Prosecutors who investigated New York Attorney General Letitia James for possible mortgage fraud found evidence that would appear to undercut some of the allegations in the indictment of James secured earlier this month -- including the degree to which James personally profited from her purchase of the property -- according to a memo summarizing the state of the case in September, sources told ABC News.

 

Prosecutors who led the monthslong investigation into James' conduct concluded that any financial benefit derived from her allegedly falsified mortgage would have amounted to approximately $800 in the year she purchased the home, sources said. 

 

The government lawyers also expressed concern that the case could likely not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt because federal mortgage guidelines for a second home do not clearly define occupancy, a key element of the case, according to sources.

https://www.aol.com/articles/evidence-appears-undercut-claims-against-165923250.html

 

The article goes on to note that James repeatedly advised lawyers and the bank that she was getting the mortgage in order to provide a home for her niece and  that the house would not function as a rental property. 

 

To be fair, on the other hand, Trump said it looks like she is "guilty of something",' something being a crime which is nearly as serious as being guilty of something or other.

 

 

 

Has Obama been charged with treason yet?

Are Lindsey or Bondi gone already? Sure with their performance in the latest cases, they must be on a shortlist.

Just now, CallumWK said:

Are Lindsey or Bondi gone already? Sure with their performance in the latest cases, they must be on a shortlist.

 

 

Bondi has seen the files.....she's safe.

1 minute ago, Will B Good said:

 

 

Bondi has seen the files.....she's safe.

 

Nobody is safe, even Trump himself, when he throws his dummy out of the pram.

 

I'm sure, at one point he will incriminate himself.

18 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Prosecutors who investigated New York Attorney General Letitia James for possible mortgage fraud found evidence that would appear to undercut some of the allegations in the indictment of James secured earlier this month -- including the degree to which James personally profited from her purchase of the property -- according to a memo summarizing the state of the case in September, sources told ABC News.

 

Prosecutors who led the monthslong investigation into James' conduct concluded that any financial benefit derived from her allegedly falsified mortgage would have amounted to approximately $800 in the year she purchased the home, sources said. 

 

The government lawyers also expressed concern that the case could likely not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt because federal mortgage guidelines for a second home do not clearly define occupancy, a key element of the case, according to sources.

https://www.aol.com/articles/evidence-appears-undercut-claims-against-165923250.html

 

The article goes on to note that James repeatedly advised lawyers and the bank that she was getting the mortgage in order to provide a home for her niece and  that the house would not function as a rental property. 

 

To be fair, on the other hand, Trump said it looks like she is "guilty of something",' something being a crime which is nearly as serious as being guilty of something or other.

 

None of those defenses will work.

 

1. The amount of savings is irrelvant

2. Testifying to what she told attorneys is dangerous.

3. Look forward to her taking the stand.

 

No one is above the law, even the thieves and grifters that ya'll admire.

1 minute ago, Yagoda said:

3. Look forward to her taking the nstand.

 

No one is above the law, even the thieves and grifters that ya'll admire.

 

LOL, I doubt she will ever be called to take the stand, as with most other silly cases your master attempted

5 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

None of those defenses will work.

 

1. The amount of savings is irrelvant

2. Testifying to what she told attorneys is dangerous.

3. Look forward to her taking the stand.

 

No one is above the law, even the thieves and grifters that ya'll admire.

1)Lots of reasons this is BS. For one thing, the government is claiming she charged rent and was going to profit by a lot more. Also, you can't stop a jury from exercising common sense in the form of juror nullification. And, of course, the judge can take this into account and find that this is a case of malicious prosecution. it's not like Trump hasn't provided plenty of evidence to that effect.

 

2 & 3) who do you think will be testifying?

 

 

There are several in Trump's cabinet that could face the same charges,

but as their MAGA that won't happen , only Trumps perceived  enemies 

are the ones facing Trumped up charges ,pun intended ....

 

regards worgeordie

 

12 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

None of those defenses will work.

 

1. The amount of savings is irrelvant

2. Testifying to what she told attorneys is dangerous.

3. Look forward to her taking the stand.

 

No one is above the law, even the thieves and grifters that ya'll admire.

LOL!

 

If "nobody is above the law", allow Jack Smith to testify under oath in front of Congress. He will detail what his investigation found and why he indicted Trump.

 

After he speaks, it will be clear that "somebody" was above the law....for stolen classified docs, for insurrection, for attempted voter fraud.....

9 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

 

LOL, I doubt she will ever be called to take the stand, as with most other silly cases your master attempted

Pssst: The American system means shes the one who decides, Cant have the defenses she raised without her own testimony.

 

But you know that? Not.

 

Hows that Bolton case? You like traitors?

1 minute ago, Alan Zweibel said:

For one thing, the government is claiming she charged rent and was going to profit by a lot more.

No they arent.

 

2 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

And, of course, the judge can take this into account and find that this is a case of malicious prosecution. i

Not at this level

 

3 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

2 & 3) who do you think will be testifying?

Its a documents case.

6 minutes ago, Wingate said:

If "nobody is above the law", allow Jack Smith to testify under oath in front of Congress. He will detail what his investigation found and why he indicted Trump.

IM all in favour of it. As long as his lawyer gets a malpractice release

Not interested in the James case as it doesn't seem more than a tit-for-tat endeavor. Jack Smith volunteering to speak under oath without censorship is far more intriguing. He wouldn't do this unless he could really reveal things that the regime would rather keep quiet. 

34 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Pssst: The American system means shes the one who decides, Cant have the defenses she raised without her own testimony.

 

But you know that? Not.

 

Hows that Bolton case? You like traitors?

Personally, I hate traitors. That's why I hate Trump.

This case is predictably going nowhere.

 

'NY AG Letitia James to ask for her case to be dismissed due to appointment of Lindsey Halligan'

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/ny-ag-james-ask-her-212809549.html

 

 

 

49 minutes ago, worgeordie said:

There are several in Trump's cabinet that could face the same charges,

but as their MAGA that won't happen , only Trumps perceived  enemies 

are the ones facing Trumped up charges ,pun intended ....

 

regards worgeordie

 

just the opposite when your hero Biden and all of his Dem coherts were making false charges againt Trump. Its a two way street out there, look both ways.

36 minutes ago, flexomike said:

just the opposite when your hero Biden and all of his Dem coherts were making false charges againt Trump. Its a two way street out there, look both ways.

Typical MAGA cult rhetoric.

 

Pretend that charges against Trump were fake in order to justify Trump's weaponized DOJ fake cases! 🤣

 

If charges were false, then the GOP should be eager to show it by having Smith testifying  under oath in front of Congress! I'm joking, of course, it will never happen! 🤣

 

5 hours ago, BLMFem said:

This case is predictably going nowhere.

 

'NY AG Letitia James to ask for her case to be dismissed due to appointment of Lindsey Halligan'

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/ny-ag-james-ask-her-212809549.html

 

 

 

Yes, that may dismiss the case. I would prefer dismissal because of lack of wrongdoing though.

UPDATE:

 

Motion to remove Ms. Halligan from L. James case filed 24 OCT along same lines as Comey case.

 

James case judge orders that any motion to dismiss the indictment based on a theory of vindictive and/or selective prosecution shall be filed by November 7, 2025. 

 

The vindictive prosecution claim will likely include -- not only President Trump's published comments -- that the federal gov. usually only prosecutes bank fraud / mortgage fraud cases with damages into the 6 figures.

 

In a documents case, the prosecution introduces the incriminating documents; the defense will only introduce documents that refute the prosecutions claims. Those refuting documents do not have to be introduced by the defendant.

This is going to be fun.  😄

 

Some of you seem blind to the simple fact she signed loan agreements declaring the purchase as her primary residence.  In a state she never lived in.  This is called fraud.  How much she benefited from this or who is prosecuting won't matter.  The documents are there for the world to see.  

 

I mean maybe she will claim it was her primary residence.  But...... does she already have another mortgage filed claimed as primary.  

 

I despise the use of lawfare in politics but honestly if you all can't see how she and other democrats opened that pandoras box and TOLD THE WORLD they would do so in campaign promises..... well denial isn't just a river in Egypt.

 

Live by the sword.  

 

 

14 hours ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Prosecutors who investigated New York Attorney General Letitia James for possible mortgage fraud found evidence that would appear to undercut some of the allegations in the indictment of James secured earlier this month -- including the degree to which James personally profited from her purchase of the property -- according to a memo summarizing the state of the case in September, sources told ABC News.

 

Prosecutors who led the monthslong investigation into James' conduct concluded that any financial benefit derived from her allegedly falsified mortgage would have amounted to approximately $800 in the year she purchased the home, sources said. 

 

The government lawyers also expressed concern that the case could likely not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt because federal mortgage guidelines for a second home do not clearly define occupancy, a key element of the case, according to sources.

https://www.aol.com/articles/evidence-appears-undercut-claims-against-165923250.html

 

The article goes on to note that James repeatedly advised lawyers and the bank that she was getting the mortgage in order to provide a home for her niece and  that the house would not function as a rental property. 

 

To be fair, on the other hand, Trump said it looks like she is "guilty of something",' something being a crime which is nearly as serious as being guilty of something or other.

 

 

Of course you've missed the point entirely. This is throughly unsurprising. This is fraud 

 

Thel article is bull<deleted> with all sorts of weasel words 

 

The argument underpinning this is that when she broke the law it only amounted to 800 per year - note they break it down to per year 🤡

 

The charges against Trump no harm was found whatsoever. The argument was he broke a law...and the unhinged retards hung on that until his case was setted 

 

Moreover, this is just spraying the farty air with perfume. Trying to taint jury pool. Nothing resolved. The article is just blah blah (aol ffs c'mon ) and she's going the jail

13 hours ago, Yagoda said:

None of those defenses will work.

 

1. The amount of savings is irrelvant

2. Testifying to what she told attorneys is dangerous.

3. Look forward to her taking the stand.

 

No one is above the law, even the thieves and grifters that ya'll admire.

How’s about the one you worship?

12 hours ago, candide said:

Pretend that charges against Trump were fake in order to justify Trump's weaponized DOJ fake cases! 🤣

 

Pure delusion 

 

They were all fake, all dismissed once the were able to get above the political fray

 

Some people may go to jail over it as well. Willis, Smith come quickly to mind 

 

Do you post this crap to score points for team libtard or really believe this rubbish??

13 hours ago, BLMFem said:

Personally, I hate traitors. That's why I hate Trump.

 

You hate everyone. Angry at the world for your sad life.

 

White lives matter

 

White men's lives matter

 

White heterosexual lives matter 

From NY Post:

 

Prosecutor Roger Keller — who was transferred to Virginia from the Eastern District of Missouri to lead the case — revealed that the government was prepared to call as many as 10 witnesses against James.

https://nypost.com/2025/10/24/us-news/new-york-attorney-general-letitia-james-pleads-not-guilty-to-bank-fraud-false-statements-charges/

 

NB Maybe the prosecution will call William Pulte who provided the criminal referral to DoJ -- if not, maybe the defense should.

18 hours ago, Yagoda said:

None of those defenses will work.

 

1. The amount of savings is irrelvant

2. Testifying to what she told attorneys is dangerous.

3. Look forward to her taking the stand.

 

No one is above the law, even the thieves and grifters that ya'll admire.

80 dlrs ?Seems there is a whiff of panic  in your post ..not the usual both guns blazing? 

47 minutes ago, Jim Blue said:

80 dlrs ?Seems there is a whiff of panic  in your post ..not the usual both guns blazing? 

Um, I think you responded to the wrong post because that makes no sense in the context of the discussion

Troll posts removed.

 

@KhaoHom these forums are open to everyone, it is not for you to try to censor an opinion you don’t like, based on assumed nationality.

20 hours ago, Purdey said:

Not interested in the James case as it doesn't seem more than a tit-for-tat endeavor. Jack Smith volunteering to speak under oath without censorship is far more intriguing. He wouldn't do this unless he could really reveal things that the regime would rather keep quiet. 

So your "everyone is equal under the law" and "its only justice if you cant do the time, dont do the time" mantras were pure BS?

You meant only Republicans are fair game under our weaponized DOJ and we'll cry like newborns if it ever affects us. Sick. Quite sick.