Special Prosecutor Ed Martin was appointed in August 2025 to investigate New York Attorney General Letitia James for a pattern of fraudulent real estate and mortgage filings that I reported in The Gateway Pundit beginning in March.
In a September 14, 2025, interview on The Point with Marcia Kramer (CBS New York), Attorney General Letitia James gave a revealing preview of how her attorneys may defend her against potential mortgage fraud charges.
Her decision to go public with these arguments could even be aimed at dissuading Special Prosecutor Ed Martin from formally indicting her.
When told by Kramer, “Trump has two grand jury investigations against you”, James responded, “he’s announced this investigation into my alleged mortgage fraud. As you know, in order to engage in mortgage fraud, you need intent.”
James is correct that intent is an essential element of mortgage fraud under New York Penal Law §§187.05-187.25. Prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with the intent to defraud.
Defense attorneys often argue that mistakes, misunderstandings, or a lack of awareness negate criminal liability—no intent.
But a defense claim of “no intent” does not prevent prosecutors from filing charges. At trial, a bare assertion like “I didn’t mean to” or “I didn’t understand the laws” is not automatically a shield.
Instead, it’s whether the evidence suggests she “should have known” or consciously disregarded the truth. Given James’s extensive legal experience and her public record as a defender of tenants’ rights and property laws in New York, prosecutors are likely to argue that she knew exactly what she was doing.
In fact, Letitia James had positioned herself as a defender of rent stabilization laws and tenants’ rights in New York City, and her office sued defendants like Zara Realty in order to “do everything it can to defend New York’s rent laws and protect struggling tenants.”
Letitia James next claimed in the interview, “Mortgage fraud is a rare, rare, rare type of investigation and indictment and the facts do not substantiate it”.
It is true that mortgage fraud prosecutions are relatively uncommon. Many suspicious cases never become criminal charges, often ending instead in civil settlements or regulatory penalties.
In 2020, mortgage fraud accounted for just 1.1% of all federal theft, property, and fraud cases.
However, rarity is not a legal defense. Courts do not dismiss charges simply because they are infrequently brought. The law requires that the elements of the offense be proven, not that prosecutions occur with statistical frequency.
James’s “rare indictment” framing seems more aimed at intimidating potential prosecutors by painting them as unreasonable, rather than at offering a viable courtroom defense.
Thirdly in the interview, James stated, “it’s nothing more than an attempt to engage in retribution against all the actions that I’ve taken against Donald Trump and this administration”.
Here she appears to be gesturing toward a selective or vindictive prosecution defense, which is a constitutional claim rather than a factual defense.
To succeed, she would need to prove that others engaged in the same conduct without being prosecuted and that her prosecution was based on an impermissible motive, such as retaliation for her political actions.
But this is an extremely difficult standard to meet. The U.S. Supreme Court has made clear in United States v. Armstrong (1996) that selective prosecution claims require strong, objective evidence of discriminatory intent. Mere timing or accusations of political motivation are not enough. New York courts apply the same principle.
Thus, alleging retribution or retaliation for “doing my job”, is not a substantive defense to mortgage fraud, it won’t prove innocence. It can only be raised as a procedural/constitutional challenge under selective or vindictive prosecution doctrine, which is very difficult to win.
Finally, Marcia Kramer asked James, “Do you find that it has a chilling effect on what you do”?
James responded with her typical bravado, “Well, listen, I believe that faith and fear cannot share the same space, and I’ve got a job to do”.
Each of Letitia James’s defenses are weak in their own way. Lack of intent is a factual question for trial, not a shield against indictment. Rarity of prosecution has no legal weight. And retaliation claims are nearly impossible to prove without hard evidence of discriminatory targeting.
James built her career on aggressively prosecuting landlords, lenders, and even Donald Trump for alleged financial misrepresentations.
On February 16, 2024, James released a statement: “EverydayAmericans 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.”
Now, facing allegations of mortgage fraud herself, James is publicly advancing weak legal arguments that, if accepted, would grant her the very exceptions she once denied others. The public, however, expects consistency. If James applied a strict standard to her opponents, she cannot credibly demand leniency for herself.
The coming days will determine whether Ed Martin brings charges, but one fact is already clear: James’s own words and record may prove her most damaging adversary.
Joel Gilbert is a Los Angeles-based film producer and president of Highway 61 Entertainment. He is the producer of the new film Roseanne Barr Is America. He is also the producer of: Dreams from My Real Father, The Trayvon Hoax, Trump: The Art of the Insult, and many other films on American politics and music icons. Gilbert is on Twitter: @JoelSGilbert.
The post NY Attorney General Letitia James Goes Public with Her Defense Strategy Against Likely Mortgage Fraud Indictment appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.