New York Attorney General Letitia James faces a grand jury indictment in Eastern Virginia for potential 30-year prison sentences under federal statutes regarding false statements to secure federally insured loans. Allegations include misrepresenting her residency on power of attorney documents for a property at 604 Sterling Street and inflating unit counts for a brownstone to access special housing deals, contrasting sharply with Donald Trump's $500 million fine for private disputes. Critics argue James exploited a $10 million slush fund and public office resources while pursuing Trump, risking the loss of her house, law license, and position as she defends against claims of retribution. Ultimately, this prosecution highlights severe ethical breaches where taxpayer funds were allegedly leveraged for personal gain, potentially dismantling her legal career and political standing. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, Qwen/Qwen3-ForcedAligner-0.6B, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Imminent Indictment for James00:06:08
This woman is going to be out as Attorney General of the State of New York, and she's going to be out for a variety of reasons, as she should.
But most pressing on her docket at this moment in time this week is that that indictment is imminent for one Letitia James.
The Eastern Virginia Court is coming forward.
They've subpoenaed everyone, the grand jury.
And that indictment, as I said, is expected any day now.
So she's going to be heading off to court to try and defend herself and prevent herself from going to the Slammer for, what, 30 years?
That's the penalty.
Basically for being in violation of 18 USC 1014 false statements to obtain a federally insured loan or 18 USC 1001 false statements to the government.
So the subpoenas have gone out.
The subpoenas are issued.
She's got to fight this thing.
She's fighting it by just saying it's political.
Well, I don't know, Letitia.
I mean, you are a lawyer, right?
So on the power of attorney, why would you be saying that Virginia was your permanent residence?
And we could say, okay, you know, one time, little mistake.
Not that she should have had that mistake, but it's multiple times.
And so now you've got New York State looking into this, launching an investigation into what she was doing with her brownstone that she claimed was four units instead of five units because it got her, once again, a special deal.
As she said, these are her words, okay?
These are her words, not mine.
This is what makes this whole thing so darn poetic, everyone.
When powerful people cheat to get better loans, it comes at the expense of honest and hardworking people.
Everyday Americans cannot lie to a bank to get a mortgage to buy a home.
And if they did, our government would throw the book at them.
They simply cannot be different rules for different people.
You're right.
You're right, Tish.
Now Donald Trump is finally facing accountability for his lying, cheating, and staggering fraud.
Because no matter how big, rich, and powerful you think you are, no one is above the law.
So these are really coming back to haunt her in a rather big way, don't you think?
As the indictment looms, as she's going to get her tushy hauled into federal court, facing the possibility of 30 years.
Meanwhile, what do you have?
Voters getting pretty furious that she's trying to use taxpayer funds, $10 million of a slush fund that Kathy Hochel, the governor of New York, And other Democrats in New York have set aside for Letitia.
The GOP in New York's like, no, no, we're not having this.
Meanwhile, you got the FHA director coming out, outlined the whole thing.
Let's take another look at William Pultey, who put forward the letter to the DOJ in the first place and says, we've got a case.
We know mortgage fraud when we see it.
And I love how he refers to Tishy Baby as the subject.
Listen.
He recommended that the DOJ investigate New York Attorney General Letitia James over alleged mortgage fraud.
The AG, Letitia James, has responded.
We don't have the video, but here's the quote This investigation into me is nothing more than retribution.
It's baseless.
It has to do with the fact that, on a power of attorney, I mistakenly indicated that I was a state of Virginia resident.
And prior to that, I indicated to the mortgage broker that, in fact, in bold cap letters, I am not a resident of Virginia and never will be.
They just took the power of attorney and they're using that as a basis for enforcement of their investigation.
Bill, do you know why she said she was a resident of Virginia on the power of attorney, if in fact she wasn't?
Well, I know that we are mortgage experts and we only refer things that we think are mortgage fraud and we stand 100% behind the letter.
I'll let the letter speak for itself.
I do know and I have seen some reports from that subject's criminal defense lawyer saying certain things.
I'll leave it to the DOJ to correct various things.
But again, when we see mortgage fraud, we are going to report it.
When we see mortgage fraud, we are going to prosecute it within the confines of our.
And we are not going to be intimidated by a subject's criminal defense lawyer.
We are not going to be intimidated by a politician or just because you have an Esquire behind your name.
We are not going to be intimidated by people.
If we see mortgage fraud, we're going to do something about it.
And I think that you're going to see us be taking this on in a big way.
Mortgage fraud is a big problem.
These companies are safe and sound, but where we see it, we are going to do something about it.
And that subject's case is no different.
Well, what are the ramifications of this now that you've referred this for criminality to the DOJ?
Well, I would refer that to the DOJ.
Again, as I say, we spend our days, we are mortgage experts.
We are not politicians.
I view this as an economic job.
Obviously, the president can fire me at any time.
So I guess in that way.
But look, I look at this as an independent agency.
We found the mortgage fraud, whether it be that particular subject or other subjects.
And we work actively with the DOJ and different law enforcement.
Yes, they do.
They work actively with the DOJ, the FBI, who has announced as well its investigation.
The DOJ who's announced its investigation?
Of course, the grand jury there in eastern Virginia.
But let me share with you a little bit from that letter.
He writes, Pultey writes about 604 Sterling Street, North Virginia.
On august 17th 2023 I mean this is like during the height of the whole thing, with Trump right where she's accusing him of mortgage fraud Miss James granted miss Chamise Thompson Hairston power of attorney to make a Virginia property her principal Residence and on August 30th and 31st, through her attorney, Ms. James, purchased this property in Norfolk, Virginia,
Norfolk, Virginia, forgive me, in a Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac form 3047.
And in mortgage documents, she reaffirmed this would be her primary residence, despite being a public officer in the state of New York at that same time and presumably, right, primarily residing in. the state of New York.
So let's go back to Tishy baby saying, okay, nobody is above the law, nobody at all.
Public Money in Private Deal00:07:51
When powerful people cheat to get better loans, it comes at the expense of honest and hardworking people.
You see, Tish, in this case, you were trying to use taxpayer funds to get that better mortgage because you see, when you have a primary residence, you get totally different mortgage rate than when it's a secondary residence.
Why?
Oh, because the banks say, gee, there's a really good shot. that somebody might be more likely to default on a loan for a secondary vacation home than they would in a primary home.
So therefore, you do get a better financial picture.
So this is what she is allegedly trying to take advantage of, despite, despite at the very same time going after Donald Trump, trying to say he's trying to get a better mortgage rate because, you know, he's inflating the value of his home.
That's between him and his bank, by the way.
This was a private transaction.
This is not a federal transaction where you're hitting up Freddie and Fannie and thus us U.S. taxpayers, okay?
Tissue baby, that's the difference.
That's why you never should have brought your case to court in the first place, something that the judges cited over and over and again.
I mean, as soon as the appellate lawyer who's arguing the case came before the judge, what did they say?
There's no victim.
This is a commercial dispute.
What are you doing here in our darn court?
Not to mention, why the heck do you have a half a billion with a B dollar fine leveled against the now president of the United States?
May it please the court, Judith Bale for the New York Attorney General's Office.
All of the defendants repeatedly violated.
Mr. Bale, can you identify any previous case?
In which the Attorney General sued under Executive Law 6312 to upset a private business transaction that was between equally sophisticated partners, where the supposed victim had the ability and legal obligation to discover the allegedly misrepresented matters by conducting its own due diligence, where the supposed wrongdoer advised the supposed victim through written disclaimers to conduct its own due diligence and to draw its own conclusions.
Where the alleged misrepresentation almost entirely concerned inherently subjective valuations of properties and businesses.
Yes.
And where the victim never complained about any fraud in the transactional losses from it.
Because I've gone through the cases which you've cited, and all of them always involved the consumer protection aspect, it involved protection of the market.
And I want to add to his question and little to no impact on the public marketplace.
Boom.
Okay.
And that's why the case never should have been brought.
But remember her, too male, too pale, too stale.
All the, I'm going to get Trump.
I'm going to get Trump.
I'm going to get Trump.
I mean, she campaigned on it.
She raised money off of it.
This was the whole thing.
Even though she says that wasn't the case.
Hey, there's this little thing called videotape, Ms. Leticia James, and we got it.
I'm not going to bore you guys with it because we've played it a lot of times on this show, but you know exactly what I'm talking about.
She campaigned on it.
So one, she should be out just because of that.
Two, this case has got to be thrown out.
The appellate court.
Case that is with the 500 million dollar fine, my gosh.
And three, she's facing court herself with the indictment coming because of her own alleged fraud and abuse.
I mean, the judge said it here again this is a private transaction.
What are you doing, bugging us with this?
It was using sorry, but what's being described sounds an awful lot like a potential commercial dispute between private actors.
Well, to go back to the first question about whether there's other examples of this, there are other examples of this.
In the first American case, the attorney general brought a 6312 case where the transaction at issue was between a very big bank, Wells Fargo, and a professional appraisal firm.
But it wasn't the concern there that the public would ultimately be negatively impacted and affected by what those corporate actors were doing.
And that concern is here as well, because when you have hidden risks getting injected into the market, that hurts the market and honest participants in the market.
And the legislature also decided, contrary to what defendants think, That making sure that business in New York stays honest is the way to attract and keep business people.
But to that point, the executive board.
I'm sorry.
Again, commercial transaction, no victim.
So you can try and spin this however you want.
Let's go back to the fact that there's no victim.
Let's go back to the fact that Deutsche Bank is free to make whatever kind of deals it would like to make.
And Deutsche Bank is on the hook for making sure the square footage is what Donald Trump says it is.
Deutsche Bank is on the hook for making sure that the valuation he places on the property, which is a heck of a lot more, obviously, than Letitia's $18 million.
I'm telling you guys, we've got to like put a fund together, right?
And say, hey, Letitia, we'll buy it for that amount of money.
Unbelievable.
So she's deciding suddenly the attorney general of New York what something is worth.
I don't think so.
No, Deutsche Bank is going to make that decision and decide whether or not they're going to take on the risk.
The reason why the case with Letitia James is so entirely different is in that situation, you have public funds.
That are being used public money.
These mortgages are being secured by the likes of Fannie AND Freddie, not by Deutsche BANK.
So therefore, you're actually commingling right public funds, our tax taxpayer dollars, thereby putting us all at risk.
When you do something like this, fill out an application saying that it's your principal residence.
Again going back to Pultee's allegations against her, this is, in their estimation, absolute positive mortgage fraud.
On top of that right, you've got the fact that she's got that Brownstone in New York.
They're looking into this one in New York where she's saying it's four units instead of five units, because then she gets extra favorable terms and special uh, federal money, housing money for that.
I mean, this is a woman who believes in living off the system.
Let's be honest.
What is she?
She is someone who's going to live off of taxpayers.
That's why she wants taxpayers to foot the bill for her massive legal expedition here.
She's going to court and she expects you to pay for it.
Well, You, if you live in the state of New York, I'm telling you, she's running out of cash.
She's got this Abby Lowell who represented Hunter Biden, and he costs a pretty penny.
So what is she going to do?
She's going to use that $10 million slush fund they have for her in New York that the Democrats put aside.
Only thing is the media has caught on to this, right?
The New York Post has reported on this.
I have reported on this.
And I don't think taxpayers are going to love this.
Even the liberal New York Magazine is saying that this is kind of questionable.
James has again, they write, displayed dubious ethical instincts in her response to the pending inquiry.
She is inexplicable.
Explicably chosen to use the resources of her public office to respond to the investigation.
James issued a statement through the agent's official spokesperson and she reportedly plans to use state funds to cover some of her legal expenses.
I mean, I think you can sue her just for that, can you not?
I mean, you can't be using taxpayer dollars to cover your personal legal challenges.
It's not New York's fault or the taxpayer's fault that you decided to lie on your documents and now you're cut.
I mean, you know what they say about throwing stones at glass houses?
Tishy baby, you know, I'm looking at one of your comments.
You guys are saying she wanted to take over Trump Tower.
You better believe it.
I've played the sound bite before, but I'm going to play it again because it's so good.
Again, poetry at work.
This is operatic in its nature, given what's going down right now.
She may lose that house in Virginia.
She may lose that brownstone in New York, and she will lose her position as Attorney General of the state of New York, possibly, as she should her law license.
Seizing Trump's Assets00:01:21
And I expect.
There may be some prison time.
Here she is bragging about how she's going to get Trump.
Four days after a judge ordered Donald Trump to pay $355 million for a decade of fraud, New York Attorney General Letitia James says she's prepared to do everything she can to make sure the former president pays his fine, including, she told us, seizing the buildings that bear his name.
If he does not have funds to pay off the judgment, then we will seek, you know, judgment enforcement mechanisms in court, and we will ask the judge to seize his assets.
Boom ba-dum.
Okay, I think they're gonna be seasoned yours.
Your assets.
I mean, poetry.
You know, like I like seeing justice.
I just got to say, and I think it's fascinating that of all the things they could have gotten her on, they're getting her on mortgage fraud, alleged.
Right?
Like, I mean, you got to admit, it's rather remarkable.
Whoever did the digging and found this, and I think Roger Stone had a hand in it, brilliant.