New York Attorney General Letitia James is pushing back hard against federal charges accusing her of mortgage fraud, filing a motion Friday to dismiss the case and calling it a “vindictive, politically motivated prosecution” orchestrated by President Donald Trump and his allies.
The motion, filed in U.S. District Court in Norfolk, Virginia, marks James’ most direct confrontation yet with the federal government over a case she insists is pure political retribution. Her legal team argues that the Justice Department — now under Trump’s leadership — has “weaponized” the judicial process to punish one of the president’s most outspoken critics.
“This lawsuit, and AG James’ outspoken criticism of the President, triggered six years of targeted attacks,” her attorneys wrote. “President Trump and his allies have used every insulting term in their vocabulary to deride AG James and call for criminal penalties in retaliation for the exercise of her rights and fulfillment of her duties.”
The filing lists multiple instances where Trump personally criticized James, referring to her as “crooked,” “scum,” “a monster,” and “criminal.” According to the defense, those public remarks show a clear pattern of hostility that taints the case against her.
Background: A Long-Running Feud
The charges stem from allegations that James lied on mortgage documents to obtain favorable terms on a modest home in Norfolk, Virginia, a property linked to her extended family. Prosecutors claim that the discrepancies amount to mortgage fraud, while James contends they are trivial paperwork errors being inflated into a federal case for political gain.
She pleaded not guilty in October and denounced the indictment outside the courthouse, calling it “a direct act of revenge from a president who cannot stand accountability.”
“President Trump is using the Department of Justice as his personal weapon,” she said then. “This is not about mortgages — it’s about silencing those who held him to the law.”
Echoes of Other Cases Against Trump Critics
James’ motion mirrors a similar legal strategy being pursued by James Comey, the former FBI director, who was also indicted earlier this year. Comey, accused of making false statements and obstructing Congress, has likewise described his prosecution as “vindictive” and politically inspired.
Both Comey and James were charged in Virginia by Lindsey Halligan, a newly appointed U.S. attorney with no prior prosecutorial experience. Halligan, a longtime White House aide and vocal Trump supporter, was appointed to the post after Erik Siebert, the previous U.S. attorney overseeing the investigations, was pressured to resign.
Following Siebert’s departure, Trump publicly urged Attorney General Pam Bondi to “take action” against his political enemies. In a social media post, Trump wrote:
“We can’t delay any longer — it’s killing our reputation and credibility. JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!”
Critics say that post — alongside Trump’s repeated attacks on James and other adversaries — underscores the political nature of these prosecutions.
Claims of Selective Prosecution
James’ attorneys allege that federal prosecutors have selectively targeted her while ignoring similar discrepancies involving “numerous other public officials.”
“The only meaningful difference between AG James and these individuals is that AG James is a Democratic Attorney General who spoke out against the President,” the filing states. “The others — some of whom committed more egregious reporting errors — are Trump allies and cabinet members.”
Her legal team argues that the selective scrutiny violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process. They cite multiple examples of high-profile figures who allegedly made comparable misstatements on financial disclosures but faced no investigation.
Legal experts say that if James can prove political bias in her indictment, it could provide strong grounds for dismissal.
“This is a serious claim,” said constitutional law professor Michael Gerhardt. “Vindictive prosecution arguments are difficult to prove, but not impossible — especially if there’s clear evidence that the charges were motivated by personal or political animus.”
The Trump–James Legal Saga
The animosity between Trump and James dates back years. As New York’s attorney general, James filed the civil fraud lawsuit that led to a blockbuster judgment against Trump and his company earlier in 2024. The court found that Trump had inflated the value of his real estate holdings to secure favorable loans and insurance rates.
That judgment originally imposed a penalty of more than $500 million — a fine later overturned on appeal, though the court upheld the finding that Trump and his company committed fraud.
Trump has since repeatedly referred to James as “corrupt” and accused her of running a politically motivated “witch hunt.” At rallies, he frequently cites her name alongside other officials he claims have “abused their power to attack him.”
Now, with James herself under indictment, Trump’s allies have framed the moment as a “turning of the tables.”
Defense Alleges Retaliation and Political Theater
James’ defense argues that the timing of the charges — coming just months after the appeals court decision in Trump’s civil case — is no coincidence.
“This prosecution did not emerge from a neutral investigation,” the motion states. “It is retaliation disguised as law enforcement, meant to humiliate and intimidate a sitting attorney general.”
They also point to Halligan’s lack of prosecutorial experience, noting that her appointment followed a pattern of Trump rewarding political loyalty with key federal positions.
“This is what happens when the rule of law is subordinated to personal vendettas,” one of James’ attorneys said outside court. “We are confident the judge will see through this charade.”
Prosecution Responds
Federal prosecutors, however, maintain that the case is based purely on evidence, not politics. A spokesperson for the U.S. attorney’s office in Virginia stated:
“Our office enforces the law without regard to political affiliation or public profile. The charges against Ms. James were brought after a thorough review of the facts and applicable statutes.”
The spokesperson declined to address the defense’s accusations of bias or Trump’s public comments.
Political Reactions Across the Spectrum
The case has drawn sharp reactions from both sides of the aisle. Democrats have rallied behind James, framing the prosecution as part of a broader pattern of retaliation against political opponents.
“Letitia James stood up to Trump’s corruption and is now paying the price,” said New York Rep. Hakeem Jeffries. “This is not justice — it’s persecution.”
Republicans, on the other hand, argue that James is simply facing the same scrutiny she once imposed on others.
“James made a career out of using her office to attack Donald Trump,” said Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH). “Now that the tables have turned, she’s calling it political. Maybe she’s just not used to being on the receiving end.”
A Legal and Political Test Case
Observers say the case could set an important precedent in defining the limits of presidential influence over the Justice Department.
“This is not just about Letitia James,” said political analyst Sarah Isgur, a former DOJ official. “It’s about whether the Justice Department can operate independently under a president who openly targets his critics. The courts will have to decide whether this crosses the line into retaliation.”
If the judge grants James’ motion to dismiss, it would deal a blow to the Trump administration’s legal efforts and likely embolden other defendants claiming political targeting. But if the motion is denied, the trial could become one of the most politically charged courtroom battles of the year — pitting a sitting president’s Justice Department against one of his fiercest state-level adversaries.
James’ Future and the Broader Implications
Despite the charges, Letitia James has vowed not to step down from her post as New York attorney general. Her supporters have organized fundraising drives and public rallies, portraying her as a symbol of resistance against what they view as federal overreach.
“I will not be intimidated,” she told reporters last week. “No president — past or present — gets to decide who faces justice and who doesn’t.”
Legal experts note that even if James beats the charges, the case could linger as a political liability, especially if she seeks higher office in the future.
For now, the next hearing in her case is scheduled for late December, when the judge will consider arguments on the motion to dismiss.
Whether the court sides with James or allows the prosecution to move forward, one thing is clear: the feud between Donald Trump and Letitia James — once confined to civil courtrooms in New York — has now escalated into a full-blown federal showdown.
Emily Johnson is a critically acclaimed essayist and novelist known for her thought-provoking works centered on feminism, women’s rights, and modern relationships. Born and raised in Portland, Oregon, Emily grew up with a deep love of books, often spending her afternoons at her local library. She went on to study literature and gender studies at UCLA, where she became deeply involved in activism and began publishing essays in campus journals. Her debut essay collection, Voices Unbound, struck a chord with readers nationwide for its fearless exploration of gender dynamics, identity, and the challenges faced by women in contemporary society. Emily later transitioned into fiction, writing novels that balance compelling storytelling with social commentary. Her protagonists are often strong, multidimensional women navigating love, ambition, and the struggles of everyday life, making her a favorite among readers who crave authentic, relatable narratives. Critics praise her ability to merge personal intimacy with universal themes. Off the page, Emily is an advocate for women in publishing, leading workshops that encourage young female writers to embrace their voices. She lives in Seattle with her partner and two rescue cats, where she continues to write, teach, and inspire a new generation of storytellers.
