of the district authorize an extension. Jessica Aber, who served as the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia during the Biden administration, resigned on January 20. She was replaced by Eric Siebert, whose temporary appointment would have expired on May 21. But on May 9, the district's judges voted to let him remain in that position pending the appointment of a permanent U.S. attorney. After Trump pressured Siebert to resign, Attorney General Pam Bondi tried to restart the clock by appointing Halligan as another interim U.S. attorney. That maneuver, Comey's lawyers argued, was clearly inconsistent with the constraints imposed by Congress. Then, in a motion that was filed by James Comey's legal team on October 20th, they basically laid out the technical legal reason for why Pam Bondi doing it this way was illegal. Quote the text of section 546 establishes a clear framework for the appointment of interim U.S. attorneys. The Attorney General may appoint an interim U.S. attorney Attorney General. Appointees may serve for 120 days following the Attorney General's invocation of her appointment authority. After that period expires, the District court for such district may appoint a United States Attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled. That framework starts the clock from the time of the Attorney General's initial appointment of an interim U.S. attorney and limits the total tenure of the Attorney General's interim appointments to 120 days. That is the only logical reading of the provision. If the Attorney General could make back to back sequential appointments of interim U.S. attorneys, the 120 day period would be rendered meaningless and the Attorney General could indefinitely evade the alternate procedures that Congress mandated. The text thus precludes an additional appointment by the Attorney General after the expiration of that 120 day period. Okay, so that was relatively clear. Maybe still a bit of legalese in plain English. Once the U.S. attorney for that particular district under Joe Biden. Once she resigned on January 20th, the exact date Trump took office, an interim US attorney was put in for 120 days. Now, nearing the end of that 120 days, the local courts allowed this interim US attorney an extension. Right. On May 9th, he was allowed an extension. However, in September, amidst alleged pressure from the Trump administration, that man, Eric Siebert, he resigned, and therefore, Pam Bond, he assigned a new interim U.S. attorney, and she claimed that the clock was restarted. However, according to the statute, that part is not allowed. Basically, the local court gets to decide in this scenario who the new interim U.S. attorney is, pending an actual appointment that needs Senate confirmation. And so that's the situation. And that part, that's the part that was illegal. And the judge overseeing the case against Letitia James, he agreed with that interpretation of the law, and he ruled that the appointment of the prosecutor was illegal, and therefore, everything that was brought forth by that prosecutor is automatically invalid. Now, as you would imagine, this was good news for both Letitia James as well as James Comey on her part. After the ruling, Ms. Letitia James posted the following on Instagram, writing that, quote, I am heartened by today's victory and grateful for the prayers and support I received from around the country. I remain fearless in the face of these baseless charges as I continue fighting for New Yorkers every single day. However, as a practical matter, in this particular case, she is not out of the woods yet. That's because this case, it was dismissed on a technicality, and, and it was dismissed very specifically without prejudice. Quote, Judge Curry dismissed the indictments without prejudice, which typically means the claims can be brought again in another indictment. And indeed, when she was asked about it, you had the White house press secretary, Ms. Caroline Levitt. She, when she was asked during a press gaggle about this decision, she said that the DOJ will be appealing this ruling from the judge. And even if they were to lose that appeal, they could theoretically refile it once a real new U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia has been appointed to the bench. And so that's where the case currently stands. If you want to go deeper into this case, I'll throw all my research notes. You'll be able to find them down in the description box below, which is right below those like and subscribe buttons, both of which I hope you smash if you haven't already, so that this video can reach ever more people. And also by smashing that subscribe button, you will be given updates on any new episodes we publish. I will mention, though, if you have already smashed the like button, don't smash it again. It'll invalidate your earlier smash. Same thing for the subscribe button. And until next time, I'm your host, Roman from the Epic Times. Stay informed. Most importantly, stay free.