In my new book, I discuss the laws surrounding Donald Trump and his supporters, and I’m calling for Leticia “Tish” James to face charges for conspiracy against rights.
The Justice Department announced that it is investigating James for possibly violating Trump’s civil rights.
Conspiracy against rights is a federal crime under 18 USC §241, which makes it illegal to injure or oppress individuals based on their rights as provided by the Constitution. I referred to this legal term extensively.
Interestingly, Tish James seems to be engaging in this kind of action against Trump, highlighted by her radical lawsuit during my book research.
James is portrayed as a partisan Democrat who appears to have run her campaign with the intention of targeting Trump. Her statements, like “I look forward to going to the Attorney General’s office every day to take on Trump,” show her intent to use the legal system for political aims.
Here are several examples demonstrating how James might not have provided Trump with equal legal protection.
1. Targeted prosecution
James openly stated her intention to pursue Trump, claiming, “We’ll definitely sue him.” This kind of rhetoric has been persistent, as she pledged to investigate all aspects of Trump and his business dealings shortly after the election.
Rather than addressing rising crime in New York, she appears focused solely on Trump.
James’ remarks about Trump being “the number one problem” reveal her priorities quite clearly.
2. Charging a victimless crime
James alleges that Trump’s organization undervalued real estate for better tax benefits. But the supposed victims here, major financial institutions, have expressed no complaints about working with Trump.
In fact, there were no testimonies from the banks indicating harm; they were satisfied with their dealings.
This situation is unprecedented; it’s the first time someone has been accused of fraud without any apparent victims.
3. Mar-a-Lago’s value assessment issues
The assessment of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago property has raised eyebrows, with its appraised value fluctuating significantly. Trump claimed it was worth over $700 million, while James argues it was grossly overvalued.
Despite its historical significance and size, James seemingly downplays its worth, presenting it as grossly undervalued.
4. Questionable White House visits
James has visited the Biden White House multiple times amidst her investigation, raising suspicions about potential coordination with the current administration regarding Trump’s case.
Trump has mentioned concerns about these interactions, suggesting a deeper investigation is warranted.
5. A civil case with a criminal tone
Another concerning aspect is that James runs her case as if it were a criminal prosecution, even though it is civil. In civil lawsuits, victims typically bring claims; this is not the case here.
While banks viewed Trump as a valuable partner, James portrayed him as someone who needed to be punished.
6. Creating new offenses
James seems to stretch the law, using statutes typically reserved for consumer fraud to target Trump. The bank’s positive experience with Trump suggests he was not a scam artist, yet she insists he was.
7. Excessive fines
Initially, Trump faced a hefty fine of $464 million for this supposed crime, but this was eventually reduced. However, it’s still shockingly high, especially for a case with no identified victims.
This raises constitutional issues concerning excessive fines, which could be a critical point in an appeal to the Supreme Court.
8. Electoral implications
The fact that James is pursuing this lawsuit during election season raises serious questions about her motives and the fairness of the process.
James is clearly leveraging her powers in a politically charged manner against Trump, which is troubling.
To conclude, the actions of the most powerful law enforcement officer in a prominent state seem aimed at undermining one of its most notable figures for political reasons.
Justice should prevail, and Trump deserves to have his appeal heard.
It is imperative that Tish James faces accountability for her actions.
