Letitia James Denies Mortgage Fraud Allegations, Calls Them “Baseless”

New York State Attorney General Letitia James has asserted that the mortgage fraud case against her isn’t about her personally, but rather an example of a “weaponized judicial system.”

According to reports, James made these statements after entering a not guilty plea to charges of bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

“This is not about me. This is about all of us, and this is about a weaponized justice system,” she remarked, as cited by various media outlets.

“There was no fear today,” she shared, emphasizing her belief that “justice will come down like water, justice will come down like a strong current.”

During her arraignment, James pleaded not guilty to the allegations against her.

She referred to the charges as “baseless,” claiming her indictment is just part of the president’s “continued hopeless weaponization of our justice system.”

Following her not guilty plea, James’ legal team requested that Judge Jamar Walker dismiss the indictment. They argued that Lindsey Harrigan, the assistant U.S. attorney who presented evidence to the grand jury, did not have the proper authority to do so due to an invalid appointment.

In an unusual step, Interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Lindsay Harrigan, personally presented evidence about James’s case to the grand jury, which led to the indictment. Normally, this responsibility falls to assistant U.S. attorneys.

After the arraignment, James’ team filed a motion claiming that Harrigan’s appointment was not valid, thus lacking the authority to bring charges.

In August, a book by Breitbart News Editor-in-Chief Alex Marlowe highlighted calls for James to be prosecuted for conspiracy against rights, questioning her intentions in targeting Donald Trump.

The Justice Department recently announced that it is investigating James for allegedly infringing upon Donald Trump’s civil rights. The allegations include what the department has described as “deprivation of rights.”

This flips the narrative quite dramatically.

Conspiracy against rights is a federal offense under U.S. law, and it criminalizes efforts to conspire to oppress or intimidate individuals in the exercise of their constitutional rights.

In his book, Marlowe argues that James’s actions against Trump exemplify this offense.

Marlowe noted several instances illustrating that James, who campaigned for the attorney general position partially on an anti-Trump platform, did not aim to afford Trump equal legal protection.

Among his observations are targeted prosecutions, James’s handling of victimless crimes, and her underestimation of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago assets.

Additionally, Marlowe revealed that a substantial fine levied against Trump in James’ civil fraud case was deemed excessive.