Two grand juries. Two different choices about disclosure. Neither controlled their own narrative. The leakers did.
Last week, I published “The Letitia James Grand Jury Leak: 33 Minutes Early. A Federal Judge Put It in Writing.” I documented how Judge Porter cited a 4:06 PM ABC News article – authored by Katherine Faulders – that published the December 11 grand jury result before the 4:39 PM return in open court. (Click on any image to enlarge.)
I dug deeper into the evidence. It’s worse than I thought.
At 3:03 PM that same day, Faulders tweeted: “NEWS – For a second time in a week, a federal grand jury in Virginia has refused to indict New York Attorney General Letitia James for alleged mortgage fraud, sources tell me.”
Judge Porter’s order stated that the grand jury didn’t return that decision in open court until 4:39 PM.
It wasn’t 33 minutes. It was 96 minutes. Faulders had it 96 minutes early.
Seven minutes later, ABC’s official account posted the article – the same article Judge Porter cited at 4:06 PM. The article was live at 3:10 PM. The 4:06 PM timestamp appears to reflect when the judge viewed or updated the article on December 15, not original publication.
But this wasn’t the first leak. Seven days earlier, Faulders broke another grand jury result – one that was supposed to stay secret.
December 4: The Sealed Leak
On December 4, 2025, a grand jury in Norfolk, Virginia declined to indict Letitia James. Unlike the Alexandria grand jury that would follow, this one chose secrecy. They did not return their decision in open court.
How do we know it was sealed? The DOJ’s own filing tells us. In their December 12 memorandum asking Judge Porter to seal the Alexandria proceedings, prosecutors cited what happened in Norfolk as the model:
“When a Norfolk, Virginia grand jury returned a [no] true bill on December 4, 2025, the magistrate judge promptly sealed and impounded the no true bill. This is consistent with recommended practice.”
Judge Porter confirmed it in his December 15 order:
“In that case, the magistrate judge entered an order stating that the grand jury had ‘returned a no true bill’ but sealing and impounding ‘the record of the grand jurors concurring in the proposed indictment UNDER SEAL as a grand jury matter…'”
The Norfolk grand jury chose secrecy. The magistrate sealed and impounded everything. Under Rule 6(e), that should have been the end of it. Sealed means sealed. The public wasn’t supposed to know.
By 5:36 PM, Katherine Faulders was on X: “NEWS – A federal grand jury in Norfolk, Virginia, refused to indict New York Attorney General Letitia James for alleged mortgage fraud on Thursday, sources said…”
Within minutes:
5:36 PM – Katherine Faulders (@KFaulders, ABC News) – FIRST
5:39 PM – Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins, CNN)
5:41 PM – Anna Bower (@AnnaBower, Lawfare)
5:55 PM – Breaking911 (@Breaking911)
6:25 PM – Scott MacFarlane (@MacFarlaneNews, CBS News)
6:58 PM – MacFarlane posts Lowell’s prepared statement
6:59 PM – Anna Bower posts Lowell’s prepared statement
A sealed grand jury proceeding. Exposed to the press within an hour. Faulders first – by three minutes.
There’s no ambiguity here. The Norfolk grand jury chose secrecy. The magistrate sealed the records. Someone inside the process told reporters anyway.
That’s not a leak before an open court return. That’s a leak of sealed proceedings. A clear Rule 6(e) violation.
December 11: The Preempted Announcement
Seven days later, a second grand jury in Alexandria declined to indict. But this grand jury made a different choice.
Judge Porter’s order explains the distinction:
“A fundamental distinction between the case pending in the Norfolk Division and this one is that the Norfolk grand jury did not return the no bill in open court. The grand jury here decided to present the no bill in open court.”
The Alexandria grand jury chose transparency. They wanted to announce their decision publicly, on the record, in the courtroom. They didn’t have to – the Norfolk grand jury had just demonstrated the alternative seven days earlier. They chose to go public anyway.
Why? Judge Porter wouldn’t guess: “The Court will not speculate why the grand jury disclosed the no bill in open court.”
But whatever their reason, someone stole that moment from them.
By 3:03 PM – 96 minutes before the grand jury would walk into the courtroom – Faulders was already tweeting the result. By 3:20 PM, Carol Leonnig had it from her own sources. By 3:34 PM, CBS’s Scott MacFarlane.
The verified timeline:
3:03 PM – Katherine Faulders (@KFaulders, ABC News) – FIRST, 96 minutes early
3:10 PM – ABC News (@ABC) posts article link – already includes Lowell statement
3:15 PM – Breaking911 (@Breaking911) citing CNN
3:20 PM – Carol Leonnig (@CarolLeonnig, Washington Post) – “sources to me”
3:34 PM – Scott MacFarlane (@MacFarlaneNews, CBS News)
3:53 PM – MacFarlane posts Lowell’s prepared statement – 46 minutes before return
4:04 PM – BBC World (@BBCWorld)
4:39 PM – Grand jury returns no-bill in open court
The grand jury wanted to announce it themselves at 4:39 PM. By then, it was old news.
The Pattern
Two grand juries. Two different choices. The same result.
December 4: Grand jury chooses secrecy. Magistrate seals the records. Leaked to reporters by 5:36 PM.
December 11: Grand jury chooses transparency. Plans to announce in open court at 4:39 PM. Leaked to reporters at 3:03 PM – 96 minutes early.
Neither grand jury controlled its own narrative. The leakers decided when and how the public would learn.
And it was the same leakers. The same reporters. The same pattern.
Katherine Faulders broke both stories first.
Scott MacFarlane confirmed both times.
Abbe Lowell had polished statements ready both times.
Parallel Leaking
Look at the attributions on December 11:
Katherine Faulders: “sources tell me”
Carol Leonnig: “sources to me”
These reporters aren’t citing each other. They’re citing their own sources. Multiple people inside the process were leaking to multiple reporters simultaneously.
In a normal news cycle, reporters chase the scoop. Here, the scoop chased them. The simultaneous breaking of news across rival networks within a 20-minute window indicates a push strategy – information being pushed out to ensure saturation before the grand jury could make its own announcement.
The same pattern held on December 4. Faulders first, then CNN, then Lawfare, then CBS – all within an hour, all citing sources or referencing the original reports.
This wasn’t one leak that spread through the press corps. This was parallel leaking – coordinated distribution to control the narrative before the institutions could speak for themselves.
The Lowell Problem
Both times, Abbe Lowell had a statement ready.
On December 4, his prepared statement was posted by MacFarlane at 6:58 PM and Bower at 6:59 PM – within 82 minutes of Faulders’ first tweet about the sealed proceeding.
On December 11, it was worse. ABC’s main account posted the article at 3:10 PM – and Lowell’s statement was already in it. The grand jury didn’t return in open court until 4:39 PM. That’s 89 minutes before anyone was supposed to know. MacFarlane was tweeting Lowell’s statement by 3:53 PM – still 46 minutes before the return.
Here’s what Lowell had ready:
“This unprecedented rejection makes even clearer that this case should never have seen the light of day. Career prosecutors who knew better refused to bring it, and now two different grand juries in two different cities have refused to allow these baseless charges to be brought. Any further attempt to revive these discredited charges would be a mockery of our system of justice.”
That’s not a quick reaction. That’s lawyered language – “unprecedented rejection,” “mockery of our system of justice,” “two different grand juries in two different cities.” A three-paragraph statement like this takes time to draft, approve with the client, and clear with the firm.
If ABC was publishing Lowell’s statement at 3:10 PM – 89 minutes before the grand jury returned at 4:39 PM – when did Lowell know?
The question isn’t just who leaked to reporters. It’s whether the leak went to defense counsel too – or whether Lowell learned from the same sources feeding Faulders.
Either way, the secrecy wasn’t just breached. It collapsed. Twice.
What Judge Porter Documented
Judge Porter’s December 15 order is a roadmap of what went wrong on December 11.
First, the leak. Porter called it “the dispositive fact”:
“The dispositive fact is that the public already knew about the grand jury’s decision before the government filed its Motion to Seal. On December 11, 2025, at 4:06 p.m.—more than a half hour before the grand jury handed up the no true bill in open court at 4:39 p.m.—ABC News published an article stating, ‘For a second time in recent days, a federal grand jury in Virginia has refused to indict New York Attorney General Letitia James for alleged mortgage fraud, sources said.'”
But the judge documented the end of the pipeline, not the beginning. Katherine Faulders tweeted the same information at 3:03 PM. ABC’s official account posted the article at 3:10 PM. The 4:06 PM timestamp the judge cited was when he checked the article on December 15 – not when it was originally published. The article was live 89 minutes before the grand jury returned, not 33.
Second, the prosecutor’s absence. Porter noted: “The Assistant United States Attorney who signed the draft indictment did not appear for the hearing.”
The prosecutor who signed the proposed indictment wasn’t in the courtroom when the grand jury returned its decision at 4:39 PM. The leaks started at 3:03 PM.
Third, the failed cover-up. The DOJ didn’t move to seal until the next day – December 12 – after the damage was done. Porter denied the motion, noting that “the government’s delay in moving to seal the document makes the relief it seeks essentially futile.”
They knew the leak was a problem. They tried to seal it after the fact. The judge said no.
Who Was in Both Rooms?
Two grand juries. Two different cities. Two different courthouses. Two different sets of grand jurors. Two different judges.
But the same reporter broke both stories first.
The grand jurors were different – separate panels in Norfolk and Alexandria.
The court personnel were different – separate courthouses.
The judges were different.
The only consistent presence in both proceedings was the prosecution team. The same prosecutors who presented to the Norfolk grand jury presented to the Alexandria grand jury.
Judge Porter documented something else: “The Assistant United States Attorney who signed the draft indictment did not appear for the hearing.”
The prosecutor who signed the proposed indictment wasn’t in the courtroom when the grand jury returned its decision at 4:39 PM. The leaks started at 3:03 PM.
The question isn’t who leaked. The question is who had access to both grand jury results and a channel to the press.
That’s a short list.
The Questions
Who leaked the sealed December 4 proceedings?
Who were Katherine Faulders’ sources on both dates?
Who were Carol Leonnig’s sources on December 11?
How did multiple reporters have independent sources leaking simultaneously – twice?
Who knew the December 11 grand jury would return in open court – and leaked early to preempt them?
When did Abbe Lowell learn each result?
Why wasn’t the prosecutor who signed the proposed indictment in the courtroom for the return?
Why did the December 11 proposed indictment include three charges – not the two from the original Norfolk indictment? POLITICO reported that prosecutors added “an additional count of making a false statement to a financial institution.” The grand jury rejected all three.
Is there an obstruction investigation? If not, why not?
Neither Grand Jury Controlled Its Narrative
One grand jury chose secrecy. The magistrate sealed their decision. It leaked anyway.
One grand jury chose transparency. They wanted to announce their decision in open court, on the record. They were preempted by 96 minutes.
Both grand juries had their moment stolen. Both times, the public learned from “sources” – not from the institutions authorized to speak.
The leakers decided when the story broke. The leakers decided the framing. The leakers controlled the narrative.
And no one is investigating who they are.
The Documents Don’t Change
The tweets are archived. The snowflake IDs encode the timestamps. Judge Porter’s order confirms the December 11 timeline. The Norfolk magistrate’s seal confirms December 4 was supposed to stay secret.
Two grand juries. Two choices. Both leaked.
The pattern is documented. The obstruction is systematic. The questions remain unanswered.
I’m ready to answer questions under oath. Are they?
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.