Elie Honig’s May 23 New York Magazine article, “Letitia James Is Caught in a War of Her Own Making,” contains three critical omissions that completely undermine his thesis. Written by a former federal and state prosecutor who should know better, the piece demonstrates how elite commentators provide cover for documented misconduct through willful ignorance dressed as legal expertise.
Honig portrays the DOJ’s criminal investigation into Letitia James as partisan “retribution” for her civil case against Donald Trump. But his analysis crumbles under examination because he failed to review the actual evidence. Whether that failure is deliberate or merely negligent, the result is the same: a whitewash of a financial scandal built on paper trails, sworn declarations, and over $100,000 in quantifiable fraud.
Critical Omission #1: The “Principal Residence” Declaration Wasn’t Inadvertent
Honig dismisses James’s false declaration in a Virginia Power of Attorney as “inadvertent.” This reveals either stunning ignorance of the documents or deliberate mischaracterization.
On August 17, 2023, James signed this sworn statement:
“I HEREBY DECLARE that I intend to occupy this property as my principal residence.”
This wasn’t buried in fine print. It was the very Power of Attorney document her niece used to close on a federally backed mortgage requiring both borrowers to live in the property within 60 days and maintain residency for one year. Most remarkably, this false declaration was witnessed by two employees from James’s own Attorney General’s office: Jennifer Levy, the First Deputy Attorney General who played a key role in the Trump fraud case, and Sharona Parchment, another AG staff member. Both signed under penalty of perjury that they witnessed James make this declaration. James never did move to Virginia. She was in Manhattan daily launching her Trump fraud trial within weeks of signing.
Here’s what Honig missed: James’s own attorney provided the DOJ with an August 2, 2023 email where she explicitly stated “This property WILL NOT be my primary residence.”
That email, sent just 15 days before her sworn declaration, proves intent to deceive. A former federal prosecutor should recognize that as textbook evidence of fraudulent intent under 18 U.S.C. § 1014.
Critical Omission #2: The Financial Motive Honig Completely Ignored
Honig calls the evidence “mixed” and “decidedly less than compelling” because he never mentions the one thing prosecutors care about most: quantifiable financial gain.
In total, James received over $100,000 in improper financial advantages:
- Reduced interest rates: Avoided 0.625%–0.875% premium
- Down payment savings: Over $27,000 in cash
- Waived reserves: $7,000–$21,000 requirement avoided
- Price adjustments: Avoided LLPAs of $2,747–$5,495
This isn’t abstract harm—it’s cold, hard cash obtained through a sworn lie. Honig’s omission of this financial benefit either reflects incompetence or a deliberate effort to minimize the fraud’s severity. For a former prosecutor, neither excuse is acceptable.
Critical Omission #3: The Brooklyn Property Isn’t a “Glitch”—It’s a 20-Year Scheme
Honig breezes past what he doesn’t understand: James’s systematic misrepresentation of her Brooklyn property’s unit count. The official Certificate of Occupancy, issued two weeks before she bought the property in 2001, clearly states: FIVE-FAMILY DWELLING.
Yet James filed over a dozen mortgage applications, permit filings, and federal loan modifications classifying it as everything from a 4-family to a 1-2 family home. In 2011, she received a federally subsidized HAMP modification—a program explicitly restricted to properties with four units or fewer.
The evidence is overwhelming: six Con Edison meters, five doorbells confirmed by site visit, and no approved alteration permits to reduce the unit count. This isn’t a clerical error across two decades—it’s deliberate misrepresentation to access better loan terms.
Why a Former Prosecutor’s Ignorance Is Willful, Not Negligent
Elie Honig isn’t some cable news pundit talking outside his expertise. He’s a former federal and state prosecutor and a contributor to CAFE, a platform that bills itself as expert legal analysis. When someone with Honig’s background:
- Ignores sworn declarations and their timing
- Dismisses occupancy requirements and deadlines
- Overlooks 20 years of mortgage misrepresentations
- Pretends $100,000+ in financial benefit is insignificant
That’s not oversight. That’s willful blindness. Honig knows how mortgage fraud cases work. He understands what constitutes evidence of intent. He recognizes the significance of financial motive. His decision to ignore these elements while dismissing the investigation as “retribution” suggests he chose not to examine evidence that contradicted his predetermined narrative.
The Double Standard Problem
Honig gently chides James for using her AG office to respond to a federal criminal probe, calling it evidence of “dubious ethical instincts.” What he fails to emphasize is that this conduct is potentially illegal and could support additional charges.
James is using official spokespersons and state resources to defend against personal criminal exposure. That alone should disqualify her from public office and potentially constitutes obstruction. But for Honig, it’s just another paragraph in an analysis he couldn’t be bothered to research properly.
For a comprehensive review of all the evidence against James, see my complete investigative report documenting the full scope of her financial disclosure violations.
What This Means for Legal Commentary
When legal experts provide cover for documented misconduct by public officials, they undermine the very system they claim to serve. Honig’s superficial analysis—published on a platform that markets itself as authoritative legal commentary—gives readers false confidence that the James investigation lacks merit.
This matters beyond James herself. It reveals how elite media figures can shield powerful officials from accountability by simply refusing to examine inconvenient evidence. In an era where “expertise” carries tremendous weight, willful ignorance disguised as legal analysis poses a serious threat to public understanding.
Conclusion: The Evidence Speaks for Itself
Elie Honig didn’t examine the Power of Attorney. He didn’t calculate the financial benefits. He didn’t review the mortgage documents or building permits. He didn’t compare the timeline of declarations to actual occupancy. He just assumed—and dressed it up as prosecutorial wisdom.
This isn’t legal realism. It’s intellectual malpractice. The documents tell a clear story of systematic financial fraud spanning decades. That Honig chose not to read them says more about his analytical standards than about the strength of the case against James.
Letitia James built her career claiming no one is above the law. We’ll soon discover whether that principle applies when elite commentators decide the law shouldn’t reach their preferred defendants.
Coming Soon: My full roadmap for how the DOJ can build a civil and criminal case against Letitia James—backed by the very documents Elie Honig ignored.
Written by Sam Antar
© 2025 Sam Antar. All rights reserved.