The Anatomy of a Cover-Up: How MSNBC and Lawfare Whitewash Letitia James’s 20-Year Mortgage Fraud Pattern

A Line-by-Line Forensic Examination of Media Coordination

Within 24 hours, two major media outlets published articles defending New York Attorney General Letitia James against federal mortgage fraud allegations. Lawfare published yesterday a 2,000-word article by Molly Roberts claiming James was merely “helping her niece buy a starter home.” MSNBC reported today that federal prosecutor Elizabeth Yusi sees “no probable cause” to charge James—despite overwhelming documentary evidence.

Both outlets used identical talking points. Both presented James’s August 2 email as exculpatory evidence rather than proof of perjury. Both completely omitted her 20-year pattern of mortgage fraud in Brooklyn. Neither mentioned her federal HAMP fraud. Neither cited the legal precedent for prosecuting identical conduct.

Is this independent journalism reaching the same conclusions? Or parallel adoption of the same defense narrative without critical analysis?

Whether this represents active coordination between outlets or both independently adopting James’s legal team’s talking points, the effect is identical: sophisticated legal journalists simultaneously misrepresenting evidence and law in ways that protect a powerful official from prosecution for documented crimes.

For those unfamiliar with this case: Our investigation, along with Gateway Pundit’s Joel Gilbert’s investigation, compiled and publicly documented extensive evidence spanning more than 20 years from public records. This includes mortgage documents from New York City’s ACRIS system, NYC Department of Buildings records, HAMP modification agreements, and the recent Virginia Power of Attorney—all obtained from publicly accessible government databases and land records.

This documentation led to a criminal referral by William Pulte, Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. The evidence reveals a 20-year pattern that includes false statements on federal loan applications, defrauding the federal HAMP relief program, and perjury on documents filed in Virginia.

Critically: This evidence exists in public records that any journalist can access. Both Lawfare and MSNBC had access to the same documents our investigation compiled and published. They chose not to report them.

Let me show you exactly how this protective framing works, comparing both articles line by line.

Table of Contents

• The Documentary Proof Both Outlets Misrepresent
• The Seven Techniques of Parallel Deception
  • Technique #1: The Framing Lie
  • Technique #2: The Legal Lie
  • Technique #3: The Evidentiary Lie
  • Technique #4: Hiding the Brooklyn Fraud Pattern
  • Technique #5: The Federal HAMP Fraud
  • Technique #6: Ignoring Government Witnesses
  • Technique #7: The Precedent That Destroys Their Defense
• The Coordination Evidence
• The MSNBC Exclusive: Yusi’s “No Probable Cause” Claim
• The Hypocrisy Both Outlets Avoided
• The Bottom Line

---

THE DOCUMENTARY PROOF BOTH OUTLETS MISREPRESENT

Before analyzing how both outlets distort the evidence, let’s establish what the documents actually show.

The Timeline That Proves Everything:

August 2, 2023 – James emails her mortgage broker:
“This property WILL NOT be my primary residence. It will be Shamice’s primary residence.” (Click on any image to view it in a larger size)

August 3, 2023 – Broker confirms:
James’s role was listed as a “non-occupying co-borrower” and the loan was locked as a “primary residence” product for her niece.

At this point, every document accurately states James will NOT reside at the property and the loan had NOT yet been approved by the lender.

August 3-17, 2023 – Critical Processing Period:
The loan was processed through the automated underwriting system (AUS). The timing raises questions: Why did approval take two weeks? Was the August 3 application accepted, or did it fail automated underwriting requiring revision? If resubmitted, how many times? Records show the loan was finally approved on August 17—the same day James signed the false POA. This timing raises the question: was the false declaration necessary to secure approval?

THEN – The Deliberate False Declaration:

August 17, 2023 – James signs a Power of Attorney under penalty of perjury:
“I HEREBY DECLARE that I intend to occupy this property as my principal residence.”

Fifteen days. Two opposite sworn positions. One is true, one is perjury.

The Power of Attorney was filed with the mortgage at closing and included in the property records.

The Independent Investigation Both Outlets Ignore:

The timeline above isn’t based on sealed prosecutorial evidence. It’s compiled from publicly accessible records:

• Virginia land records: The August 17 Power of Attorney and August 30 Deed of Trust are filed in Virginia public records, accessible to anyone
• Email documentation: Obtained and published as part of our investigation
• Broker communications: Documented and made publicly available
• Brooklyn mortgage history: 10+ mortgage documents from NYC ACRIS (Automated City Register Information System), a free public database
• Certificate of Occupancy: NYC Department of Buildings official records
• HAMP documents: Federal modification agreements documenting the fraud

Our investigation didn’t rely on insider information or prosecutorial leaks. We compiled publicly available government records and published them. Both Lawfare and MSNBC could have accessed these same records. They chose not to examine them or report what they show.

The Government Witnesses Both Outlets Ignore:

Two government attorneys from James’s own office witnessed her sign the false declaration:

• Jennifer Levy – First Deputy Attorney General of New York
• Sharona Parchment – Attorney General’s Office legal staff

Both signed: “We declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.”

These aren’t random witnesses—they’re government lawyers who understand perjury. They watched their boss sign a document that her August 2 email proves was false.

---

THE SEVEN TECHNIQUES OF PARALLEL DECEPTION

Both Lawfare and MSNBC employ identical techniques to misrepresent this evidence. Here’s the side-by-side comparison:

---

TECHNIQUE #1: THE FRAMING LIE

Lawfare (Molly Roberts):

“New York Attorney General Letitia James may be next in the line of President Trump’s political enemies to be prosecuted by the Justice Department. The likely basis of the indictment, should it arrive? Helping her niece buy a starter home.”

MSNBC (Carol Leonnig and Ken Dilanian):

“career prosecutors…cannot prove she lied or intended to lie on a mortgage application for her niece’s home”

The Reality Both Outlets Hide:

James didn’t “help her niece.” On August 2, 2023, she wrote in an email: “This property WILL NOT be my primary residence.” Fifteen days later, on August 17, she signed a Power of Attorney under penalty of perjury declaring “I intend to occupy this property as my principal residence.” That’s perjury—a federal felony under 18 U.S.C. § 1014 punishable by up to 30 years in prison.

Both outlets frame this federal crime as family assistance in their opening paragraphs. That’s not journalism—it’s advocacy.

---

TECHNIQUE #2: THE LEGAL LIE – Deliberately Misstating Federal Law

Lawfare’s False Legal Claim:

“The false statement in the power of attorney, in other words, would have been unlikely to influence the bank’s decision to provide James the loan at the agreed-upon rate, and prosecutors would struggle to show that was her intent.”

MSNBC’s Parallel Misstatement:

“career prosecutors…cannot prove she lied or intended to lie”

What the Supreme Court Actually Says:

Both outlets misstate the legal standard. United States v. Wells, 519 U.S. 482 (1997) explicitly held that 18 U.S.C. § 1014 does NOT require:

• Proof the statement actually influenced anything
• Evidence of actual reliance by the lender
• Proof of financial loss
• The statement to be material to the loan

The Supreme Court’s exact words: “The phrase ‘for the purpose of influencing’ covers conduct intended to influence even if the influence is not achieved.” (519 U.S. at 491, n. 10)

The Court specifically held that materiality is NOT an element of the crime. The statute punishes the act of lying with intent to influence, not the success of that influence.

Roberts’s claim that the statement “would have been unlikely to influence the bank’s decision” is legally irrelevant under Wells. The Supreme Court explicitly rejected this defense—prosecutors don’t need to prove the bank was actually influenced or relied on the false statement. They only need to prove the false statement was made for the purpose of influencing.

This is precisely why Roberts’s argument is either incompetent or deliberately deceptive. She’s making an affirmative defense (“the bank wasn’t influenced”) that the Supreme Court ruled is not a valid defense to this charge.

Why This Statute Covers AnnieMac Home Mortgage:

The statute’s coverage is broad. While AnnieMac Home Mortgage itself may not be FDIC-insured, 18 U.S.C. § 1014 explicitly covers:

• Any institution “engaged in mortgage lending”
• Institutions dealing with federally-backed loans (FHA, VA, USDA)
• Loans subsequently sold to or guaranteed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
• Any institution with funds insured, guaranteed, or administered by federal agencies

AnnieMac originates FHA-insured loans, which means false statements on applications submitted to AnnieMac are statements intended to influence federally-backed lending decisions—squarely within the statute’s coverage.

Roberts is a Harvard Law graduate writing for a legal publication. Leonnig and Dilanian are covering a legal investigation. Roberts explicitly claims prosecutors must prove something the Supreme Court explicitly says they don’t need to prove. The other reporters echo this misrepresentation.

This is either gross incompetence or deliberate deception.

---

TECHNIQUE #3: THE EVIDENTIARY LIE – Inverting Proof of Guilt Into Proof of Innocence

This is the most damning parallel—both outlets invert the same evidence in the same way.

Lawfare’s Deceptive Framing:

“But if it was deliberate, there’s no explaining why, in emails with the mortgage loan broker, she made her actual intentions capital-letters clear: ‘This property will NOT be my primary residence.'”

MSNBC’s Identical Inversion:

“Lowell noted that a power-of-attorney form had mistakenly listed the house as a primary residence, but that James herself checked ‘no’ on the loan application when asked if the house was her primary home. In addition, according to Lowell, James also sent an email to her mortgage broker stating the house ‘WILL NOT be my primary residence.'”

The Legal Reality Both Outlets Invert:

The August 2 email doesn’t exonerate James—it convicts her. When a defendant makes contradictory statements about the same matter within a short time period, the jury may infer consciousness of guilt. United States v. Guadagna, 183 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 1999).

The sequence:

1. August 2: James documents the truth in writing
2. August 17: James signs a Power of Attorney declaring the opposite under penalty of perjury

This is powerful circumstantial evidence of intent. A prosecutor would present both documents to a jury and argue that James knew her sworn statement was false when she made it. The August 2 email is a written statement documenting her knowledge of the truth just 15 days before swearing to the opposite.

Both Roberts and the MSNBC reporters present evidence of premeditated perjury as evidence of innocence. This is not a mistake—both outlets are legal journalists who understand how contradictory statements establish intent.

---

TECHNIQUE #4: OMISSION LIE #1 – Hiding the 20-Year Brooklyn Fraud Pattern

What Lawfare Mentions:

Roberts acknowledges James owns property in Brooklyn. She mentions a dispute about unit count. She quotes James’s lawyer saying it “functioned as a four-person property.”

What MSNBC Mentions:

Nothing. Complete silence about Brooklyn.

What Both Outlets Deliberately Hide:

The 20-Year Criminal Pattern:

James owns 296 Lafayette Avenue, Brooklyn. Certificate of Occupancy #B3P0010437, issued January 26, 2001, classifies it as a legal 5-unit building. Physical verification confirms:

• 6 electric meters (5 units + 1 common area)
• 5 doorbells
• 5 mailboxes
• NYC Department of Buildings confirmation: “CO #B3P0010437 ON FILE FOR MULTIPLE DWELLING”

The Legal Reality Both Outlets Ignore:

Under New York City law, property owners cannot simply declare a different unit count. Changing a Certificate of Occupancy requires formal application to and approval by the Department of Buildings. No such application was ever submitted by James. The building remains legally classified as 5 units, regardless of how James chooses to describe it on mortgage applications. When she reports 4 units or less, she’s not expressing an opinion—she’s making a false statement about an official government classification.

In mortgage after mortgage, year after year, the property is consistently misrepresented—sometimes as a “four-family” dwelling, other times as a “one or two family” residence. But never once as the five-unit building it legally is:

• June 21, 2021: Citizens Bank – “Dwelling Only – 1 or 2 Family Residence”
• August 23, 2019: Citibank – “Dwelling Only – 4 Family”
• October 26, 2017: Wells Fargo – “Dwelling Only – 4 Family”
• January 26, 2015: Municipal Credit Union – “Dwelling Only – 4 Family”
• August 23, 2011: US Bank (HAMP) – “4 Fam.” (handwritten)
• May 25, 2007: American General – “Property Improved by a 1–2 Family Residence”
• October 26, 2006: American General – “Improved by 1–3 Family Dwelling”
• July 1, 2005: MERS – “Dwelling Only – 4 Family”
• August 29, 2003: MERS – “Premises Improved by 4 Family Dwelling”
• March 30, 2001: Chase Manhattan – “Premises Improved by One or Two Family”

Pattern: 10+ false statements across 20 years to different federal lenders, each obtaining better residential loan terms through fraud.

Source of Evidence: These aren’t secret documents. Every mortgage listed above is publicly accessible through NYC’s ACRIS system, which anyone can search online for free. Our investigation compiled these records from public databases and published them with links to the original sources. Both Lawfare and MSNBC had access to the exact same public records. They chose not to report this 20-year pattern.

Why Pattern Evidence Matters Even Outside the Statute of Limitations:

Some of these Brooklyn mortgages may be outside the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution. That’s legally irrelevant. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), prior acts are admissible to prove intent, knowledge, absence of mistake, and common scheme—even if those acts themselves cannot be prosecuted.

This 20-year pattern serves multiple prosecutorial purposes:

• Proves knowledge: Twenty years of mortgage applications proves James understands occupancy declarations and their significance
• Proves intent: The pattern shows the Virginia false declaration wasn’t an accidental checkbox error
• Negates mistake defense: Someone who has filled out dozens of mortgage applications over 20 years cannot credibly claim confusion
• Establishes modus operandi: The same method (underreporting units, falsifying occupancy) across multiple properties shows a common scheme

A prosecutor would tell the jury: “This isn’t her first mortgage. This isn’t her second. This is someone who has been doing this for 20 years, across multiple properties, with multiple lenders. She knows exactly what these forms mean and exactly what she’s doing when she fills them out.”

Both Lawfare and MSNBC’s omission of this pattern isn’t just hiding evidence—it’s hiding the evidence that destroys any innocent mistake defense.

Why Both Outlets Hide Brooklyn:

The Brooklyn property transforms this from an isolated incident into a pattern. One false POA might be an error. Twenty years of false statements across multiple lenders is systematic fraud. Lawfare minimizes it. MSNBC omits it entirely. Both outlets make the same editorial choice to hide the most damaging evidence.

---

TECHNIQUE #5: OMISSION LIE #2 – The Federal HAMP Fraud Neither Outlet Will Discuss

Lawfare:

No mention of HAMP. Not once.

MSNBC:

No mention of HAMP. Not once.

The Federal Crime Both Outlets Omit:

As exposed by Joel Gilbert, James obtained a federal HAMP (Home Affordable Modification Program) modification. HAMP was emergency relief for struggling homeowners after the 2008 financial crisis. It EXPLICITLY excluded buildings with 5+ units to prevent commercial landlords from accessing homeowner relief.

James got HAMP benefits by lying about her unit count. The modification documents show:

• Handwritten “4 fam” notation
• Contradictory language about “not more than 6 residential units”
• Approximately $2,000 monthly savings obtained through fraud

Neither Lawfare nor MSNBC mentions HAMP. This omission transforms the narrative: without HAMP, this appears to be mortgage paperwork disputes. With HAMP, this is defrauding a federal crisis relief program designed for struggling homeowners.

Both outlets made the identical editorial decision to omit federal program fraud.

---

TECHNIQUE #6: OMISSION LIE #3 – Ignoring Government Witnesses

Lawfare:

No mention of Jennifer Levy or Sharona Parchment witnessing the signing.

MSNBC:

No mention of Jennifer Levy or Sharona Parchment witnessing the signing.

Why This Matters:

These aren’t random witnesses—they’re government lawyers who understand perjury. They watched their boss sign a document that her August 2 email proves was false. They’re either witnesses to a federal crime or accomplices to it.

Any prosecutor would immediately use this leverage. Show them the August 2 email. Show them their signatures. Explain their exposure. Watch them cooperate.

Neither Roberts nor the MSNBC reporters think government attorneys witnessing their boss commit perjury is worth mentioning in articles about whether James committed crimes.

Identical omission. Identical editorial judgment.

---

TECHNIQUE #7: OMISSION LIE #4 – The Precedent That Destroys Their Defense

Lawfare’s Claim:

“It seems wholly unlikely that a prosecutor could reasonably expect to secure a conviction on any of the charges”

MSNBC’s Claim:

“career prosecutors…cannot prove she lied or intended to lie”

The Case Both Outlets Never Mention:

United States v. Muhammad, No. 17-30193 (9th Cir. 2018): The Department of Justice successfully prosecuted and convicted Felicia Muhammad for the EXACT same crime—false occupancy declarations on FHA loans.

Muhammad’s evidence included:

• Written Section 8 housing certifications proving she lived elsewhere
• Contradictory loan applications claiming primary residence
• Pattern across multiple properties

James’s evidence is even stronger:

• Written statement documenting knowledge (August 2 email: “WILL NOT be my primary residence”)
• False declaration 15 days later (“I intend to occupy as my principal residence”)
• Government witnesses who watched her sign
• 20-year pattern across Brooklyn property with federal HAMP fraud

If DOJ convicted Muhammad with contradictory written certifications, the James case with her own email proving she knew her sworn statement was false is exponentially stronger.

Neither Lawfare nor MSNBC mentions Muhammad because it destroys their entire thesis that prosecution is unlikely or unprecedented.

---

THE COORDINATION EVIDENCE: IDENTICAL TECHNIQUES ACROSS BOTH OUTLETS

Within 24 hours, two major outlets:

This pattern could result from active coordination between outlets, or from both independently adopting the defense narrative from James’s legal team without critical analysis. Either explanation reveals a systemic failure of journalism: legal journalists at major outlets simultaneously misrepresenting evidence, law, and precedent in ways that protect a powerful official from prosecution for documented crimes.

---

THE MSNBC EXCLUSIVE: YUSI’S “NO PROBABLE CAUSE” CLAIM

MSNBC’s reporting adds one unique element that Lawfare doesn’t address: a specific named prosecutor’s assessment.

“Elizabeth Yusi, who oversees major criminal prosecutions in the Norfolk office of the Eastern District of Virginia, has confided to co-workers that she sees no probable cause to believe James engaged in mortgage fraud, the two sources told MSNBC.”

What “No Probable Cause” Means

Probable cause is the threshold standard for bringing criminal charges. It requires “a reasonable ground for belief of guilt,” supported by “less than evidence which would justify conviction.” Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (1949).

This is the lowest standard in criminal law—lower than preponderance of evidence, and far lower than proof beyond reasonable doubt required for conviction. When a prosecutor claims “no probable cause,” she’s saying there isn’t even a reasonable ground to believe the crime occurred.

Prosecutors have discretion to decline cases even when probable cause exists—they may have resource constraints, other priorities, or concerns about meeting the higher burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt at trial. But claiming probable cause doesn’t exist is a factual determination about the evidence itself.

The Publicly Available Evidence vs. What MSNBC Reports

Our investigation documented extensive evidence from public records spanning over 20 years. This evidence exists independently of any prosecutorial investigation. MSNBC’s reporting inadvertently confirms a small portion of this evidence when quoting James’s attorney:

“Lowell noted that a power-of-attorney form had mistakenly listed the house as a primary residence, but that James herself checked ‘no’ on the loan application when asked if the house was her primary home. In addition, according to Lowell, James also sent an email to her mortgage broker stating the house ‘WILL NOT be my primary residence.'”

But MSNBC only reports what James’s lawyer admits. They ignore the far more extensive public record evidence our investigation compiled and published:

• Virginia Public Records:
  • August 17, 2023 Power of Attorney with false declaration (publicly filed)
  • August 30, 2023 Deed of Trust with witness signatures (publicly filed)
  • Government attorneys Levy and Parchment as witnesses (on public record)
• Documented Communications:
  • August 2, 2023 email: “WILL NOT be my primary residence” (obtained and published)
  • August 3, 2023 broker confirmation (obtained and published)
• Brooklyn Public Records (20 years):
  • 10+ mortgage documents from NYC ACRIS showing false unit counts
  • Certificate of Occupancy #B3P0010437 proving 5-unit classification
  • Physical verification: 6 electric meters, 5 doorbells, 5 mailboxes
• Federal Program Fraud:
  • 2011 HAMP modification documents with handwritten false unit count

This isn’t evidence that only prosecutors have. These are public records from government databases and land records that any journalist can access. Our investigation found them, compiled them, documented them, and published them with links to original sources. MSNBC chose to report only what James’s lawyer admits while ignoring two decades of documented public records.

Breaking down the timeline evidence:

• August 2, 2023: James writes “WILL NOT be my primary residence”
• August 17, 2023: James signs POA declaring “I intend to occupy this property as my principal residence”
• Timeline: 15 days between contradictory statements
• Witnesses: Jennifer Levy and Sharona Parchment (government attorneys) watched her sign
• Filing: POA was recorded with the mortgage in Virginia land records

For a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1014, probable cause exists when there is reasonable ground to believe:

1. A person made a false statement
2. To a federally insured or federally-backed financial institution
3. For the purpose of influencing its action

The public record evidence our investigation compiled and published establishes all three elements. MSNBC’s reporting acknowledges only a fraction of this evidence—specifically, the portions that James’s attorney admits to.

What the Law Doesn’t Require

Under United States v. Wells, 519 U.S. 482 (1997), prosecutors establishing probable cause for § 1014 do NOT need to show:

• That the statement actually influenced the bank’s decision
• That the bank relied on the false statement
• That the false statement was material to loan approval
• That anyone even read the false statement

The Supreme Court held: “The phrase ‘for the purpose of influencing’ covers conduct intended to influence even if the influence is not achieved.”

The crime is complete when the false statement is made for the purpose of influencing, regardless of whether it actually did.

Acknowledging the Counter-Arguments

Prosecutors may have legitimate concerns about proving intent beyond reasonable doubt at trial, or about the co-borrower distinction creating jury confusion—that James was borrowing for her niece’s primary residence rather than claiming the property as her own. These concerns relate to trial strategy and the difficulty of securing conviction, which requires proof beyond reasonable doubt.

But these trial concerns are different from whether probable cause exists to charge. The documented contradictory statements 15 days apart—one stating “WILL NOT be my primary residence” and another declaring “I intend to occupy as my principal residence”—meet the minimal threshold for prosecution, even if conviction presents challenges.

The Credibility of “No Probable Cause”

When documentary evidence shows:

• A sworn statement (“I intend to occupy as my principal residence”)
• A written statement 15 days earlier proving the defendant knew it was false (“WILL NOT be my primary residence”)
• The false statement filed with a federal mortgage
• Government witnesses to the signing
• A 20-year pattern of similar conduct

…claiming there’s no reasonable ground to believe a false statement was made strains credibility.

The question isn’t whether Yusi has the authority to decline. She does. The question is whether “no probable cause” accurately describes a case with written contradictory statements 15 days apart proving knowledge.

What Declining to Prosecute Actually Prevents

Yusi’s decision not to prosecute means no jury will ever evaluate the evidence. Whether James knowingly made a false statement—an element requiring proof of her state of mind—is ultimately a question of fact that would be decided by a jury at trial, not by a prosecutor during charging decisions.

Given the documentary evidence of contradictory sworn statements, a prosecutor’s refusal to file charges represents an extraordinary exercise of prosecutorial discretion that effectively shields the defendant from having a jury evaluate her knowledge and intent.

The Precedent Showing DOJ Prosecutes This Conduct

In United States v. Muhammad, No. 17-30193 (9th Cir. 2018), the Department of Justice successfully prosecuted Felicia Muhammad for false FHA occupancy declarations.

Muhammad’s evidence:

• Section 8 housing certifications showing she lived elsewhere
• Contradictory loan applications claiming primary residence
• Pattern across multiple properties
• Conviction upheld on appeal

James’s evidence is stronger:

• Written statement documenting knowledge (“WILL NOT be my primary residence”)
• False sworn statement 15 days later (“I intend to occupy as my principal residence”)
• Government witnesses who watched her sign
• 20-year pattern with federal HAMP fraud

If contradictory housing certifications established probable cause in Muhammad and secured a conviction, written contradictory statements 15 days apart meet that threshold here. The difference isn’t the evidence—it’s who the defendant is.

How MSNBC Inverts the August 2 Email

MSNBC presents Lowell’s defense as if it helps James. But examine the chronology they report:

• August 2: Email stating “WILL NOT be my primary residence”
• August 17: POA declaring “I intend to occupy as my principal residence”
• Later: Loan application checked “no” to primary residence

MSNBC wants readers to believe the accurate documents excuse the false POA. The opposite is true: when accurate documents come BEFORE the false sworn statement, they prove knowledge, not innocence.

Under United States v. Guadagna, 183 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 1999), contradictory statements about the same matter within a short time period can establish consciousness of guilt. The August 2 email isn’t exculpatory evidence—it’s proof James knew her August 17 declaration was false when she signed it.

A defendant who documents the truth, then swears to the opposite 15 days later, then returns to accurate statements, hasn’t made an innocent mistake. The false statement sits deliberately between accurate ones.

How MSNBC Frames Prosecutorial Declination

MSNBC transforms prosecutorial refusal into vindication:

“Trump has publicly called on the Justice Department to criminally prosecute James, despite the conclusion of career prosecutors that they cannot prove she lied or intended to lie on a mortgage application for her niece’s home”

This framing inverts reality. Prosecutors didn’t conclude they “cannot prove” it—MSNBC’s own reporting confirms they found the August 2 email, the contradictory POA, and government witnesses. The evidence exists and is documented in public records.

The question isn’t whether prosecutors “can prove” it beyond reasonable doubt at trial—that’s a judgment call prosecutors make using their discretion. The question is whether claiming “no probable cause” accurately describes the evidentiary foundation when documentary contradictions exist.

MSNBC presents Yusi’s decision as a legal determination that no crime occurred. It’s not. It’s one prosecutor’s decision not to charge, which prevents any jury from ever evaluating whether James knowingly made a false statement.

The Pattern of Sequential Declinations

This is the second prosecutor to decline despite having the same evidence:

• Erik Siebert: Investigated for 5 months with 15+ witnesses, resigned September 19 rather than prosecute
• Elizabeth Yusi: Claims “no probable cause” despite access to documentary evidence
• Lindsey Halligan: Installed by Trump afterward, immediately secured Comey indictment

When two prosecutors sequentially claim insufficient probable cause despite written contradictory statements proving knowledge, while a third prosecutor immediately secures indictments in politically charged cases, the pattern reveals selective enforcement rather than evidentiary problems.

The Parallel Framing Across Both Outlets

While Lawfare and MSNBC report different details—Lawfare focuses on legal arguments, MSNBC adds the Yusi claim—both outlets frame prosecutorial declination identically: as proof of James’s innocence rather than evidence of selective enforcement.

Lawfare’s framing:

“the Eastern District team didn’t find evidence they felt was sufficient to prove that James knowingly made a false statement intended to influence a bank”

MSNBC’s framing:

“despite the conclusion of career prosecutors that they cannot prove she lied or intended to lie”

Both outlets present “prosecutors won’t charge” as “prosecutors found insufficient evidence”—despite both articles confirming the documentary evidence exists. Neither asks how written contradictory statements 15 days apart fail to meet even the minimal probable cause threshold. Neither cites the Muhammad precedent showing DOJ successfully prosecutes identical conduct.

This is the parallel approach: not identical reporting of facts, but identical editorial framing that transforms prosecutorial refusal into exoneration.

---

THE HYPOCRISY BOTH OUTLETS CAREFULLY AVOIDED

What James Said on February 16, 2024:

After winning her $355 million judgment against Trump, James declared:

“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. There cannot be different rules for different people. No one is above the law.”

The Timeline Neither Outlet Connects:

• August 17, 2023: James commits perjury on Virginia mortgage
• October 2, 2023: James prosecutes Trump for property fraud
• February 16, 2024: James demands equal justice: “No one is above the law”

James was prosecuting Trump for allegedly inflating property values while she was actively engaged in mortgage fraud across multiple properties spanning more than two decades.

Neither Lawfare nor MSNBC finds this worth mentioning.

---

THE BOTTOM LINE: When Legal Journalism Becomes Defense Work

Within 24 hours, Lawfare and MSNBC published articles that:

• Misrepresent federal law (Wells)
• Invert evidence of guilt into evidence of innocence (August 2 email)
• Omit 20 years of systematic fraud (Brooklyn)
• Omit federal program fraud (HAMP)
• Omit government witnesses (Levy and Parchment)
• Omit controlling precedent (Muhammad)
• Fragment a clear 20-year pattern into isolated incidents

The seven techniques are identical. The omissions are identical. The evidence inversions are identical. The timing is identical.

Whether through active coordination or parallel adoption of defense narratives, the effect is the same: sophisticated legal journalists at major outlets simultaneously misrepresenting evidence, law, and precedent to protect a powerful official from prosecution for documented crimes.

Our investigation compiled over 20 years of publicly accessible evidence from government databases, land records, and federal program documents. We published this evidence with links to original sources. Lawfare and MSNBC had access to these same public records. They chose to ignore them, omit them, or actively misrepresent them while claiming to analyze whether James committed crimes.

James said “there cannot be different rules for different people.” These two articles exist to create exactly that—different rules for the powerful, enforced through serious editorial failures masquerading as legal analysis.

The documents are public. The timeline is undeniable. The law is clear. The precedent exists. The only question is whether our justice system truly believes that no one is above the law—or whether that principle only applies to those without protective media framing.

---

Follow @SamAntar on X for updates on this investigation

Written by Sam Antar | Forensic Accountant & Fraud Investigator

© 2025 Sam Antar. All rights reserved.