The Leak Before the Briefing: An Investigation into DOJ Obstruction in the Letitia James Case

Two DOJ employees disclosed an internal “no probable cause” finding before their supervisor could brief the U.S. Attorney—raising potential violations of DOJ policy and obstruction concerns.

WHAT WE FOUND

• Two DOJ employees in Norfolk, Virginia leaked their supervisor Elizabeth Yusi’s internal prosecutorial determination to MSNBC

• The leak revealed Yusi’s “no probable cause” conclusion about charging New York Attorney General Letitia James with mortgage fraud—before Yusi briefed U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan

• MSNBC’s own reporting proves the timing: Yusi “plans to present her conclusion to…Lindsey Halligan, in the coming weeks”—the briefing hadn’t occurred when they published

On October 6, 2025, MSNBC inadvertently published evidence of potential obstruction of justice.

Reporters Carol Leonnig and Ken Dilanian wrote that Elizabeth Yusi, who oversees major criminal prosecutions in the Norfolk office of the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA), had concluded there was “no probable cause” to charge New York Attorney General Letitia James with federal mortgage fraud.

But one phrase in their article exposed a critical problem: Yusi “plans to present her conclusion” to U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan (appointed interim U.S. Attorney on Sept. 22, 2025) “in the coming weeks.”

The formal briefing hadn’t happened yet. Yusi’s determination leaked to national media before she could present it to the official with final charging authority.

This investigation has determined that two DOJ employees in the Norfolk office—identified by MSNBC only as “two sources” who work with Yusi—leaked the internal prosecutorial deliberation before proper chain of command could be followed. While MSNBC does not specify their exact roles, the context—access to internal charging deliberations, knowledge of Yusi’s determination before formal briefing, and willingness to leak to national media—indicates DOJ colleagues with access to internal deliberations. The premature leak appears to violate DOJ confidentiality rules (28 C.F.R. § 50.2; Justice Manual 1-7.000) and may constitute obstruction of justice under 18 U.S.C. § 1503 if shown to have been intended to influence Halligan’s charging decision.

The leak appears strategically designed to create media pressure and preempt the U.S. Attorney’s independent evaluation of evidence. If accurate, it represents a striking example of DOJ personnel using media coordination to protect a specific defendant from criminal charges.

CHAIN OF COMMAND 101: HOW FEDERAL PROSECUTIONS WORK

1. Line prosecutors → investigate and compile evidence

2. Supervisors → review evidence and form recommendations

3. Formal briefing → supervisor presents full analysis to U.S. Attorney

4. U.S. Attorney → makes final charging decision (constitutional authority)

5. Public announcement → if charges are filed

The leak happened at step 2—before step 3 could occur.

The Smoking Gun in MSNBC’s Own Words

The key evidence is in MSNBC’s October 6 article. Leonnig and Dilanian reported:

“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. Yusi plans to present her conclusion to the president’s new interim U.S. attorney, Lindsey Halligan, in the coming weeks, they said.”

The sequence MSNBC documented:

1. “confided to co-workers” – Yusi shared her determination with colleagues
2. “two sources told MSNBC” – Two colleagues leaked it to media
3. “plans to present her conclusion” – She hasn’t briefed Halligan yet
4. “in the coming weeks” – The formal briefing was still weeks away

Timeline of the Leak:

• August 2, 2023: James emails broker: “This property WILL NOT be my primary residence”
• August 17, 2023: James signs Power of Attorney declaring: “I intend to occupy this property as my principal residence”
• September 22, 2025: Lindsey Halligan appointed interim U.S. Attorney for EDVA
• October 6, 2025, 1:57 PM: MSNBC publishes leak revealing Yusi’s “no probable cause” finding
• “Coming weeks” (future): Yusi’s scheduled formal briefing to Halligan

Two DOJ employees—MSNBC identifies them only as “sources” who work with Yusi in the Norfolk office—bypassed the chain of command and went directly to national media before their supervisor could formally present her analysis to the decision-maker.

What Federal Law and Policy Prohibit

28 C.F.R. § 50.2 – Release of Information by Department Personnel

The federal regulation and Justice Manual prohibit DOJ personnel from releasing non-public information about pending investigations to anyone outside the Department. Internal prosecutorial recommendations before formal decisions fall squarely within prohibited disclosures. The two sources appear to violate this regulation by disclosing Yusi’s determination before it became a matter of public record through proper channels.

18 U.S.C. § 1503 – Obstruction of Justice

This statute prohibits “corruptly” endeavoring to “influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice.”

The leak appears to satisfy each element if the sources can be shown to have acted with corrupt intent:

• Corruptly: Acting to protect a specific defendant by circumventing proper process
• Endeavoring to influence: Using media pressure to influence the U.S. Attorney’s decision
• Obstruct or impede: Preventing normal deliberative process by leaking before formal briefing
• Administration of justice: The prosecutorial decision-making process itself

Justice Manual 1-7.000 – Media Relations

DOJ policy strictly prohibits:

• Unauthorized disclosure of law enforcement information
• Discussing ongoing investigations with media
• Revealing internal prosecutorial deliberations
• Leaking to influence prosecutorial outcomes
• Bypassing chain of command through external communications

KEY LEGAL STANDARDS

Probable Cause: “Reasonable ground for belief of guilt”—far less than proof beyond reasonable doubt (Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160)

18 U.S.C. § 1014: Intent to influence a financial institution suffices; actual influence not required (United States v. Wells, 519 U.S. 482)

Precedent: DOJ successfully prosecuted false FHA occupancy declarations in United States v. Muhammad, No. 17-30193 (9th Cir. 2018)

Why the Premature Leak Matters: Strategic Obstruction

Why would two DOJ employees risk criminal charges and career destruction by leaking before formal briefing? Because the timing wasn’t accidental—it was strategic.

The premature leak accomplished multiple objectives:

1. Established Public Narrative Before the Decision

Once MSNBC reports “career prosecutors found no probable cause,” that becomes the media baseline. Any subsequent charging decision must overcome that presumption. The leak created public expectation of no charges before Halligan could independently evaluate evidence.

2. Applied External Political Pressure

Halligan now must decide under intense media scrutiny. If she charges James, she’ll be portrayed as “overruling career prosecutors” for political reasons—even though independently evaluating subordinate recommendations and making final charging decisions is her constitutional duty.

3. Framed Any Override as Corrupt

The leak inverted proper authority. Instead of Halligan independently assessing evidence, she’s now “pressuring prosecutors” or “politically motivated” if she reaches a different conclusion. The leak delegitimized her authority before she could exercise it.

4. Armed the Defense

Attorney Abbe Lowell can now cite “career prosecutors” as vindication. MSNBC’s article extensively quotes Lowell calling any prosecution “a brazen attack on the rule of law.” The defense won a media victory before any formal decision.

5. Contaminated the Deliberative Process

Most critically: Halligan cannot now evaluate this case normally. The leak poisoned the well. She must decide under political pressure, media attention, and with her authority already questioned publicly.

This sequence—leak before briefing, create media firestorm, apply pressure on decision-maker—appears designed to obstruct prosecution by making it politically toxic.

Why “No Probable Cause” Defies the Documentary Evidence

Our October 2025 investigation “The Anatomy of a Cover-Up” documented extensive public record evidence that directly contradicts the leaked “no probable cause” claim. The evidence remains publicly accessible in government databases and land records.

Virginia Power of Attorney: Contradictory Statements 15 Days Apart

• August 2, 2023: James emails mortgage broker: “This property WILL NOT be my primary residence. It will be Shamice’s primary residence.”
• August 17, 2023: James signs Power of Attorney declaring under penalty of perjury: “I HEREBY DECLARE that I intend to occupy this property as my principal residence.”
• Witnesses: Jennifer Levy (First Deputy Attorney General of New York) and Sharona Parchment (Attorney General’s office counsel) witnessed James sign the declaration and certified under penalty of perjury that “the foregoing is true and correct.”

Two government attorneys watched their boss sign a document that her own written email from 15 days earlier proves was false.

Brooklyn: 20-Year Pattern of Systematic Fraud

Property at 296 Lafayette Avenue, Brooklyn. Certificate of Occupancy #B3P0010437 (issued January 26, 2001) legally classifies it as a 5-unit building. Physical verification: 6 electric meters, 5 doorbells, 5 mailboxes. NYC Department of Buildings confirmation: “CO #B3P0010437 ON FILE FOR MULTIPLE DWELLING.”

Yet across 10+ mortgages from 2001-2021, James consistently reported 4 units or fewer:

• 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: Two decades of false statements to federal lenders obtaining better residential loan terms reserved for smaller properties.

Federal HAMP: Emergency Relief Fraud

2011 HAMP (Home Affordable Modification Program) loan modification obtained by falsely reporting unit count. HAMP was emergency relief for struggling homeowners after 2008 crisis, explicitly excluding buildings with 5+ units. Modification documents show handwritten “4 fam” notation. Estimated monthly savings: substantial reduction through fraudulent qualification for federal relief.

Legal Standard Under Supreme Court Precedent

Under United States v. Wells, 519 U.S. 482 (1997), prosecutors charging violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1014 need NOT prove:

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

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

Direct DOJ Precedent

United States v. Muhammad, No. 17-30193 (9th Cir. 2018): DOJ successfully prosecuted Felicia Muhammad for false FHA occupancy declarations based on contradictory Section 8 housing certifications versus loan applications. The Ninth Circuit upheld her conviction on appeal.

James’s evidence is stronger: written contradictory statements 15 days apart proving knowledge, government attorney witnesses to the false signing, 20-year pattern across multiple properties, and federal program fraud.

[For complete documentation with source links, see our forensic analysis: “The Anatomy of a Cover-Up“]

When documentary evidence shows contradictory sworn statements 15 days apart with government witnesses, a 20-year pattern, and federal program fraud, claiming “no probable cause” raises serious questions about either competence or motive. Either way, such a determination should not be leaked to media before the U.S. Attorney can independently evaluate the evidence.

What MSNBC Failed to Investigate

MSNBC’s reporters are not novices. Carol Leonnig is a four-time Pulitzer Prize winner who extensively covers the Justice Department. Ken Dilanian is NBC News’ justice and intelligence correspondent. They understand prosecutorial process and the significance of chain of command violations.

Yet their October 6 article:

• Never questioned the timing: Reported Yusi “plans to present…in the coming weeks” without asking why sources leaked before formal briefing
• Never examined the evidence: Never accessed Virginia land records, NYC mortgage databases, or federal HAMP documents—all publicly available
• Never challenged the conclusion: Presented “no probable cause” as fact without independent verification
• Never questioned coordination: Never asked whether sources coordinated with James’s legal team or why the leak happened when it did
• Never explored motive: Never asked why DOJ personnel would bypass their superior through media
• Amplified defense narrative: Extensively quoted Abbe Lowell’s defense statements without scrutiny

MSNBC didn’t investigate the leak—they became its vehicle. They took the leakers’ conclusion, presented it as vindication, amplified the defense narrative, and published it nationally without examining whether any of it was accurate.

The Constitutional Crisis This Creates

The structure of federal prosecutorial authority flows from the Constitution:

President → Attorney General → U.S. Attorneys → Career Prosecutors

U.S. Attorneys are presidentially appointed and Senate confirmed. They exercise prosecutorial discretion on behalf of the executive branch. Career prosecutors serve at their direction, providing advice and recommendations. But final charging authority rests with U.S. Attorneys.

When subordinates leak recommendations before formal briefing, they attempt to:

• Create external pressure through media
• Preempt their superior’s independent judgment
• Make override politically toxic
• Effectively veto constitutional authority through public pressure

If this becomes standard practice, career prosecutors gain functional veto power over constitutionally-appointed officials through strategic media coordination. U.S. Attorneys become figureheads who cannot override subordinates without being accused of political interference.

These principles transcend politics. Whether you believe James should be prosecuted or consider it political persecution, the process matters. Leaking before formal briefing subverts proper authority regardless of:

• Who the defendant is
• Whether the underlying case has merit
• What the political context is
• Whether you support the current administration

The leak before briefing is always procedurally wrong.

Questions That Demand Answers

A Call for Investigation

The leak before formal briefing appears to violate:

• 28 C.F.R. § 50.2 – Federal regulation prohibiting unauthorized disclosure of information concerning pending investigations
• Justice Manual 1-7.000 – DOJ policy governing media relations and protection of law enforcement information
• 18 U.S.C. § 1503 – Obstruction of justice, if the leak was intended to influence Halligan’s charging decision
• 18 U.S.C. § 371 – Conspiracy to obstruct, if coordination with James’s legal team or other outside parties can be shown

The DOJ Inspector General should investigate whether DOJ personnel violated these statutes and policies by leaking internal prosecutorial deliberations to national media before formal briefing to the U.S. Attorney.

Conclusion: When Leaks Become Obstruction

This investigation uncovered evidence—from MSNBC’s own reporting—that two DOJ employees in Norfolk, Virginia leaked internal prosecutorial deliberations to national media before their supervisor could formally brief the U.S. Attorney with final charging authority.

MSNBC documented the timeline: Yusi “confided to co-workers,” those co-workers became “two sources” who contacted MSNBC, and the briefing to Halligan was still “coming weeks” away when they published.

The public record evidence compiled in our prior investigation contradicts “no probable cause”: contradictory statements 15 days apart with government witnesses, 20-year pattern of false statements, federal program fraud, and direct precedent for prosecuting identical conduct.

The leak strategically accomplished: public narrative before formal decision, external political pressure on the U.S. Attorney, framing any override as corrupt or political, protection for a specific defendant, and contamination of the deliberative process.

If subordinates can predetermine outcomes through strategic leaks to compliant media, U.S. Attorneys lose their constitutional authority, DOJ personnel gain unaccountable veto power, and media outlets become instruments of prosecutorial manipulation rather than oversight.

On February 16, 2024, after her civil fraud victory against Donald Trump, Letitia 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.”

She was right about the principle.

But her statement assumed institutions function properly—that prosecutors follow proper channels, that subordinates don’t bypass superiors through media leaks, that journalists investigate rather than launder, that the rule of law supersedes political allegiances.

This investigation found that none of those assumptions held.

Two DOJ employees leaked their supervisor’s determination to MSNBC before she could brief the U.S. Attorney—circumventing proper process, creating external pressure, and attempting to preempt a constitutional officer’s charging decision.

If DOJ personnel can protect defendants through strategic leaks, there ARE different rules for different people.

And those rules are being written through leaks to compliant journalists.

This investigation builds on our October 2025 forensic analysis “The Anatomy of a Cover-Up,” which documented how media outlets systematically misrepresented evidence in the James case. This report focuses on what that coverage revealed: potential obstruction of justice through premature disclosure of internal prosecutorial deliberations.

This investigation compiled evidence from publicly accessible sources including MSNBC’s published reporting, Virginia land records, New York City ACRIS mortgage database, NYC Department of Buildings records, and federal HAMP modification documents. All source materials available upon request.

Follow @SamAntar on X for updates on this investigation

Written by Sam Antar | Forensic Accountant & Fraud Investigator

© 2025 Sam Antar. All rights reserved.