The prosecutor who got the indictment was called inexperienced. The prosecutor who failed twice was called a veteran. Only one of those descriptions was accurate.
TL;DR: The media relentlessly called Lindsey Halligan “inexperienced” – she got an indictment on all counts. When Roger Keller took over and failed twice, Reuters buried one sentence near the bottom of an October 24 article about an unnamed “attorney who normally handles civil litigation” – then never mentioned it again in November or December, even after he failed twice. They never reported his last criminal case was in 2011. Reuters’ Sarah Lynch knew this. She admitted it on Twitter – in a reply to me. She just never told her readers.
The Tale of Two Prosecutors
On October 9, 2025, Lindsey Halligan walked into a federal grand jury and presented the case against New York Attorney General Letitia James.
The grand jury indicted on all counts.
On December 4, 2025, Roger Keller presented to a grand jury in Norfolk.
They declined to indict.
On December 11, 2025, Roger Keller presented to a grand jury in Alexandria.
They declined to indict.
Same evidence. Different presenter. Different results.
One prosecutor succeeded. One failed twice. And the media got the story exactly backwards.
The “Inexperienced” Prosecutor
From the moment Lindsey Halligan was appointed, the media had their narrative ready.
Lawfare (October 20, 2025):
“his former personal attorney, who until now had never prosecuted a case. Despite her lack of prosecutorial experience”
The New York Times (October 24, 2025) – in the same paragraph:
“Lindsey Halligan, an inexperienced prosecutor hastily installed by Mr. Trump as the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, sat silently at the prosecution table. Speaking for the government was Roger Keller, a Missouri prosecutor brought in to work on the case.”
There it is. Same article. Same paragraph. Halligan is “an inexperienced prosecutor.” Keller is “a Missouri prosecutor.” No mention that Keller was a civil lawyer. No mention his last criminal case was 2011. No mention he’d been doing postal truck lawsuits for 14 years.
The Washington Post Editorial Board (November 24, 2025):
“Bondi installed Lindsey Halligan, an inexperienced White House staffer and former insurance lawyer, to replace him as interim U.S. attorney.”
Reuters (Sarah Lynch byline, November 24, 2025):
“Lindsey Halligan, a former personal lawyer to Trump, was named interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia in September to take over both investigations despite having no previous prosecutorial experience.”
MSNBC/NBC News (December 3, 2025):
“Halligan, an insurance lawyer and a White House aide with no prosecutorial experience, as the acting U.S. attorney”
The New York Times (December 11, 2025):
“the president installed Halligan, an insurance lawyer and a White House aide with no prosecutorial experience”
And here’s Sarah Lynch of Reuters again – the same reporter who would later admit on Twitter that Keller hadn’t handled a criminal case since 2011:
Reuters (Lynch byline, December 11, 2025):
“Halligan, 36, is a former insurance attorney who also worked as a personal lawyer for Trump after his first term in office. She was a White House aide to Trump early in his second term, and has no previous experience as a prosecutor.”
“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.”
The message was clear and relentless: Halligan was unqualified. A rookie. An amateur playing prosecutor.
But here’s the lie by omission: Not one of these outlets – including Lynch’s own Reuters stories – mentioned that Roger Keller, the “career prosecutor” who took over, hadn’t handled a criminal case since 2011. Lynch scrutinized Halligan’s inexperience down to the percentage point. She never mentioned Keller’s.
And yet this “inexperienced” prosecutor did what the “experienced” career prosecutors refused to do. She presented the evidence. The grand jury voted to indict. All counts.
The “Veteran” Prosecutor
When Roger Keller entered the case, the media framing shifted.
St. Louis American (November 2, 2025):
“Assistant U.S. Attorney Roger Keller, a veteran prosecutor from the Eastern District of Missouri, has joined the Virginia case.”
“Roger Keller, who had been serving as a federal prosecutor in Missouri before joining the team to prosecute James in Virginia”
The New York Times (December 11, 2025):
“Roger Keller, a federal prosecutor brought in from Missouri”
The Guardian (December 11, 2025) – the same day Lynch admitted Keller’s last criminal case was 2011:
“A career attorney brought in from Missouri to work on the case, Roger Keller, handled that presentation, which was rejected.”
“Veteran prosecutor.” “Federal prosecutor.” “Career attorney.”
The credentials sounded impressive. There was just one problem.
They weren’t telling you what kind of prosecutor he was.
What They Hid
St. Louis Magazine (October 27, 2025) – one of the only outlets to dig into Keller’s background:
“a longtime federal prosecutor working out of the St. Louis office, primarily handling civil cases“
“a review of the 10 cases filed since the start of 2024 are all civil matters. Relatively recent entries include defending the federal government in a lawsuit brought by a woman who said she was hit by a postal truck, by a man who said he was hit by a postal truck and a Department of Veteran Affairs employee who claimed her free speech rights were violated”
NOTUS (October 25, 2025):
“who was until Tuesday a DOJ lawyer in Missouri defending the government from lawsuits about civil disputes“
Reuters (October 24, 2025) – one sentence, buried near the bottom, didn’t even name him:
“In an unusual move, an attorney who normally handles civil litigation from a U.S. attorney’s office in Missouri, will be handling the case”
That was it from Reuters. One sentence. No name. Never repeated. When Keller failed twice, Reuters never mentioned his civil background again.
And then came the quiet admission.
On December 11, 2025, after Keller’s second grand jury failure, Sarah Lynch of Reuters – the lead Justice Department reporter who has covered this case from the beginning – replied to my tweet with this:
“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. I don’t know if that’s a factor here but I suspect he has not presented to a GJ in many years”
2011.
Roger Keller hasn’t handled a criminal case in 14 years.
It wasn’t just that Keller was a civil lawyer. He hadn’t touched a criminal case since Barack Obama’s first term.
He’s been defending the government in slip-and-fall suits and postal truck accident cases.
And this is the “veteran prosecutor” the Justice Department sent to present a complex mortgage fraud case to two separate grand juries.
Sarah Lynch Knew – And Didn’t Report It
Here’s what makes Lynch’s tweet so damning: she knew this information and didn’t put it in her reporting.
Lynch is Reuters’ lead Justice Department reporter. She has covered every twist of the Letitia James case. She has my contact information – she emailed me on November 21, 2025, asking follow-up questions about my timeline and interactions with FHFA officials.
Let’s look at what Lynch actually wrote in her Reuters coverage:
Reuters, December 11, 2025 (Lynch byline) – the same day she admitted Keller’s last criminal case was 2011:
“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.”
She calculated Halligan’s criminal experience down to the percentage point. She never mentioned that Keller hadn’t touched a criminal case in 14 years.
Reuters, November 24, 2025 (Lynch byline):
“Lindsey Halligan, a former personal lawyer to Trump, was named interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia in September to take over both investigations despite having no previous prosecutorial experience.”
Reuters, October 9, 2025 (Lynch byline) – on the original indictment:
“As with the Comey case, Halligan presented the evidence against James to the grand jury by herself, without support from career prosecutors in the office”
When Halligan presented, Lynch made sure to note she did it “by herself, without support from career prosecutors.” The implication: she was unqualified and alone.
To be fair, Reuters did mention on October 24 that “an attorney who normally handles civil litigation” would be handling the case – one sentence, buried near the bottom, without even naming Keller. Then nothing in November. Nothing in December. Not when he failed the first grand jury. Not when he failed the second. No “last criminal case was 2011.” No “14 years of civil work.” No percentage breakdowns. No “despite having no recent criminal prosecutorial experience.”
One buried, unnamed footnote in October is not the same as the scrutiny Halligan received in story after story.
The contrast:
| Prosecutor | What Lynch Reported | What Lynch Knew But Didn’t Report |
|---|---|---|
| Halligan | “no prosecutorial experience,” presented “by herself,” “only 1%” | Got an indictment on all counts |
| Keller | One sentence: unnamed “attorney who normally handles civil litigation” (Oct 24, never repeated) | Last criminal case 2011, 14 years of civil work, hasn’t presented to GJ in years |
Lynch knew Keller’s background. She admitted it on Twitter – to me, in a reply to my thread.
She just didn’t put it in her reporting.
That’s not oversight. That’s a choice.
The Choice Was Intentional
Let’s be clear about what happened:
Halligan’s background – reported extensively:
- Insurance lawyer ✓
- White House aide ✓
- No prosecutorial experience ✓
- Never prosecuted a case ✓
- Rookie ✓
Keller’s background – buried or omitted:
- Primarily handles civil cases ✗
- Last criminal case was 2011 ✗
- Hasn’t presented to a grand jury in years ✗
- Does postal truck lawsuits ✗
Every major outlet repeated “Halligan has no prosecutorial experience” as if it were a mantra.
How many mentioned that Keller has no recent criminal prosecutorial experience?
How many mentioned his last criminal case was during the Obama administration?
How many mentioned he’s spent the last 14 years defending the government in civil disputes?
This wasn’t oversight. This was a choice.
The framing was so effective that even I fell for it. In my own articles, I called Keller a “career prosecutor” – repeating the same language the media used. I didn’t know what Sarah Lynch knew. I didn’t know what St. Louis Magazine reported. I took “career prosecutor” at face value.
I was wrong. And I’m correcting the record now.
The Results Speak for Themselves
Lindsey Halligan – the “inexperienced” prosecutor:
- Presented to one grand jury
- Result: Indictment on all counts
Roger Keller – the “veteran” prosecutor:
- Presented to two grand juries
- Result: No indictment. Twice.
The “rookie” succeeded.
The “veteran” – who hadn’t done criminal work since 2011 – failed. Twice.
The Question No One Is Asking
If you wanted to tank a prosecution, how would you do it?
First, you’d have career prosecutors refuse to bring the case. That happened. The Guardian and other outlets reported that career prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia “believed evidence was insufficient” and were “fired or replaced” after resisting.
Then, when an outsider (Halligan) brought the case anyway and got an indictment on all counts, you’d remove her on a technicality.
Then you’d replace her with someone who:
- Hasn’t handled a criminal case in 14 years
- Primarily does civil work
- Hasn’t presented to a grand jury in years
- Was just learning the evidence days before the arraignment
At the October 25, 2025 arraignment, Keller told the judge: “I am going through the discovery right now.”
Translation: DOJ sent him into a grand jury before he finished reading the evidence.
NOTUS reported that this was “the second time this month a Justice Department lawyer admitted in court they were still figuring out what evidence exists to support criminal charges.”
He didn’t know the case. He hadn’t done criminal work in 14 years. And he was sent to present to not one but two grand juries.
And when he failed, the media called it a “rejection” of the case – not a failure of the presentation.
The Buried Sentence
The New York Times, in their December 11, 2025 story celebrating the grand jury’s decision, included one sentence that destroys their entire narrative:
“No judge has reviewed the substance of the case.”
That’s right. No judge has ever looked at the evidence.
The first case was dismissed on Appointments Clause grounds – a procedural ruling about how Halligan was appointed, not whether the evidence supported charges.
The grand jury declinations tell us nothing about the evidence – only about the presentations.
And the presentations were made by a civil lawyer who hadn’t touched a criminal case since 2011.
What the Documents Show
While the media focused on who was presenting, they ignored what should have been presented.
The evidence against Letitia James includes four contradictory sworn statements about the same property:
- To the bank: Second home for personal use
- To the IRS: Rental property with zero personal use days
- To the insurance company: Owner-occupied
- To New York State: Investment property
Four statements. Four different classifications. Mathematical and legal impossibility.
This isn’t complicated. A first-year law student could explain it to a grand jury.
But Roger Keller – with 14 years of civil litigation experience and zero recent criminal experience – couldn’t get 12 out of 23 grand jurors to find probable cause.
Twice.
The Double Standard
The press built a firewall around the facts:
Halligan = Inexperienced = Illegitimate prosecution
Keller = Veteran = Failed because case was weak
But the truth is the opposite:
Halligan = Got an indictment on all counts
Keller = Civil lawyer who hadn’t done criminal work in 14 years = Failed twice
The “inexperienced” prosecutor succeeded.
The “veteran” prosecutor failed.
And the media refuses to tell you why.
Conclusion
Sarah Lynch’s tweet exposed what she knew but didn’t report: Roger Keller is a civil AUSA whose last criminal case was in 2011.
She had this information. She covers the Justice Department for Reuters. She has sources inside DOJ. She knew who Roger Keller was when he entered the case in October.
And for two months, as Keller bungled his way through an arraignment where he admitted he was “still going through the discovery,” as he presented to one grand jury and failed, as he presented to a second grand jury and failed again – Lynch and her colleagues at Reuters called him a “federal prosecutor” while hammering Halligan as “inexperienced.”
The media had a choice. They could have reported Keller’s actual background the same way they reported Halligan’s. They chose not to.
They called Halligan “inexperienced” in every story.
They ignored Keller’s background while hiding that he’s spent 14 years defending the government in civil disputes.
When Halligan got an indictment, they called it “Trump’s revenge.”
When Keller failed twice, they called it “a rejection of the case.”
Lynch knew the truth. She tweeted it – to me, after the damage was done.
The framing was the fraud.
And the documents – the four contradictory sworn statements, the phantom mortgages, the 40 years of deceptive behavior across multiple properties – have never been tested in court.
No judge has reviewed the substance of the case.
The media knows this. That’s why they buried the sentence.
The media’s coverage wasn’t incomplete. It was engineered.
And Sarah Lynch knows why Roger Keller failed. She just didn’t tell her readers until it was too late to matter.
I can’t wait for Democrats to subpoena me. I’ll show up with 40 years of documented fraud and answer every question under oath.
Will Letitia James?
Sam Antar is a convicted felon. 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 for his investigative work on this case. He follows the documents, not the politics.
Follow @SamAntar on X for updates on this investigation.
Written by Sam Antar | Forensic Accountant & Fraud Investigator
© 2025 Sam Antar. All rights reserved.