When America’s newspaper of record chooses narrative over evidence, someone has to set the record straight
The New York Times wants you to believe that the federal investigation into Attorney General Letitia James is nothing more than Donald Trump’s revenge fantasy made manifest. In a June 11 article by Jonah E. Bromwich—his second puff piece defending James from federal prosecution—”She Relishes Being Trump’s Nemesis. Now He Is Out for Revenge,” the Times constructs a familiar narrative: powerful man seeks retribution against woman who dared challenge him.
It’s a compelling story. It’s also demonstrably false.
What the Times won’t tell you—what they carefully omitted from their 2,400-word defense of James—is that federal prosecutors now possess documentary evidence of mortgage fraud so overwhelming that any competent prosecutor would be obligated to pursue it, regardless of who occupies the White House.
A Direct Message to the Department of Justice:
Don’t be swayed by press accounts. Read the evidence.
Letitia James is orchestrating a media campaign to escape federal prosecution. Today’s New York Times piece is part of a coordinated effort to paint her as a political victim rather than a federal criminal. Don’t let prestigious publications substitute narrative for evidence.
The FHFA criminal referral is based in large part on my independent investigative reporting grounded in irrefutable public records. I am a registered Democrat, and I have no affiliation with Donald Trump or his administration.
James has been committing mortgage fraud since 1982. Her media strategy is designed to convince you that prosecuting documented federal crimes would be political persecution. This is exactly how powerful criminals escape justice.
The evidence and the law are what matter: contradictory sworn statements under penalty of perjury, government employee witnesses, recorded court filings, and a 40+ year pattern of mortgage misrepresentations. This demands prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1014, regardless of media manipulation.
To U.S. Attorney Nominee Erik Siebert (Eastern District of Virginia):
Your nomination is pending, but this case cannot wait. A Virginia grand jury has already been convened based on mortgage fraud that occurred in your future jurisdiction. The evidence is documented, the witnesses are government employees, and the defendant is using media manipulation to escape accountability. Will you prosecute based on evidence or be deterred by friendly press coverage?
Make no mistake: I will hold you accountable if you let media pressure override documented evidence of federal crimes. The public is watching, and failure to prosecute this case will be exposed as a dereliction of duty.
Let me walk through the Times article and show you the evidence they chose not to print.
The Criminal Referral That Predates “Retribution”
THE TIMES SAYS: “The audience member was referring to allegations that have become the subject of a criminal investigation by Mr. Trump’s Justice Department, whose leaders have rewarded the president’s allies and targeted his foes.”
THE EVIDENCE SAYS: The Federal Housing Finance Agency criminal referral didn’t come from Trump’s DOJ. It came from Bill Pulte, who formally referred James to the Department of Justice on April 14, 2025.
Pulte’s referral drew heavily on evidence first published in my White Collar Fraud blog and by Joel Gilbert at Gateway Pundit—evidence grounded in irrefutable documentation from public records. The FHFA letter alleges James “falsified bank documents and property records to acquire government-backed assistance and loans and more favorable loan terms.”
The criminal referral is based on documented facts: contradictory sworn statements recorded in Virginia land records, government employee witnesses, and systematic mortgage misrepresentations spanning decades. These are not allegations or interpretations—they are verifiable facts drawn from official court filings, property records, and sworn documents.
The Sworn Declaration That Wasn’t Just a “Form”
THE TIMES SAYS: “While securing a loan for the Virginia house, Ms. James signed a form giving her niece power of attorney. On that form, she said that she would use the house as a principal residence, which she has not done, leading to the fraud allegations.”
THE EVIDENCE SAYS: That “form” wasn’t buried fine print. It was a sworn Specific Power of Attorney, filed in Virginia land records on August 17, 2023 (Instrument #230015686), in which James declared under penalty of perjury:
“I HEREBY DECLARE that I intend to occupy this property as my principal residence.”
But just 15 days earlier, on August 2, 2023, James had emailed her mortgage broker:
“This property WILL NOT be my primary residence… I WILL NEVER BE A VIRGINIA RESIDENT.”
This isn’t a discrepancy. It’s textbook mortgage fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1014—a federal crime punishable by up to 30 years in prison. The Times frames this as merely “attesting” when James used the formal declarative language “I HEREBY DECLARE” in capital letters—a sworn statement made under oath and recorded in official land records. The Power of Attorney was recorded in property records with the mortgage at closing.
The Mortgage Requirements Are Irrelevant to the Federal Crime
THE TIMES SAYS: “Her mortgage agreement did not require her to do so [occupy the home as a primary residence].”
THE EVIDENCE SAYS: This claim is irrelevant to the federal crime, but it’s also factually wrong. However, even if the Times were correct about mortgage requirements, James still committed federal mortgage fraud by signing a false sworn declaration.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 1014, the crime is complete when someone knowingly makes a false statement in connection with a federally-connected mortgage transaction. It doesn’t matter whether:
- The mortgage required occupancy
- The lender relied on the statement
- Anyone suffered damages
- The loan was approved or denied
What matters is that James signed a sworn Power of Attorney on August 17, 2023, declaring under penalty of perjury: “I HEREBY DECLARE that I intend to occupy this property as my principal residence”—knowing it was false because she had explicitly told her broker 15 days earlier: “I WILL NEVER BE A VIRGINIA RESIDENT.”
The crime was complete the moment she signed that false declaration. Everything else is just evidence of intent.
The Government Witnesses That Change Everything
THE TIMES IGNORES: The most damning aspect of this case—James’s false declaration was witnessed by two employees from her own Attorney General’s office under penalty of perjury.
THE EVIDENCE SHOWS: On August 17, 2023, when James signed her fraudulent Power of Attorney declaring she would occupy the Virginia property as her “principal residence,” two senior government attorneys put their own legal reputations on the line as witnesses:
- Jennifer Levy – James’s First Deputy Attorney General and lead attorney in the Trump civil fraud case
- Sharona Parchment – Another staff member from the AG’s office
Both women signed under penalty of perjury that they witnessed James execute this document containing the false occupancy declaration—just 15 days after James had explicitly told her mortgage broker in writing: “I WILL NEVER BE A VIRGINIA RESIDENT.”
Think about the implications: New York’s top prosecutors watched their boss sign a document declaring she would live in Virginia as her primary residence, knowing she had just stated the opposite in writing. They put their signatures and legal reputations on that document.
The timing is particularly damning: James was required to establish Virginia residency by October 30, 2023—60 days after mortgage execution. But on October 2, she was in Manhattan launching her civil fraud trial against Trump. Public records confirm she remained in New York throughout the fall, making her sworn declaration false from the moment she signed it.
This wasn’t casual paperwork. This was a formal legal proceeding with senior government attorneys as witnesses. Any claim of “mistake” or “misunderstanding” becomes absurd when two fellow legal professionals witnessed the deliberate execution of contradictory sworn statements.
If called to testify, Levy and Parchment would have to explain their role in witnessing what federal prosecutors would characterize as mortgage fraud. Their presence as witnesses doesn’t just corroborate the false statement—it emphasizes the calculated, deliberate nature of James’s conduct.
Federal Investigations Already Underway
While the Times portrays this as a potential future investigation, federal law enforcement is already moving. Multiple sources confirm that:
- A federal grand jury has been convened in Virginia to investigate James’s mortgage fraud
- The FBI has opened an investigation in the Northern District of New York examining her broader pattern of financial misrepresentations
- U.S. Attorney nominee Erik Siebert for the Eastern District of Virginia will inherit a case with overwhelming evidence and government employee witnesses
This isn’t about potential future action—it’s about ongoing federal criminal investigations with documented evidence that spans multiple jurisdictions. The Times’ “retribution” narrative crumbles when faced with the reality that federal prosecutors and grand juries are already examining evidence that predates any political considerations.
For Siebert, this case represents an immediate test of prosecutorial independence. The evidence is documented, the legal precedent is established, and the defendant is a sitting state official who committed federal crimes in Virginia. His response will define whether equal justice under law applies to powerful officials who use media manipulation to escape accountability.
The Defense That Proves the Crime
THE TIMES SAYS: “Mr. Lowell sent the U.S. attorney general, Pam Bondi, documents showing that Ms. James had expressly told the mortgage broker that she would not use the property as a primary residence.”
THE EVIDENCE SAYS: This is perhaps the most damning admission of all. James’s own defense attorney sent DOJ evidence confirming that she knew the sworn declaration was false when she signed it. The fact that the Times presents this as exonerating evidence shows how thoroughly they’ve abandoned objective reporting.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 1014, knowingly making a false sworn statement in a federally-connected transaction is a crime regardless of:
- Whether the lender relied on the statement
- Whether it caused financial damages
- Whether the loan would have been approved anyway
- Whether other truthful statements were made elsewhere
The law criminalizes the act of making the false statement, not its consequences. Courts have repeatedly upheld convictions under § 1014 where the false statement was capable of influencing a decision, regardless of actual reliance or outcome.
Her lawyer essentially provided prosecutors with evidence of intent to commit fraud—proof that James knew the declaration was false when she signed it under penalty of perjury.
The Pattern of Misrepresentation They Won’t Acknowledge
THE TIMES SAYS: “Although a January 2001 certificate of occupancy said that the house had five units, Ms. James has consistently said that it has four.”
THE EVIDENCE SAYS: James hasn’t “consistently” said anything—she’s said everything. Over two decades of mortgage filings, she’s described her Brooklyn property as a “1–2 family,” “1–3 family,” “4 family,” but never once as the “5 family” dwelling it legally is according to its Certificate of Occupancy dated January 26, 2001.
But this pattern goes back even further. In 1982, James purchased a property in Queens with her father, beginning what appears to be a decades-long methodology of mortgage misrepresentations. This establishes that her Virginia fraud isn’t an isolated incident or recent misconduct—it’s the continuation of a systematic approach to obtaining favorable loan terms through false statements that spans over 40 years.
Con Edison utility records show six electric meters, including one for a basement apartment. A site visit by Joel Gilbert and I confirmed 5 doorbells, 1 for each apartment. This isn’t confusion about complex property classifications—it’s systematic misrepresentation to obtain better loan terms spanning over 20 years.
The Public Record They Claim Doesn’t Exist
THE TIMES SAYS: “Little has emerged to guide public understanding of the inquiry.”
THE EVIDENCE SAYS: This is only true if you ignore every public filing, every mortgage document, and every sworn financial disclosure James submitted under penalty of perjury. The documentary evidence is overwhelming:
- Contradictory sworn statements witnessed by government employees and recorded in official land records
- Multiple undisclosed mortgages on Virginia properties in her 2024 financial disclosure, filed while under federal investigation
- False unit count representations across multiple mortgage applications spanning decades
- Systematic pattern of disclosure violations from 2013 through 2024
- Quantified benefits exceeding $100,000 through fraudulent representations
All of this is already public. What’s missing is equal enforcement of federal law.
The Taxpayer-Funded Defense Strategy
THE TIMES SAYS: “She has also hired several new employees with experience handling congressional inquiries. And she is benefiting from a $10 million appropriation in New York’s recently passed budget that provides money for private defense counsel for those targeted by the United States government.”
THE EVIDENCE SAYS: Let’s recap what we’re defending with taxpayer funds: Letitia James made contradictory sworn statements under oath. Her own lawyer confirmed one was false. She misrepresented her property’s legal classification on multiple federal mortgage applications spanning decades. She lied on financial disclosures to New York State from 2019 to 2024. And now she’s using public money to avoid accountability for apparent federal crimes.
The optics are staggering: a sitting Attorney General using taxpayer funds to defend against credible allegations of the same type of conduct she’s prosecuted others for committing.
The Hypocrisy That Defines This Case
The Times buried the most damning aspect of this investigation: James prosecuted Donald Trump for conduct remarkably similar to her own.
In securing a $355 million judgment against Trump, James declared: “The scale and scope of Donald Trump’s fraud is staggering. For years, he falsely inflated his net worth to enrich himself and cheat the system.”
Replace “net worth” with “occupancy status” and “enrich himself” with “secure favorable loan terms,” and James has perfectly described her own conduct. She built her career prosecuting financial misrepresentations while simultaneously engaging in systematic financial misrepresentations herself.
This isn’t about politics. It’s about whether the law applies equally to those who enforce it.
The Legal Precedent and Pattern Evidence the Times Won’t Mention
The Times suggests this investigation lacks precedent. In United States v. Muhammad (9th Cir. 2019), federal prosecutors secured a conviction for identical conduct: false sworn statements about property occupancy in federally-connected mortgage transactions. The evidence in that case was weaker than what prosecutors now have against James.
James’s case is dramatically stronger than Muhammad:
- Written confession of intent: Muhammad relied on circumstantial evidence. James provided direct documentary proof with her August 2 email: “I WILL NEVER BE A VIRGINIA RESIDENT.”
- Government employee witnesses: Two New York Attorney General employees witnessed James’s false declaration, adding federal interest in prosecuting government misconduct.
- Higher office and trust: James holds the state’s highest law enforcement position, creating heightened public trust obligations.
- Multiple documented contradictions: James made opposing sworn statements within a documented 15-day period, showing deliberate rather than inadvertent conduct.
The Department of Justice has established clear precedent: false occupancy declarations in government-backed loans constitute federal crimes, regardless of property values, political affiliations, or prestigious newspaper coverage.
Moreover, this appears to be part of a 40+ year pattern that began in 1982 when James purchased a Queens property with her father using similar misrepresentation tactics. This early transaction established a methodology she has consistently employed throughout her adult life: systematically misrepresenting property details on mortgage documents to secure better lending terms.
From the 1982 Queens purchase through her recent Virginia fraud, James has demonstrated a calculated approach to mortgage applications that treats false statements as standard operating procedure. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), this extensive pattern evidence would likely be admissible to prove “intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, or absence of mistake or accident.”
The career-spanning nature of this conduct transforms the Virginia case from an isolated incident into the latest example of systematic mortgage fraud by someone who has spent decades perfecting these techniques while simultaneously rising to become the state’s top law enforcement officer.
When Watchdogs Become Guard Dogs
The Times’ coverage represents something more troubling than biased reporting—it’s active interference in legitimate law enforcement.
Rather than investigating documented evidence of potential federal crimes, the Times chose to attack the investigation itself. Rather than examining the contradictory sworn statements, they focused on defending the official who made them. Rather than asking why a sitting Attorney General’s financial disclosures contain systematic omissions, they dismissed the questions as politically motivated.
This is precisely how powerful officials escape accountability: by convincing prestigious publications to serve as their defenders rather than the public’s watchdogs.
The April Context Shows a Pattern of Times Misrepresentation
What makes Bromwich’s latest defense of James even more problematic is his earlier coverage. His April 16, 2025 article, “Trump Official Scrutinizes N.Y.’s Attorney General Over Real Estate,” acknowledged the FHFA referral but systematically misrepresented the underlying evidence.
In his April piece, Bromwich claimed James’s mortgage “did not require her to occupy the property as a primary residence”—a statement directly contradicted by the recorded Deed of Trust. He consistently minimized her sworn declaration as merely “attesting” rather than acknowledging it was a formal statement made under penalty of perjury.
This consistent pattern of misrepresentation by Bromwich across both articles reveals a dedicated effort to shield James from legitimate scrutiny rather than inform the public about documented evidence of potential federal crimes.
The Bottom Line: She’s Not Being Targeted. She’s Being Caught.
Letitia James built her brand by prosecuting Trump for allegedly exaggerating real estate values. The Times celebrated that case as crucial law enforcement.
Now she’s under investigation for false real estate declarations, falsified mortgage filings, and sworn lies on the public record. And suddenly, the Times calls it revenge.
The truth is simpler: she broke the rules she once enforced. The evidence is documented in official records that predate any political motivation. The criminal referral came from federal housing regulators responding to documented evidence first published through independent investigative journalism.
If we care about equal justice under law, she should be held to the same standard as anyone else. The documents don’t lie. The sworn statements don’t change based on political affiliation. And federal crimes don’t become legal because prestigious newspapers choose not to report them accurately.
Letitia James isn’t being targeted by Donald Trump’s revenge campaign. She’s being caught by her own contradictory sworn statements, witnessed by government employees, documented in federal records, and referred for prosecution by federal housing regulators who don’t answer to any political party.
The New York Times had 2,400 words to make their case for political persecution. They couldn’t cite a single legal precedent supporting that conclusion. They couldn’t identify a single factual error in the evidence against James. They couldn’t explain why identical conduct resulted in federal convictions when committed by less politically connected defendants.
What they could do—and did—was construct a narrative designed to obscure rather than illuminate, to defend rather than investigate, to serve power rather than truth.
The evidence against Letitia James would justify federal prosecution in any administration, under any circumstances, regardless of political considerations. What remains to be seen is whether the Department of Justice will pursue equal justice under law—or whether the New York Times’ preferred narrative will provide sufficient political cover for a sitting Attorney General to escape accountability for apparent federal crimes.
🔗 This investigation continues my ongoing series: The Letitia James Mortgage Investigation
📧 For daily updates, follow @SamAntar on Twitter
The documents speak for themselves. James’s lies speak volumes.
Written by,
Sam Antar
© 2025 Sam Antar. All rights reserved.