Rebuttal to the Times Union’s Editorial Whitewash of Letitia James

On April 29, the Times Union editorial board published an astonishingly dishonest editorial attempting to discredit the federal criminal referral against New York Attorney General Letitia James. Instead of addressing the overwhelming documentary evidence at the heart of the case, the editorial retreats to the same tired script: blame Trump, question the source, and minimize the misconduct. Let’s take their claims one by one.

1. No, This Is Not a Trump Orchestrated “Kerfuffle”

The Times Union describes the case as “bad political theater” involving “a hand-picked agency head of President Donald J. Trump’s” who “sends a criminal referral to Donald J. Trump’s attorney general… and Donald J. Trump promptly calls her… a ‘crook.'” The editorial then handwaves the referral as part of a political vendetta, stating, “This kerfuffle started a week ago…”

Wrong. The so-called “kerfuffle” started when I, Sam E. Antar, independently uncovered and published a detailed investigation documenting Letitia James’s misrepresentations in mortgage filings, sworn financial disclosures, and property declarations, later complemented by Joel Gilbert’s investigative work. The FHFA referral followed based on this evidence—not Trump’s tweets, not political talking points, and certainly not the editorial board’s spin.

And for those falsely suggesting my investigation was politically motivated, let’s be clear: my work stands on its own merits, rooted in verifiable public records and documented facts. I have no connection to Donald Trump or his administration, and have never communicated with him directly or indirectly about this matter. This was not a political operation. It was an independent investigation built on public records and facts, not favors and politics.

For the record, I’m a registered Democrat myself. I’m not investigating Letitia James because of partisan politics—I’m investigating documented inconsistencies that would concern me regardless of the official’s party affiliation. The evidence stands on its own regardless of who discovered it. What matters is whether the public records show a pattern of misrepresentation by a public official sworn to uphold the law.

2. The Evidence Timeline

• August 17, 2023: James signs a sworn Power of Attorney in Virginia stating she intended to make 604 Sterling Street her principal residence.
• August 31, 2023: The mortgage is executed using that Power of Attorney.
• September 5, 2023: Both the Power of Attorney and mortgage are recorded in Norfolk, VA land records.
• 2001–2021: James consistently signed mortgage documents for her Brooklyn home classifying it as a 1–2 or 1–4 family residence, despite a Certificate of Occupancy issued January 26, 2001 listing five units.
• April 14, 2025: The FHFA referred the case to DOJ for potential criminal violations, including 18 U.S.C. § 1014 (false statements to a federally insured institution).

3. Attacking the Messenger to Avoid the Message

The editorial cites reporter Brendan J. Lyons, claiming “the allegations appear to have originated with a person who also provided the information last year to the Times Union… [and] shares a phone number with someone who was the target of a fraud prosecution by Ms. James’ office.” This sleazy insinuation is a transparent attempt to discredit the investigation by association.

Here’s the facts: I am not anonymous. I am not a proxy, not a felon she prosecuted, and not someone hiding behind burner accounts or leaked memos. I sign my name to every finding—something the Times Union source evidently couldn’t do. I took the legal, reputational, retaliatory, and libel risk the Times Union chose to avoid. The paper admits it was “told for months that the attorney general would provide a formal response”—and they waited. I didn’t. I investigated, published, and pressed forward.

Let me also state clearly: Every allegation I’ve published is the result of my own independent research using public records, FOIL requests, and document analysis.

And even if someone had casually reviewed a record before I did, it makes no difference. What matters is who did the work. I pursued the facts. I verified, cross-referenced, filed FOILs, published under my name, and took the heat. The Times Union did not. They had the same information—and sat on it.

Moreover, the story of Letitia James’s 2023 Virginia property—her sworn declaration that she intended to make it her principal residence, the mortgage requiring her to occupy it, and the absence of any homestead exemption—was uncovered and developed entirely by me. That reporting was exclusive and had never been publicly discussed before my exposé. Any suggestion that this originated with someone else is patently false.

And let’s not ignore the cowardice of their anonymous source. If someone had truly discovered something meaningful, they could have self-published as I did, signed their name to the work, and taken the legal and reputational risk. They didn’t. They hid. I didn’t.

Meanwhile, national media outlets including Fox News, Newsweek, Newsmax, and even The New York Times, though grudgingly, have credited me directly for uncovering the fraud. That recognition speaks louder than any backhanded footnote buried in an Albany editorial. I didn’t wait for a permission slip or a quote from a PR team. I followed the paper trail and published the truth. That’s what real investigative work looks like.

Credit is also due to filmmaker and investigator Joel Gilbert, whose work helped surface the bizarre and unexplained 1983 property documents identifying Letitia James and her father as “husband and wife”—a designation that may have enabled them to exploit legal protections reserved for married couples. Gilbert also provided key early documentation on James’ 2011 HAMP loan, which I later expanded through my own analysis. His contributions helped lay the groundwork for several of the leads I pursued in greater depth.

Our investigation wasn’t limited to paperwork. Joel Gilbert and I did what the Times Union was too lazy to do: we conducted an on-site verification at 296 Lafayette Avenue, where we physically confirmed the building has five units exactly as listed on the Certificate of Occupancy.

We confirmed utility records showing six separate electric meters at the property—one for common areas and five for individual residential units (Third Floor Rear, Basement, First Floor, Second Floor, and Third Floor Front). These electric meters don’t lie—they provide irrefutable physical evidence of the five-unit configuration. We also documented the presence of 5 doorbells, one for each apartment.

While the Times Union sat on information for months, we went to the property, examined the utility infrastructure, took measurements, photographed evidence, and produced documentation that verified our findings. The electric meter and doorbell evidence is particularly damning, as it physically confirms the Certificate of Occupancy’s five-unit classification independent of any paperwork.

Whatever may have been privately provided to the Times Union, what we published was more extensive, more documented, and more courageous. We didn’t just circulate tips or whisper to editors—we put our names and reputations on the line. We exposed what others sat on. That is the difference between hiding behind a newspaper and standing in front of the facts.

4. The Facts Are Not in Dispute

The editorial itself summarizes the allegations accurately before brushing them off: “The alleged conduct included claiming a home in Norfolk, Virginia, as a primary residence in 2023 while Ms. James lived in New York, and saying that a multi-family Brooklyn residence… had four units rather than five.” It then states: “In both cases, the alleged misrepresentations could have entitled her to better loan terms.” That’s not minor. That’s mortgage fraud.

The declaration of principal residency in Virginia was signed and recorded. The Brooklyn building has had a Certificate of Occupancy listing five units since 2001. James claimed fewer units repeatedly across mortgage filings. These are not “sloppy” mistakes—they’re part of a sustained pattern across decades of documents.

5. False Building Permits Reveal Further Deception

My investigation uncovered another layer of misrepresentation through an examination of NYC Department of Buildings records. James’ building permits for her Brooklyn property repeatedly classified it as a “4-FAMILY DWELLING” when applying for work permits in 2020 – directly contradicting the property’s official Certificate of Occupancy that clearly designates it as a “5-FAMILY DWELLING.”

This pattern of false permit filings allowed James to avoid stricter building code requirements and higher filing fees that apply to 5-unit buildings, while simultaneously misrepresenting the property’s status on her mortgage applications. These contradictory classifications across different official documents demonstrate not mere sloppiness, but a calculated strategy of presenting whatever version was most financially advantageous at a given moment.

6. The Power of Attorney Was Not a “Mistake”

Attorney Abbe Lowell’s defense claims the principal residence declaration was simply a “mistake.” However, this ignores a crucial reality: The Power of Attorney wasn’t some peripheral document—it was the legal lynchpin that enabled the mortgage transaction to close. This document was:

• Sworn and notarized
• Explicit in its principal residence declaration
• Recorded with the mortgage
• Never corrected or amended in any way

Most critically, this Power of Attorney was the basis for the entire mortgage underwriting. The loan terms explicitly required BOTH James and her niece to establish the property as their principal residence within 60 days of closing (by approximately October 30, 2023). The financial institution relied on these specific occupancy declarations to approve the loan. Without James’ sworn statement of intent to occupy, the mortgage would have been underwritten differently—with higher interest rates, stricter terms, and possibly rejected altogether.

Lowell claims James later filled out a Uniform Residential Loan Application marking ‘NO’ to primary residence status, but conspicuously provides no exhibit documenting this claim. More importantly, this doesn’t change the fact that the mortgage was underwritten based on her sworn Power of Attorney, which explicitly declared her intent to make the property her principal residence.

In mortgage lending, the Power of Attorney is a material legal instrument—when it contains an explicit declaration about occupancy, that declaration becomes a material representation upon which the transaction is based. If James truly indicated ‘NO’ on a subsequent form, this creates an even more troubling scenario: contradictory declarations within the same loan file, suggesting not confusion but deliberate manipulation of documentation.

This wasn’t confusion—it was calculated misrepresentation that provided direct financial benefits:

• Interest rates (typically 0.5-0.75% lower for owner-occupied properties)
• Down payment requirements (as low as 3% vs. 15–25% for investment properties)
• Qualification criteria (more favorable debt-to-income ratios for primary residences)
• Underwriting standards (less stringent for owner-occupied homes)

And most damningly, James never disclosed this mortgage on her 2023 New York financial disclosure form, despite the legal requirement to report such liabilities. That’s not a mistake. That’s concealment.

7. Abbe Lowell’s Response Is a Masterclass in Deflection

The editorial quotes James’ attorney, Abbe Lowell: “[James] did not claim the Virginia home as her primary residence but as her niece’s” and that she has “consistently used the Brooklyn building as an owner-occupied residence for no more than four families.” Both statements are provably false.

James signed a sworn power of attorney stating, “I HEREBY DECLARE that I intend to occupy this property as my principal residence.” And as for consistency? Her mortgage filings variously describe the Brooklyn building as a “1-family,” “1–2 family,” “1–3 family,” and “4-family” dwelling. Consistent—only in their inconsistency.

8. Certificate of Occupancy vs. Creative Accounting

Regarding the Brooklyn property, Lowell claims it “has always functioned as a four-person residence” despite its Certificate of Occupancy. This ignores legal reality:

• The Certificate of Occupancy was issued on January 26, 2001 – just two weeks before James purchased the property on February 14, 2001
• This wasn’t some ancient document—it was brand new when James bought the property
• Under New York law, the Certificate of Occupancy is the controlling legal document that determines a property’s lawful use
• Occupying a building inconsistently with its Certificate of Occupancy is a building code violation

The most telling evidence comes from James’ 2011 Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) agreement, which contains suspicious handwritten modifications:

• Handwritten notation “4 fam” appears in the corner of the document
• Another handwritten clause inserted: “not more than 6 residential units” – creating deliberate ambiguity
• A third notation suggests retroactive alterations

These conflicting modifications appear designed to maintain HAMP eligibility (which required four or fewer units) while creating plausible deniability about the property’s true classification.

9. Trump’s Guilt Doesn’t Erase James’ Misconduct

The editorial states: “We know that Mr. Trump is a crook; the court verdicts speak for themselves.” Fine. But it continues: “As for the evidence against Ms. James?… it doesn’t appear there’s enough here to make a federal case out of.” That conclusion is not journalism. It’s wishful thinking.

Trump’s wrongdoing is not a defense for James’ misconduct. If anything, it reinforces the importance of equal accountability under the law—something the Times Union seems uninterested in applying to a political ally.

10. “No Federal Case”? The FHFA Disagrees

The editorial’s punchline is: “Sloppy paperwork is not a good look for a lawyer… but it doesn’t appear there’s enough here to make a federal case out of.” But the FHFA disagrees. This isn’t a campaign stunt or partisan gesture—the FHFA is an independent federal agency whose investigators cited multiple potential violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1014 and recommended DOJ review. Director William J. Pulte sent a formal criminal referral to the U.S. Department of Justice citing potential violations of federal lending laws. The referral details the misrepresentations and the financial benefits obtained.

Conclusion: The Times Union Sat on the Story

The editorial closes with this line: “That was a misstep by Ms. James.” No—the misstep was by the Times Union. They were handed evidence a year ago and chose not to act. I did. They waited for a political safe space. I went where the facts led.

If the Times Union is finally done running cover for Letitia James, their help is welcome. But if they insist on rewriting the record to save face, they should stop calling it journalism and start labeling it what it is: a delayed press release for the defense.

I did not get this story from Trump. I got it from public records and sworn filings. I broke the story. I published the proof. And I stand by it.

If the Times Union wants to prove me wrong, they’re welcome to do what I did: read the documents.

This was no accident. This was fraud, recorded in ink. And the evidence is just starting to surface.

This is not over. More documents are coming.

For a fully sourced breakdown of the evidence behind this post, see:
The Case Against NY Attorney General Letitia James to Date

Written by: Sam Antar

© 2025 Sam Antar. All rights reserved