Letitia James Prosecution: How the New York Times Missed the Biggest DOJ Scandal in Modern History

Glenn Thrush and Alan Feuer wrote a ‘Trump fails’ story. The facts they reported tell a story they missed—deliberate sabotage at the highest levels of DOJ.

---

On December 12, 2025, Glenn Thrush and Alan Feuer of the New York Times published what they thought was a victory lap about the failed prosecution of New York Attorney General Letitia James. Instead, they missed what may be the biggest scandal in modern DOJ history: senior Justice Department officials deliberately sabotaging a federal prosecution to ensure a political figure would never face trial on overwhelming documentary evidence of fraud—whether out of loyalty, fear, or institutional cowardice.

But James’s fraud isn’t the story anymore. The story is what DOJ did to make sure she’d never face trial for it.

Buried in paragraph 12, Thrush and Feuer wrote:

“There is also a sense inside the department, less openly articulated than tacitly understood, that the system provides a pressure valve for marginal cases — allowing prosecutors to prove they made a good-faith effort to execute the president’s orders, regardless of the outcome.“

Prosecutors deliberately losing cases. “Good-faith effort” theater. The Times treated this as normal.

Translation: They’re admitting to throwing cases to save face. They claim they’re bringing weak cases to please the boss, when in reality they’re tanking strong cases to protect the target and cover their institutional cowardice.

It’s not normal. It’s obstruction of justice. And the James case proves it.

---

What This Article Documents

➤ Click any item to jump to the detailed evidence:

The Evidence — 40 years of fraud across four properties

The Sabotage — How DOJ killed the case from inside

The Response — Why they’re investigating the investigators

The Subpoena — The document that contradicts Bondi

The Bigger Crime — What it all adds up to

The Documents Don’t Disappear — Why this isn’t over

---

The Evidence

Here’s what Glenn Thrush and Alan Feuer didn’t tell you. (Readers already familiar with the case can skip to the sabotage.)

What I Found

February 8, 2025: I published my first investigation into Letitia James’s financial disclosures. Using nothing but public records—property deeds from NYC ACRIS, Norfolk County land records, New York State financial disclosure statements—I found something that should have triggered immediate scrutiny.

James’s 2023 Financial Disclosure Statement listed her Peronne Avenue property in Norfolk, Virginia:

• Property value: $100,000-$150,000
• Freedom Mortgage: $150,000-$250,000
• National Mortgage: $100,000-$150,000
• Total disclosed debt: $250,000-$400,000

That’s a loan-to-value ratio of 167% to 400%. No legitimate lender provides financing exceeding 250% of a property’s value. This is mathematically impossible under standard lending practices.

So I did what any forensic accountant would do: I ordered an independent title search.

February 13, 2025: I published the title search results. They were devastating:

• Freedom Mortgage: Does not exist in property records
• National Mortgage: Does not exist in property records
• OVM Financial mortgage ($109,600): Exists, recorded August 17, 2020—but was never disclosed on any financial disclosure statement

James was reporting phantom mortgages that don’t exist in property records while hiding the real mortgage that does. If these mortgages existed, who would lend money exceeding the property’s value without recording a lien? Five consecutive years of false statements filed electronically under penalty of perjury.

How the Pattern Emerged

The Peronne Avenue findings were just the beginning. Over the next two months, I published a series of investigations—each one exposing additional fraud across different properties, different decades, different victims:

March 3, 2025: I published “Exposing a Decade of Letitia James’ Financial Misreporting” covering both Brooklyn and Peronne Avenue properties—documenting a pattern spanning two states.

March 18, 2025: Gateway Pundit’s Joel Gilbert independently published “Big Development: Is Letitia James Guilty of Mortgage Fraud?” investigating the Brooklyn property, documenting the 4 vs 5 units issue on the federal HAMP loan. The same day, I published “Exposed: Letitia James’ Handwritten Mortgage Modifications Raise Fraud Questions.” We were working independently, both following public records to the same conclusions.

April 1, 2025: I published “EXCLUSIVE: NY Attorney General Letitia James Declares Virginia Home Her ‘Principal Residence’” documenting Sterling Street—where James emailed “WILL NOT be my primary residence” on August 2, then signed a sworn declaration fifteen days later claiming it would be.

April 14, 2025: FHFA Director William Pulte issued a criminal referral to DOJ citing my published investigations and Joel Gilbert’s as part of the factual basis. He referred Queens, Brooklyn, and Sterling Street.

May-September 2025: FBI investigation with subpoena power—bank records, emails, witness interviews, internal lender documents. Everything I found in public records, plus everything federal investigators could compel.

October 9, 2025: Prosecutors indicted James for Peronne Avenue—a property I documented but Pulte never referred. He chose to refer Sterling Street, Brooklyn, and Queens. Prosecutors made independent charging decisions based on their own assessment of the evidence.

The investigation originated from independent forensic analysis of public records—published before any federal involvement. The FBI confirmed it. The grand jury indicted on all counts.

The 40-year pattern: Queens (1983), Brooklyn (2001-2021), Peronne Avenue (2020), Sterling Street (2023). Four properties. Four decades. Exposed through public records anyone can verify.

The Consciousness of Guilt Trifecta

After the FHFA referral, the FBI used my work as a roadmap. With subpoena power, they found what I couldn’t access—and it formed the basis of the October 9, 2025 indictment and the government’s opposition to James’s attorney Abbe Lowell’s motion to dismiss:

First: The Four Contradictory Sworn Statements

The OVM Financial mortgage was structured as a “second home” loan—meaning James signed documents swearing she would occupy the property for personal use. That’s how she got the lower interest rate.

But she didn’t stop there. She told four different institutions four different stories about the same property:

She can’t have told all four the truth. At least three are federal crimes. Mathematical certainty.

Second: The “Looks Suspicious” Text

In 2024, James texted her accountant about the property: “I do not want to take deduction. It looks suspicious.” The government’s opposition brief cited this text as evidence of consciousness of guilt.

She knew. She said so in writing.

But here’s what makes it worse: even after that text—after admitting in writing that claiming the deduction “looks suspicious”—she still listed the property as an investment on her 2024 Financial Disclosure Statement filed in May 2025.

That’s consciousness of guilt followed by continued fraud.

Third: The Lender Fraud Report

On May 14, 2025, Nationstar Mortgage filed a mandatory Lender Self-Report with Fannie Mae. This wasn’t my finding—this was the FBI’s investigation, using federal subpoena power, following the trail I had documented.

The classification on the official regulatory filing:

“Category: FRAUD | Origination Fraud | Occupancy Fraud – Second Home”

Under “Individual believed to be involved”: Letitia James.

This isn’t an allegation. This is a formal regulatory filing where the mortgage servicer officially reports fraud to Fannie Mae.

James’s attorney Abbe Lowell attached this report as Exhibit F to his November 17 motion to dismiss—the motion claiming “insufficient evidence.” His own exhibit named his client as the individual believed to be involved in fraud. As I documented in “Letitia James’s Motion to Dismiss Backfires,” Lowell’s exhibits implicated his client even more.

The FBI confirmed it. The grand jury indicted on all counts. No superseding indictments covering the full 40-year pattern ever came.

The “Pressure Valve” — And the Receipts

Return to that Times quote—because the receipts tell a different story than the framing.

On December 12, 2025, Glenn Thrush and Alan Feuer published their analysis: “In Trump’s Justice Dept., Failing in Court Might Be Better Than Bucking the Boss.”

The opening line: “Revenge, it turns out, is a dish best served with evidence.”

That’s not journalism. That’s a victory lap. And it tells you everything about how the Times framed this story—as Trump’s failed revenge, not as a documented fraud case that was deliberately tanked.

But look at what they actually admitted:

“They are becoming more common, and accepted, in a department where face-planting in court might be preferable to facing down the boss.”

And buried in paragraph 12, the confession:

“But there is also a sense inside the department, less openly articulated than tacitly understood, that the system provides a pressure valve for marginal cases — allowing prosecutors to prove they made a good-faith effort to execute the president’s orders, regardless of the outcome.“

A “pressure valve.” Prosecutors deliberately losing cases. “Good-faith effort” theater. The Times treated this as normal bureaucratic adaptation—anonymous sources explaining how the system works.

But the James case wasn’t “marginal.” The evidence was overwhelming. The only thing marginal was the commitment to prosecuting it.

And those anonymous sources? They were committing federal crimes by leaking this information. The Times normalized it instead of exposing it. Look at their sourcing:

“Two people with knowledge of the situation said the White House was still pushing to indict Ms. James, and that Justice Department officials were considering other options to fulfill Mr. Trump’s demands. The people requested anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss internal deliberations.“

They weren’t authorized. They did it anyway. That’s not whistleblowing—that’s sabotage with a press pass.

The Sabotage Timeline

February–June 2025: I published investigation after investigation documenting James’s fraud—phantom mortgages, contradictory sworn statements, mathematical impossibilities in public records. Joel Gilbert independently confirmed the Brooklyn fraud. In April, FHFA issued a criminal referral.

May–September 2025: The FBI conducted a five-month investigation with subpoena power—interviewing witnesses, subpoenaing bank records, gathering what would become 115,000 pages of evidence.

During those four months, nine major newsrooms published nothing of substance. No investigative reports. No document analysis. No examination of the records I’d been documenting since February. Reuters, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC—silence.

They weren’t investigating. They were waiting. The phone calls were coming.

September 17–19: The phones rang. ABC, CNN, Reuters, Washington Post, and the New York Times publish coordinated “insufficient evidence” leaks. Someone inside DOJ is declaring the case dead before any charges are filed.

September 19: Erik Siebert resigns as U.S. Attorney—the same day the leaks flood the zone. He had overseen five months of FBI investigation and concluded “insufficient evidence.”

September 20: Lindsey Halligan appointed as interim U.S. Attorney.

October 6: MSNBC reports that Elizabeth Yusi, who oversees major criminal prosecutions in Norfolk, “has confided to co-workers that she sees no probable cause.” Someone leaked a prosecutor’s private workplace conversations.

October 9: Halligan presents to grand jury. Indictment on all counts. The leaks were wrong.

October 17: ABC reports Yusi and Ryan Bird have been fired. The prosecutors who resisted are gone.

The pattern: Siebert declared “insufficient evidence” and leaked it. Yusi declared “no probable cause” and leaked it. Halligan ignored them both, presented the evidence, and got an indictment. The “career prosecutors” weren’t evaluating the case—they were sandbagging it.

I documented the full pipeline: DOJ Insiders → Reporters → Headlines → Defense Motions → Amicus Briefs → Congressional Letters → Federal Judge’s Ruling. Forty-seven illegal leaks. Nine newsrooms. One coordinated operation.

The leaks became the evidence. The crimes became the citations.

How Criminal Leaks Became Legal “Evidence”

The September leaks weren’t just spin. They were felonies.

ABC News (September 17) got a pipeline into the grand jury room:

“Since federal prosecutors began looking into James’ Virginia property, they have interviewed or presented to the grand jury 15 witnesses, including insurers, loan officers, underwriters, realtors, and James’ niece.”

“A loan underwriter interviewed by investigators said that, in the process of approving the loan, she never looked at or considered the power of attorney document that incorrectly listed the home as James’ primary residence, according to sources.”

Grand jury witness counts. Specific witness testimony. This is Rule 6(e) material—felony disclosure. Reuters’ sources explicitly acknowledged they were breaking the law: “speaking on condition of anonymity in order to discuss non-public investigations.”

Then the leaks migrated to court.

November 7: Lowell’s motion to dismiss cited those same September articles—his footnotes linked directly to them. The same day, the first amicus brief was filed. Four more followed over eight days, all citing newspaper articles as “evidence.” Congressman Garcia’s letter did the same.

November 24: Judge Currie’s ruling:

“According to news reports, Mr. Siebert had recently expressed concerns to senior Department of Justice officials about the viability of pursuing charges.”

A federal judge cited “news reports” for what a U.S. Attorney privately told leadership. Those reports came from sources who broke federal law. The illegal leaks became footnotes in a judge’s ruling.

The Lowell Standard

The irony is devastating. Lowell’s November 17 motion dismissed my evidence as “uncorroborated findings of an internet investigator“—property records from county clerks, ACRIS filings accessible to anyone, financial disclosures on government websites, mathematical impossibilities anyone can verify.

But in that same motion, Lowell cited as authoritative: ABC News citing “sources familiar with the matter.” CNN citing “a source familiar with the matter.” Washington Post citing anonymous officials.

Public records anyone can verify = “uncorroborated.” Anonymous sources committing federal crimes = credible enough for federal court. That’s the Lowell Standard.

What Siebert Ignored

The “insufficient evidence” narrative depends on accepting that Erik Siebert properly evaluated the case. So what did he actually have?

Forty years of documentary evidence across four properties. A five-month FBI investigation with subpoena power. Bank records, emails, witness interviews, phone records. Everything I found in public records, plus everything federal investigators could compel.

How much evidence? James’s own lawyers accidentally revealed the answer. On November 14—the same day Schumer and Jeffries filed their “insufficient evidence” brief—her lawyers filed a motion requesting more time:

“The government has produced a significant amount of electronic discovery to the defense, spanning five production volumes containing, in total, more than 17,000 documents and 115,000 pages.”

The Times called it “too weak to present.” The defense needed two weeks just to read it.

Siebert looked at 40 years of documented fraud, 115,000 pages of evidence, and concluded “insufficient.” The “inexperienced” prosecutor saw what the “experienced” prosecutor chose to ignore. Experience without courage is just credentialed cowardice.

Thrush and Feuer buried this admission in paragraph 18:

“Mr. Trump forced him out, and hastily replaced him with Ms. Halligan, a former insurance lawyer with no prosecutorial experience. She quickly obtained indictments against Ms. James and Mr. Comey.”

“She quickly obtained indictments.” The “career prosecutors” who thought it was “too weak” never tested the evidence. The inexperienced prosecutor did—and won.

The Keller Setup

Thrush and Feuer wrote:

“Some of those pressing for Ms. James’s prosecution blamed the failure to secure an indictment on resistance from career prosecutors.”

There’s another word for deliberately undermining a federal prosecution: obstruction.

CBS News reported on October 17 that career prosecutors who opposed the charges were fired: “The Trump administration fired two federal prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia who voiced opposition to the criminal case against New York Attorney General Letitia James… Kristin Bird and Elizabeth Yusi were terminated Friday from their posts.”

DOJ flew in Roger Keller from Missouri because no local prosecutor would touch it. Look at what happened next:

October 9: Halligan presents to grand jury. Indictment on all counts. Same day, ABC leaks that Bondi and Blanche were “caught off guard.”

October 25: At arraignment, Keller tells the judge he’s “going through the discovery right now.”

November 24: Judge Currie dismisses on Appointments Clause—not evidence.

December 4: Keller presents to Norfolk grand jury. One week after Thanksgiving. Grand jury convenes at 9 AM, adjourns by lunch. No indictment.

December 11: Keller presents to Alexandria grand jury. Seven days later. No indictment.

Two presentations in seven days. A civil lawyer who—six weeks earlier—admitted he was still reading the evidence.

Halligan got an indictment. Keller got two rejections. The question isn’t whether the evidence was weak. The question is whether Keller was set up to fail.

The Media’s Double Standard

The framing tells the story. Here’s how the same outlets covered two prosecutors with opposite results:

On Lindsey Halligan (who got an indictment on all counts):

• New York Times (October 24): “an inexperienced prosecutor hastily installed by Mr. Trump”
• Lawfare (October 20): “his former personal attorney, who until now had never prosecuted a case”
• Reuters (December 11): “Halligan has never served as a prosecutor. Her questionnaire shows that only 3% of her career has involved practicing law in federal court and only 1% of her time was spent on criminal matters.”
• New York Times (December 13): “former insurance lawyer with no prosecutorial experience”

On Roger Keller (who failed twice):

• New York Times (October 24): “a Missouri prosecutor”
• The Guardian (December 11): “A career attorney brought in from Missouri”

What they didn’t report: Keller’s last criminal case was in 2011. He’d spent 14 years handling civil litigation—postal truck accidents and slip-and-fall suits. Reuters’ Sarah Lynch knew this. On December 11—the same day Keller failed for the second time—she admitted it on Twitter in a reply to me:

“For what it’s worth, the ‘career’ prosecutor is an AUSA who mostly handles civil cases, not criminal ones. The last criminal case I saw that he touched in a federal docket was 2011.”

Lynch knew Keller’s background from the start. On October 24—before either grand jury presentation—she buried one sentence in a Reuters article mentioning an unnamed “attorney who normally handles civil litigation.” She never repeated it. When Keller failed on December 4 and again on December 11, she never mentioned his civil background. Then she admitted the truth on Twitter—but still never put it in her reporting.

Compare: Lynch reported Halligan’s criminal experience to the percentage point and repeated it in multiple articles. She knew Keller hadn’t touched a criminal case since 2011 and mentioned it exactly once, without his name, then dropped it.

The “inexperienced” prosecutor succeeded. The “veteran” failed. The media’s framing was the fraud.

How the Times Framed Me

Thrush and Feuer did quote me in their December 12 article:

“Two grand juries didn’t ‘reject the evidence,'” wrote Sam Antar, a felon-turned-activist who has been among Ms. James’s most vocal critics. “They heard a presentation from the same career prosecutor who never wanted to bring the case in the first place. If you want a non-indictment, you present a non-case.”

Note the framing: “a felon-turned-activist.” Not “forensic accountant.” Not “fraud investigator who has trained the FBI, SEC, IRS, and DOJ for 30 years.” Not “the person whose public records investigation led to a federal indictment on all counts.”

They positioned me as a partisan critic—”among Ms. James’s most vocal critics”—rather than as someone who found four contradictory sworn statements in public records.

And immediately after quoting me, they pivoted back to anonymous sources:

“Nonetheless, career prosecutors and Trump-appointed department officials who reviewed the evidence thought the case was far too weak to present to a grand jury.”

“Trump-appointed department officials.” That’s not Siebert in Norfolk. That’s Main Justice. Bondi and Blanche—the same people six leaks would later position as “reasonable skeptics” who were “never thrilled” with the case. The same people who were “caught off guard” when Halligan got an indictment anyway.

The contrast tells the story. I’m on the record, verifiable, with 40 years of documentary evidence. I’ve offered to testify under oath. They called me “a felon-turned-activist.” Their anonymous sources—who broke federal law to leak grand jury information—they called “career prosecutors.” The person willing to answer questions gets dismissed. The criminals get credibility.

That’s not journalism. That’s laundering.

The Rush to Fail

Why the rush? Nothing required December 4. The statute of limitations wasn’t expiring. Grand juries convene regularly. They could have waited two more weeks. Instead, Keller presented ten days after Judge Currie’s dismissal, the week after Thanksgiving. The grand jury convened at 9 AM and adjourned by lunchtime.

And six leaks positioned Blanche and Bondi as the reasonable skeptics throughout:

Every leak portrayed Blanche and Bondi favorably. Not one suggested they failed to act on 40 years of documented fraud.

On March 21, 2025, Blanche announced a criminal investigation into a single leak to the New York Times—one story, one outlet, that hurt the administration. He promised, “We will not tolerate politically motivated efforts by the Deep State to undercut President Trump’s agenda by leaking.”

On April 26, he doubled down: “The era of anonymous leaks & shielded sources protecting anti-trump operatives is over. This DOJ is done looking the other way. We will hold leakers — wherever they are — fully accountable. No more safe havens in federal agencies.”

Then 47 leaks sabotaged an administration prosecution and made him look like the hero. He opened nothing.

But he did open something else. MSNBC’s Carol Leonnig reported on November 20 that a federal grand jury in Greenbelt, Maryland is investigating Bill Pulte and Ed Martin—the two men who bypassed Blanche to bring the case. Then she dropped this:

“Our sources say that the Deputy Attorney General, Todd Blanch (sic), is well aware of this probe, not technically running this investigation, but aware of it and familiar with it and not in any way interfering with it, but possibly even encouraging it.“

Everyone who bypassed him is under investigation. Everyone who leaked for him is protected.

---

Two Hours

On December 8, 2025, at 6:21 AM, I published “Is Todd Blanche Undermining the Letitia James Prosecution?” The article documented 47 unauthorized disclosures from DOJ insiders to nine newsrooms—including six leaks that positioned Blanche as the “reasonable skeptic.” It showed his April 26 promise to hold leakers “fully accountable” with “no safe havens.” And it showed his silence on leaks that helped him while investigating the people who bypassed him.

At 8:48 AM—two hours later—the Deputy Attorney General of the United States responded. Not with a press release on DOJ.gov. Not with an official statement. With a tweet defending Halligan—the prosecutor whose indictment his own sources had called him “caught off guard” by.

The Department of Justice doesn’t scramble to respond to convicted felons with websites. Unless the documents are undeniable. Unless the timeline is airtight. Unless silence is no longer an option.

Two hours says Blanche knows who has the receipts.

“The White House was still pushing to indict.”

Buried in paragraph 14. If the evidence was truly weak, why keep pushing? Because the evidence hasn’t changed. Only the presenter did.

---

The Response: Investigate the Investigators

Rather than address the evidence, James’s allies launched a campaign to investigate the people who exposed her.

September 8, 2025: Congressman Jamie Raskin sent a letter to Pulte comparing him to Nixon’s IRS Commissioner, demanding records of all mortgage fraud investigations.

November 17, 2025: Senators Warren, Whitehouse, Cortez Masto, and Reed wrote to the GAO requesting an investigation into Pulte’s referrals—citing media reports that originated from the same illegal leaks I documented.

November 19, 2025: Congressman Robert Garcia sent a letter to Pulte demanding “all communications and documents relating to Senator Adam Schiff, Attorney General Letitia James, Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, and/or Congressman Eric Swalwell, including but not limited to any communications with Sam Antar.”

I’m in the Congressional Record now. Garcia demanded my communications. I responded publicly: invite me to testify under oath.

He went silent.

December 3, 2025: The GAO confirmed it opened an investigation into Pulte. The media framed this as validation that the referrals were improper.

But any serious inquiry into how Pulte and Martin learned about James’s fraud leads directly to my published investigations—public records anyone can verify. You can’t investigate the referral without examining what was referred. And what was referred is devastating.

That’s why Garcia went silent. That’s why these probes will die on the vine.

Notice what the GAO isn’t investigating: the 47 illegal leaks from DOJ insiders. The coordinated media campaign. The sabotage from within. The 40 years of documented fraud.

They’re investigating the people who exposed the fraud. Not the fraud.

---

The Subpoena That Contradicts Bondi

On December 11, 2025—the same day the second grand jury declined to indict—Attorney General Pam Bondi tweeted: “Fake news. There is no investigation into Bill Pulte.”

Three sources say otherwise:

Source 1 — MSNBC (November 20): Carol Leonnig reported that a federal grand jury in Greenbelt, Maryland is investigating Pulte and Martin—and that Blanche is “possibly even encouraging it.”

Source 2 — The subpoena itself: On November 13, 2025, Christine Bish received a federal subpoena. Case number 2025R00380-045. Signed by Deputy Clerk Catherine M. Stavlas and Assistant United States Attorney Christopher Sarma. It commanded her to appear before the Greenbelt Grand Jury on November 20, 2025 at 9:00 am.

The subpoena attachment demanded communications with a specific list of targets:

“Please provide any and all documentation and communications that you referenced in your October 28, 2025 interview with FHFA-OIG and the FBI regarding the investigation into Senator Adam Schiff. The people for which you are to provide communication and documentation for are as follows:

• Any person or persons claiming to be William Pulte (“Pulte”), Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency and Chairman of the boards of the Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac”).
• Any person or persons claiming to be working at the direction or behest of Pulte, including anyone claiming to be the Chief of Staff for Pulte.
• Anyone claiming to be working for or at the direction of the United States Department of Justice, Fannie Mae, or Freddie Mac, including but not limited to Robert Bowes, Scott Strauss—FHFA officials involved in the original fraud referrals—or anyone claiming to be acting at the direction or request of Edward Martin.”

The cover letter, on official U.S. Department of Justice letterhead, stated:

“Pursuant to an official criminal investigation being conducted by the United States Attorney’s Office, it is requested that your company furnish certain information, as detailed on the attached subpoena.”

Source 3 — Christine Bish herself: She posted the subpoena on Twitter: “Hey Pam, let’s talk…”

Leonnig’s sources. The subpoena. The witness. All confirm the investigation exists.

Bondi called it “fake news.”

If the Attorney General doesn’t know what her Deputy is doing, who’s running the Justice Department?

This creates a problem for Bondi. Leonnig reported that her Deputy Attorney General is “possibly even encouraging” the investigation. So either Bondi knows what her second-in-command is doing and lied publicly. Or she doesn’t know—which raises different questions about chain of command.

But here’s the deeper issue: Why would the Attorney General want this investigation to disappear? Because any serious investigation into Pulte and Martin’s “methods” inevitably surfaces the evidence they were acting on—40 years of documented mortgage fraud across four properties, exposed in public records, confirmed by the FBI.

You can’t investigate the referral without examining what was referred.

Thrush and Feuer didn’t mention any of it.

---

The Bigger Crime

Let’s be clear about what the evidence shows.

Letitia James’s fraud:

• Peronne Avenue (Norfolk): $18,933 in favorable mortgage rates from occupancy misrepresentation—the only property DOJ charged
• Brooklyn (296 Lafayette): Twenty years of false unit counts to qualify for residential financing. In 2011, she obtained a federal HAMP loan modification—a program that explicitly excludes buildings with 5+ units. Her building has 5 units. She claimed 4. Joel Gilbert exposed this fraud. The savings from two decades of favorable residential rates and federal HAMP assistance dwarf the Norfolk charges.
• Sterling Street (Norfolk): Fifteen days before signing a sworn declaration that it would be her primary residence, she emailed confirming it “WILL NOT be my primary residence”
• Queens (1983): Signed mortgage documents identifying her father as her husband

Four properties. Forty years. The cover-up:

• Obstruction: 47 illegal leaks, every one helping the defendant
• Sabotage: Replacing a prosecutor who got an indictment with a civil lawyer whose last criminal case was 2011
• Conspiracy: Coordinated leaks positioning Blanche as the hero
• False statements: Bondi calling the Pulte investigation “fake news” while DOJ subpoenas commanded grand jury testimony

The fraud is measured in dollars. The cover-up is measured in federal crimes.

---

The Documents Don’t Disappear

Grand juries come and go. Prosecutors come and go. Headlines come and go. The documents don’t.

No one has refuted a single document I’ve published. Not James. Not Lowell. Not Thrush. Not Feuer. Not the 47 leakers. They attack the messenger. They never address the evidence.

Because they can’t.

I’ve invited Congress to subpoena me. Same room. Same oath. Full documentation. James can join me. So can Thrush and Feuer. So can Blanche. So can the 47 leakers.

I’ll bring the documents. They can bring their “sources familiar with the matter.”

Let’s see whose story holds up under oath.

---

Glenn Thrush and Alan Feuer had the story. The pressure valve quote. The timeline. The evidence. The story of the decade was right in front of them. They wrote the cover-up instead. Somewhere along the way, they forgot they were journalists.

---

Sam Antar is a convicted felon and registered Democrat. As CFO of Crazy Eddie, he committed securities fraud in the 1980s. Since cooperating with federal authorities, he has spent over 30 years training law enforcement agencies including the FBI, SEC, IRS, and DOJ. He has never been paid or promised anything in return for this investigation. He follows the documents, not the politics.

Follow @SamAntar on X for updates.

Written by Sam Antar | Forensic Accountant & Fraud Investigator

© 2025 Sam Antar. All rights reserved.