Judge dismisses James Comey and Letitia James cases, finding prosecutor's appointment invalid

[Say it aint so]

Can Tish cheer yet?

2nd grand jury refuses to indict New York AG Letitia James: Sources​

For a second time in recent days, a federal grand jury in Virginia has refused to indict New York Attorney General Letitia James for alleged mortgage fraud, sources said.

The grand jury rejected the Department of Justice's attempt to refile the case after a federal judge dismissed an earlier case based on the unlawful appointment of the U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia.

The charges were presented to a grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia's Alexandria branch after a grand jury in Norfolk, Virginia, last week rejected the charges.

"This unprecedented rejection makes even clearer that this case should never have seen the light of day," James' attorney, Abbe Lowell, said in a statement. "Career prosecutors who knew better refused to bring it, and now two different grand juries in two different cities have refused to allow these baseless charges to be brought. Any further attempt to revive these discredited charges would be a mockery of our system of justice."

As New York Judge Sol Wachtler said in 1985, “If a district attorney wanted, a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich.”

That is how incompetent the Trump DOJ is.
In fact in one case, the ham sandwich won.

 

[Factotum]

That is how incompetent the Trump DOJ is...

I disagree.
I feel that the Trump DOJ made clever, intelligent move in this scenario

Can Tish cheer yet?

2nd grand jury refuses to indict New York AG Letitia James: Sources​

For a second time in recent days, a federal grand jury in Virginia has refused to indict New York Attorney General Letitia James for alleged mortgage fraud, sources said.

The grand jury rejected the Department of Justice's attempt to refile the case after a federal judge dismissed an earlier case based on the unlawful appointment of the U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia.

The charges were presented to a grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia's Alexandria branch after a grand jury in Norfolk, Virginia, last week rejected the charges.

"This unprecedented rejection makes even clearer that this case should never have seen the light of day," James' attorney, Abbe Lowell, said in a statement. "Career prosecutors who knew better refused to bring it, and now two different grand juries in two different cities have refused to allow these baseless charges to be brought. Any further attempt to revive these discredited charges would be a mockery of our system of justice."

I think the grand jury is potentially focused on preserving the nation's anti-Trump agenda.
Because nothing has changed about the facts, since she was originally indicted;
...she clearly spent the past several years borrowing $$$ to buy properties then deceitfully mischaracterizing the properties' intended uses, to the bank.

I honestly believe she got her campaign strategy 5yrs ago, from thinking long and hard/wondering if Trump is doing the same bank fraud she's been doing herself for 20+ yrs.
Once she researched and concluded he was, is when she charged him.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Because nothing has changed about the facts, since she was originally indicted;

Quite true.

...she clearly spent the past several years borrowing $$$ to buy properties then deceitfully mischaracterizing the properties' intended uses, to the bank.

What rubbish. As I recall, there are isolated mistakes in the paperwork that are correctly filled out in other places. What makes it clear to you that the paperwork was filled out "deceitfully"?

 

[NxNW]

...she clearly spent the past several years borrowing $$$ to buy properties then deceitfully mischaracterizing the properties' intended uses, to the bank.

Never happened.

 

[Factotum]

... As I recall, there are isolated mistakes in the paperwork that are correctly filled out in other places.

Intelligent attys don't make the same 'mistake' on several applications, for decades, when checking the box that describes what a property WILL BE used for.

If you watch me buy 5 homes in 23yrs where you then ask me each time, "are you using the property for generating revenue/commercial purposes or for your private residence you'll live in?" And each time I tell you, "its my private residence to live in", then... I should not get stand there after 30yrs, get caught, and then say, "OH, I thought each time I had told you how I really meant to say that I'd be using the homes to rent out to tenants. I'm sorry if I forgot to tell you that."

I am in awe, at how much a person has to love dishonesty, in order to support liberal-democrat leaders.

 

[Factotum]

Never happened.

I agree, that "Intelligent attys making the same 'mistake' on several applications, for decades, when checking the box that describes what a property WILL BE used for." never did happen

Like i said earlier here.... If you watch me buy 5 homes in 23yrs where you then ask me each time, "are you using the property for generating revenue/commercial purposes or for your private residence you'll live in?" And each time I tell you, "its my private residence to live in", then...
I should not get stand there after 30yrs, get caught, and then say, "OH, I thought each time I had told you how I really meant to say that I'd be using the homes to rent out to tenants. I'm sorry if I forgot to tell you that."

 

[essentialsaltes]

Intelligent attys don't make the same 'mistake' on several applications, for decades, when checking the box that describes what a property WILL BE used for.

Show us these facts. What was the property used for? Did she generate revenue, i.e. monthly rent?

(Or was she reimbursed once for her niece's utilities usage, who otherwise stayed rent-free in the house?)

 

[Belk]

These progressive liberal judges don't care about the facts. We have a two tiered justice system in America now in which it doesn't seem to matter what was done and all that seems to matter is WHO did it.

It amazes me how conservatives used to argue that our justice system was fine and had no issues with racism, despite strong evidence of racial disparity in the outcome. However, now that one of the most powerful people on the planet is being held to account in the courts suddenly it is "corrupt" and "two tiered"! One wonders how these two things can be simultaneously true.

 

[wing2000]

I think the grand jury is potentially focused on preserving the nation's anti-Trump agenda.

...of course you want to believe that.

Instead of trusting a jury of your fellow citizens, you question their motives because you don't like their decision.

 

[camille70]

Intelligent attys don't make the same 'mistake' on several applications, for decades, when checking the box that describes what a property WILL BE used for.

If you watch me buy 5 homes in 23yrs where you then ask me each time, "are you using the property for generating revenue/commercial purposes or for your private residence you'll live in?" And each time I tell you, "its my private residence to live in", then... I should not get stand there after 30yrs, get caught, and then say, "OH, I thought each time I had told you how I really meant to say that I'd be using the homes to rent out to tenants. I'm sorry if I forgot to tell you that."

I am in awe, at how much a person has to love dishonesty, in order to support liberal-democrat leaders.

Where are you getting five homes from? Is there more than one property or mortgage with claims of misconduct?

 

[Say it aint so]

I disagree.
I feel that the Trump DOJ made clever, intelligent move in this scenario

Your choice. But reality proves otherwise.

 

[Say it aint so]

Intelligent attys don't make the same 'mistake' on several applications, for decades, when checking the box that describes what a property WILL BE used for.

If you watch me buy 5 homes in 23yrs where you then ask me each time, "are you using the property for generating revenue/commercial purposes or for your private residence you'll live in?" And each time I tell you, "its my private residence to live in", then... I should not get stand there after 30yrs, get caught, and then say, "OH, I thought each time I had told you how I really meant to say that I'd be using the homes to rent out to tenants. I'm sorry if I forgot to tell you that."

I am in awe, at how much a person has to love dishonesty, in order to support liberal-democrat leaders.

You are neglecting the reality the mortgage had a rider that allowed her to rent out the property ("including short term rentals") as long as SHE is renting herself and not a property management org.

Why the Trump DOJ would even still try to indict her is just flat out vindictive absurdity.

 

[DaisyDay]

I disagree.
I feel that the Trump DOJ made clever, intelligent move in this scenario

I think the grand jury is potentially focused on preserving the nation's anti-Trump agenda.
Because nothing has changed about the facts, since she was originally indicted;

She was not originally indicted. The retributive Trump DOJ has failed twice.

...she clearly spent the past several years borrowing $$$ to buy properties then deceitfully mischaracterizing the properties' intended uses, to the bank.

Maybe read up on the facts of the case? Becuse what you've stated is nonsense.

I honestly believe she got her campaign strategy 5yrs ago, from thinking long and hard/wondering if Trump is doing the same bank fraud she's been doing herself for 20+ yrs.
Once she researched and concluded he was, is when she charged him.

You don't seem to have a clear idea of what Trump was successfully prosecuted for either. Uuuuh, something to do with banks and real estate?

 

[Factotum]

...you question their motives because you don't like their decision.

No, I question their motives because the evidence didn't change from the 1st indictment.

Like i said earlier here.... If you watch me buy 5 homes in 23yrs where you then ask me each time, "are you using the property for generating revenue/commercial purposes or for your private residence you'll live in?" And each time I tell you, "its my private residence to live in", then...
I should not get stand there after 30yrs, get caught, and then say, "OH, I thought each time I had told you how I really meant to say that I'd be using the homes to rent out to tenants. I'm sorry if I forgot to tell you that."

 

[Factotum]

...What was the property used for?

Here's the crime

• A house in Norfolk, Virginia, purchased in 2020 and a second property bought in 2023.. The core of the federal criminal charges relate to the 2020 purchase, where prosecutors allege she falsely claimed the home would be a secondary residence to obtain a specific type of loan, while actually using it as a rental property.
• A five-family property in Brooklyn, New York, which she purchased in 2001. It is alleged that for over two decades, she consistently misrepresented the building as having four units or less in mortgage documents and building permit applications to meet conforming loan requirements and secure better interest rates.