Grand Jury Again Declines to Indict Letitia James, Raising Concerns Over Justice Department’s Tactics
ALEXANDRIA, Va. (AP) — For the second time in a week, a grand jury has chosen not to re-indict New York Attorney General Letitia James, posing a significant challenge to the Justice Department’s attempts to prosecute political adversaries of President Donald Trump.
This decision represents a considerable setback for prosecutors who have been urged by Trump to pursue criminal charges against James. It also suggests a growing reluctance among the public to support what is perceived as retaliatory actions by the administration.
The Associated Press (AP) has utilized anonymous sources for this report, in alignment with its standards and style guidelines. Click here for more on AP’s policy regarding anonymous sourcing.
Rejection by a grand jury is a rare occurrence and is particularly embarrassing for the Justice Department, which has been determined to take action against Trump critics such as James and former FBI Director James Comey. The grand jury’s decision reflects skepticism about the strength of the evidence presented by prosecutors, who have sought to establish a straightforward criminal case against James.
Initial indictments against James and Comey were dismissed in November after a judge found that Lindsey Halligan, who presented the case, was unlawfully appointed as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Despite this, the Justice Department attempted to secure a new indictment in Alexandria after a previous grand jury in Norfolk declined to do so last week. This recent failure was confirmed by an anonymous source familiar with the proceedings.
It remains uncertain whether prosecutors will pursue a third attempt at indictment. James’ legal representative, who has consistently denied any wrongdoing by James, argued that the repeated rejection underscores that the case should not have progressed. Defense attorney Abbe Lowell commented, “This case already has been a stain on this Department’s reputation and raises troubling questions about its integrity.”
James, a Democrat, faced accusations of bank fraud and making false statements related to a home purchase in 2020. Prosecutors allege that she violated loan terms by renting the property instead of using it as a second home, thus securing more favorable loan conditions than those typically available for investment properties.
The cases against James and Comey emerged following Halligan’s controversial appointment as U.S. attorney, a move criticized for lacking prosecutorial experience and perceived as a response to Trump’s demands for action against his opponents. These developments followed Erik Siebert’s resignation under pressure from Trump’s administration, which sought charges against James and Comey.
James’ defense team maintains that the prosecution is retaliatory, targeting her for investigating and litigating against Trump, resulting in a notable legal judgment against him. Although that decision was later overturned, appeals are ongoing.
Comey, separately, was accused of lying to Congress in 2020. A federal judge has complicated the case by temporarily blocking access to files belonging to Comey’s associate, Daniel Richman, which prosecutors argue are crucial to their case.
Prosecutors recently challenged the judge’s order to return Richman’s files, describing it as an impediment to their investigation into Comey. Their appeal claims the judge exceeded her authority, hindering the case’s progress.
