Cart
0
Grand Jury Rejects Charges Against Letitia James
A federal grand jury in Virginia declines to indict New York Attorney General Letitia James. Following a judge’s dismissal of the earlier politically charged case.
New York Attorney General Letitia James Appears In Federal Court Over Indictment For 2020 Mortgage by Getty Images
A federal grand jury in Virginia has declined to indict New York Attorney General Letitia James, days after a judge dismissed the earlier federal case against her, marking another setback in President Donald Trump’s ongoing attempts to prosecute political adversaries, including former FBI Director James Comey.
The decision, first reported by CBS News citing an unnamed official, follows last month’s dismissal of federal cases against both James and Comey. A judge ruled that the prosecutor appointed by Trump to lead the cases had not been legally installed, resulting in both dismissals being issued with prejudice. This means the government may still attempt prosecution again on the same charges, although the grand jury’s refusal now poses a significant barrier.
Gear Spotlight: Relevant to This Story
M18 Enamel Pin – For When It’s Time to Bounce
$9.99
$4.99
SICKNESS FOR THE THICCNESS TEE
$29.99
$25.00
Grand jury's panels of ordinary citizens determine only whether probable cause exists to bring a case to trial. They do not decide guilt or innocence. Their refusal to indict is extremely rare: in 2016, federal prosecutors investigated more than 150,000 people, and grand juries declined charges in only six cases, according to CBS.
The federal government had alleged that James committed bank fraud and made false statements while purchasing a three-bedroom home in Norfolk. Prosecutors argued she falsely claimed the property would serve as her secondary residence to obtain favorable mortgage terms, while unnamed sources told US media the home was purchased for her great-niece, who reportedly never paid rent.
James, who successfully brought a civil fraud case against Trump and the Trump Organization in 2022, has long described the federal charges against her as politically motivated. In a statement Thursday, she welcomed the grand jury’s decision, saying, “As I have said from the start, the charges against me are baseless. It is time for this unchecked weaponization of our justice system to stop.”
Her attorney, Abbe David Lowell, called the refusal “a decisive rejection of a case that should never have existed in the first place,” adding that any continued pursuit by the government “would be a shocking assault on the rule of law and a devastating blow to the integrity of our justice system.”
James’s earlier civil case found Trump liable for falsifying business records to secure more favorable loan deals, resulting in a $500m (£376m) penalty. Though an appeals court later struck down the fine as excessive, it upheld the underlying fraud ruling.
James and Comey are not the only Trump critics to face federal charges. Trump’s former national security adviser, John Bolton, currently faces charges related to sending and willfully retaining national defense information.
As debate intensifies over political targeting, some legal observers have noted how cases like these highlight the importance of fairness and preparedness in the justice systema point often echoed by law enforcement professionals who rely on dependable gear. In that spirit, tools like the High-Speed Gear Double Pistol Taco Mag Pouch, known for its universal fit and rapid-response MOLLE compatibility, are frequently cited as examples of equipment designed for efficiency and reliability amid fast-changing situations. While unrelated to the case itself, the product symbolizes the broader theme of readiness that remains central to both law enforcement and legal institutions navigating turbulent political climates.
Editor’s Note:
The grand jury’s decision not to indict New York Attorney General Letitia James underscores the rarity of such refusals and highlights ongoing concerns about the politicization of the justice system. This development also reflects the broader scrutiny of legal processes in high-profile cases involving prominent political figures.
