I would just like to add one observation... that when it comes to President Trump's actities as a litigant, it is important for us to remember that he views the law not as a neutral vehicle to obtain redress when wronged, but as a cudgel with which to smite anyone he feels may have wronged or slighted him.
The intent here *may* at least in part be an attempt at whataboutism - an attempt to misdirect his Base by claiming that it is in fact James who is guilty and who has wrongly accused Trump of the very crimes she has been committing. Hmm. I wonder where he might have gotten an idea like that?
But more than this, I think he does it to inflict suffering. He knows that with the full force of the DOJ being brought to bear, he can push this case long and hard, and drag up every last tiny little bit of dirt or theory that he can possibly throw at the wall. Chances are that none of it will stick, of course.
But that's not why he does it. He does it because he knows that James is going to have to pay her legal team to investigate and refute every last item, every last claim in the case. If that's the strategy, it honestly doesn't matter to the President if James is acquitted at the end of the trial. He just wants a nice long trial. A nice, long trial where he can pick up on the "brilliant" job his prosecution Team - sorry, the DOJ - are doing, with daily sniping at James.
amazing you do not even know Hochul has stated she is giving James 10, million to fight the law suit and her father is not her husband and that is fraud on a mortgage document,.
Respectfully, I believe the point you raise is factually wrong. 1. Kathy Hochul - and other Democratic Governors - have set up legal contingency funds to draw down on to protect public servants targetted by the federal government. That does not mean that the NYS fund is Hochul "giving James 10 million" - you are materially distorting facts. 2. James has already indicated that she will not be using the Hochul fund - please see Politico article "Laetitia James pursued Trump. Then she was indicted", by Nick Reisman, published 10/09/2025. That article describes how James is using a fund set up by the Democratic Attorneys General Association.
Even if your points were valid, they constitute whataboutism... Countless public figures and celebrities have relied upon anonymous and not-so-anonymous donors to fight lawsuits - not in the same league as this, but consider the Hulk Hogan/Gawker suit, secretly bankrolled by Peter Thiel to the tune of about $10 million. In the case of Kathy Hochul, whether or not you or I agree or disagree with what she did in setting up the fund - doing so was *perfectly legal*. It does not name James explicitly and, very respectfully, you don't seem to cite a law or prohibition that it contravines. If there is one, could you please give us a citation?
And just to complete this reply... I note that you state "her father is not her husband and that is fraud on a mortgage document". I have searched on line for any references to either her father or her husband in reporting covering the case - without success - and there does not appear to be any explicit reference to either individual in the complaint. However, I'm very happy to give you the benefit of the doubt, so if you would like to respond by providing an explanation of your concern and links to valid, relevant documentation on the same, I would be keen to learn more of the point you raise.
she committed mortgage fraud and she said her father was her husband and not to mention she obtained a mortgage by lying about the house in NY being a four family instead of a 5 knowing that was fraud.
Thanks for responding, but as I noted previously, I can find no documented reference or complaint that shows that 1) James claimed her father was her husband; or 2) that even if she did this, it would somehow be illegal. Again, if you could provide us with a reference to an article - or better yet - a court filing - that would be helpful.
The observation you make regarding a Brooklyn property concerns not the number of family but the number of units, which is relevant in the home loan market. A property with four or fewer units is generally regarded as residential for loan purposes, while a property with five units is considered commercial. The "fraud" you cite is an accusation being made in her case. This stems from the fact that the previous occupant had filed a five-unit certificate of occupancy before James owned the property. However, from what I understand, the "unit count" for want of a better description, can be adjusted based on the way that the owner of the building designates the use of different rooms within it for different purposes - and this can affect the unit count. For example, one owner may designate the property as having 5 bedrooms, while another owner may designate the property as having 4 bedrooms and a study. That designation probably wouldn't be relevant anywhere except in the home loan application for the reason previously noted. But it isn't clear from your comments. Perhaps most importantly, you claim that James acted whilst "knowing that was fraud" - i.e. your asserting a consciousness of guilt - which is a legal standard. That simply isn't true. It *might* be true, but it would be for the prosecution to prove that in court. I have to say that I think it *highly* unlikely that they would be able to show that - because to do so [and remember, this is a *documents* case - they would have to be holding a written document in which James discloses that she knows she has done something wrong. I would suggest that if the prosecution had such evidence, they would have included it in their original complaint. Which they have not.
Perhaps more importantly, the case actually filed against James relates to a property in Norfolk, Virginia, not the property in Brooklyn.
However, while we're on the subject of the Brooklyn property, it is worth pointing out that those details were leaked by FHFA Director William Pulte, who very clearly has since taking office been searching the records to which he has access for any possible irregularity to charge any perceived enemy of Donald Trump. At best that would make such cases "selective prosecution", which violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law. It is basically a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause at the State level and the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause at the federal level.
There is no case and there are no charges of wrong-doing for the Brooklyn property - at least, none that I could find.
I'm sure you may believe that James did wrong - and I completely respect your right to hold that belief. But I would respectfully point out that what Pulte did in targeting e.g. Letitia James and Adam Schiff may not be illegal if all he did was investigate, but the moment charges were filed it became a constitutional issue. It was wrong, of course, at any level.
Thanks for this detailed analysis.
I would just like to add one observation... that when it comes to President Trump's actities as a litigant, it is important for us to remember that he views the law not as a neutral vehicle to obtain redress when wronged, but as a cudgel with which to smite anyone he feels may have wronged or slighted him.
The intent here *may* at least in part be an attempt at whataboutism - an attempt to misdirect his Base by claiming that it is in fact James who is guilty and who has wrongly accused Trump of the very crimes she has been committing. Hmm. I wonder where he might have gotten an idea like that?
But more than this, I think he does it to inflict suffering. He knows that with the full force of the DOJ being brought to bear, he can push this case long and hard, and drag up every last tiny little bit of dirt or theory that he can possibly throw at the wall. Chances are that none of it will stick, of course.
But that's not why he does it. He does it because he knows that James is going to have to pay her legal team to investigate and refute every last item, every last claim in the case. If that's the strategy, it honestly doesn't matter to the President if James is acquitted at the end of the trial. He just wants a nice long trial. A nice, long trial where he can pick up on the "brilliant" job his prosecution Team - sorry, the DOJ - are doing, with daily sniping at James.
Agreed. That is exactly what he does, and then, no matter what the outcome, he claims victory.
amazing you do not even know Hochul has stated she is giving James 10, million to fight the law suit and her father is not her husband and that is fraud on a mortgage document,.
Respectfully, I believe the point you raise is factually wrong. 1. Kathy Hochul - and other Democratic Governors - have set up legal contingency funds to draw down on to protect public servants targetted by the federal government. That does not mean that the NYS fund is Hochul "giving James 10 million" - you are materially distorting facts. 2. James has already indicated that she will not be using the Hochul fund - please see Politico article "Laetitia James pursued Trump. Then she was indicted", by Nick Reisman, published 10/09/2025. That article describes how James is using a fund set up by the Democratic Attorneys General Association.
Even if your points were valid, they constitute whataboutism... Countless public figures and celebrities have relied upon anonymous and not-so-anonymous donors to fight lawsuits - not in the same league as this, but consider the Hulk Hogan/Gawker suit, secretly bankrolled by Peter Thiel to the tune of about $10 million. In the case of Kathy Hochul, whether or not you or I agree or disagree with what she did in setting up the fund - doing so was *perfectly legal*. It does not name James explicitly and, very respectfully, you don't seem to cite a law or prohibition that it contravines. If there is one, could you please give us a citation?
And just to complete this reply... I note that you state "her father is not her husband and that is fraud on a mortgage document". I have searched on line for any references to either her father or her husband in reporting covering the case - without success - and there does not appear to be any explicit reference to either individual in the complaint. However, I'm very happy to give you the benefit of the doubt, so if you would like to respond by providing an explanation of your concern and links to valid, relevant documentation on the same, I would be keen to learn more of the point you raise.
Thanks in advance.
she committed mortgage fraud and she said her father was her husband and not to mention she obtained a mortgage by lying about the house in NY being a four family instead of a 5 knowing that was fraud.
Thanks for responding, but as I noted previously, I can find no documented reference or complaint that shows that 1) James claimed her father was her husband; or 2) that even if she did this, it would somehow be illegal. Again, if you could provide us with a reference to an article - or better yet - a court filing - that would be helpful.
The observation you make regarding a Brooklyn property concerns not the number of family but the number of units, which is relevant in the home loan market. A property with four or fewer units is generally regarded as residential for loan purposes, while a property with five units is considered commercial. The "fraud" you cite is an accusation being made in her case. This stems from the fact that the previous occupant had filed a five-unit certificate of occupancy before James owned the property. However, from what I understand, the "unit count" for want of a better description, can be adjusted based on the way that the owner of the building designates the use of different rooms within it for different purposes - and this can affect the unit count. For example, one owner may designate the property as having 5 bedrooms, while another owner may designate the property as having 4 bedrooms and a study. That designation probably wouldn't be relevant anywhere except in the home loan application for the reason previously noted. But it isn't clear from your comments. Perhaps most importantly, you claim that James acted whilst "knowing that was fraud" - i.e. your asserting a consciousness of guilt - which is a legal standard. That simply isn't true. It *might* be true, but it would be for the prosecution to prove that in court. I have to say that I think it *highly* unlikely that they would be able to show that - because to do so [and remember, this is a *documents* case - they would have to be holding a written document in which James discloses that she knows she has done something wrong. I would suggest that if the prosecution had such evidence, they would have included it in their original complaint. Which they have not.
Continued...
Perhaps more importantly, the case actually filed against James relates to a property in Norfolk, Virginia, not the property in Brooklyn.
However, while we're on the subject of the Brooklyn property, it is worth pointing out that those details were leaked by FHFA Director William Pulte, who very clearly has since taking office been searching the records to which he has access for any possible irregularity to charge any perceived enemy of Donald Trump. At best that would make such cases "selective prosecution", which violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law. It is basically a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause at the State level and the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause at the federal level.
There is no case and there are no charges of wrong-doing for the Brooklyn property - at least, none that I could find.
I'm sure you may believe that James did wrong - and I completely respect your right to hold that belief. But I would respectfully point out that what Pulte did in targeting e.g. Letitia James and Adam Schiff may not be illegal if all he did was investigate, but the moment charges were filed it became a constitutional issue. It was wrong, of course, at any level.