I believe the attorney general of New York is going to get charged by the feds here criminally. I think this is going to be a big deal. I think it is a case that is being under covered right now, even in the right wing media. [00:00:15] I've been surprised that this hasn't gotten more attention. That was Mediaite's Dan Abrams on the Trump administration's investigation into New York Attorney General Letitia James for alleged fraud. [00:00:30] Mortgage fraud, to be specific. But is this just a political witch hunt, or could there actually be merit behind these allegations from the Department of Justice? So before we get to the details, Jake, what did you think right off the bat initially before reading the details? [00:00:47] So I'm really worried that Trump is targeting her, because she is among his enemies and they're looking for a needle in a haystack to get her. So from what we talked about before. But the devil is always in the details. So did she do it or didn't she do it? Was it material or not material? [00:01:03] That's what's important. Because we can't be hypocrites. We have to be fair and honest to everyone involved. And by the way, both things can be true. It could be a politically motivated investigation, and it could be true as long as it's obviously adjudicated through court, through investigations [00:01:19] that she committed mortgage fraud. Right. So with that in mind, let's give you the details. So last week, the Department of Justice received a criminal referral letter from the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Okay. So according to that letter, James allegedly lied about properties that [00:01:37] she owns both in Virginia and New York in order to get better terms on her loans. That's the allegation. Now, Letitia James bought a Virginia property with a niece back in 2023 and stated that it was her primary residence, when in fact it was not. [00:01:55] Both signed a notarized document that claimed, I hereby declare that I intend to occupy this property as my principal residence. But it's not her principal residence. In fact, her niece does in fact live in the property, but James does not. [00:02:12] And now, the reason why this is important is because when you are applying for a mortgage, if it's not your primary residence, you are going to get slapped with a higher interest rate. So that's the concern here. However, on a separate loan application form provided by the Attorney [00:02:29] General's office, James indicated that she did not intend to occupy the property as a primary residence. Her mortgage agreement did not require her to do so. Yeah. So, look, guys, it's a tough one. It's. Both of these seem like they could be ticky tack violations [00:02:46] because she had a different form. She said, no, I'm not going to occupy the the home. So she was honest in that form. The form where she was not accurate, was notarized. - That's a problem. - That is a problem. Yeah. So now when you compare it to Trump's, Trump's financial fraud involved [00:03:04] literally billions of dollars, right? So this is over a mortgage. Nevertheless, if you're going to charge someone with fraud, you got to make sure you're not doing it right. So to me, on this first one, if if I was a prosecutor, I'd look at at a couple of things. One is intent. [00:03:22] Was she trying to get the lower interest rate when she filled out the notarized form? Is the notarized form the one that matters for the lower interest rate, or is it the other form? Right. Because that goes to intent. Did she intend to lie or was it just an honest mistake? So that would be a huge part of it. And then the second thing is I would do an honest assessment [00:03:39] of how big a deal it was, right? Was it a thing that a lot of people do and we don't normally prosecute? But because she's, you know, a politician that was supposed to Trump, now we're going to prosecute. Now, I don't like that. Right. Or is it a thing that. No, that's a serious problem. Right. And and if other people do it we prosecute them. [00:03:57] Well if that's true, then you should prosecute her because no one is above the law. Yeah. What Jake is getting at here is that there are a lot of details that we don't know. And they could be sussed out, like in court, right, to determine how serious these allegations. First of all, if these allegations have any merit and if they do, [00:04:15] how serious this alleged fraud really is. We don't know at this moment, so I want to be clear about that now. James has also been accused of falsifying the number of units in a Brooklyn home that she purchased back in 2001. Man, we're going all the way back to 2001. [00:04:30] Okay, so the letter noted that while a January 2001 certificate of occupancy said the home had five units, James had consistently said it had four. So that's important because the property was purchased with a loan that is only applicable for homes with four units or less, [00:04:48] or buildings with four units or less. So James has refuted that allegation as well. A spokesperson from James's office said that a writer attached to the mortgage clarified that the building was four units, and agreed that she had said so consistently in paperwork. [00:05:05] So if that's true, okay, then she has nothing to worry about, right? There's more, though it seems that technically the building is listed as both though. So the certificate filed with the City Department of Buildings lists five units in the 152 year old row house, including two on the top floor. [00:05:24] But city finance records classify the building as a four unit property, so that's another relevant detail or factor to consider when it comes to these allegations. Finally, the letter alleges that in 1983, three years before I was even born, James [00:05:40] and her father signed mortgage documents. This is politically motivated. Yeah, it's politically motivated. I'm 38 years old. They looked at documents that are three years older than I am. - That's insane. - Yeah. So look, that's what I mean. They you go after political opponents by trying to find a needle in a haystack. [00:05:57] And as Anna said earlier, two things can be true at the same time. So, for example, did the Republicans target Hunter Biden because he was, you know, Joe Biden's son? Of course. Right. But at the same time, is Hunter Biden, a Ukrainian gas expert and a modern artist? No, of course not. Right. [00:06:13] Yeah. They picked on him, but he should have been picked on. Right? So on the other hand, when they went after Hunter Biden for these ticky tack violations. Oh, you lied on your gun form. You didn't say that. You were, you know, on drugs at some point in your life. [00:06:28] No, he was on drugs at the time. Okay, fine. But be. Fair. I got you, but drugs include marijuana. Have to country light on that. He was not just on marijuana, though. No, I know, but half the country is on marijuana when they fill out that form. And technically, it's the same exact violation. [00:06:43] And we could send, like, I don't know, 80 million people to jail over that. And we don't. That was a political prosecution of a guy who's, you know, a low level fraudster. Right. But but that one was not the thing to target him for. And the. Oh, and he paid his taxes, but he paid him late again. [00:07:02] I could get 80 million Americans on that charge. So my point is somebody could be shady and they didn't break that law, or that violation is no big deal, or it's just a political witch hunt and they're not shady at all and they're getting targeted. [00:07:19] Right. And at this moment, we don't know. We don't. Look, I do think that there's a political motivation here in going after Letitia James. Certainly, Letitia James is a vociferous Trump hater and has talked about going after him for his criminality, [00:07:35] so it doesn't surprise me that her actions would be met with similar actions by her political opponents. But that being said, I just want to finish what I was saying about the 1983 thing because the letter alleges that in 1983, James and her father signed mortgage documents that stated [00:07:50] that they were a married couple. And so we didn't find any evidence that James has responded to that claim in particular. But all three allegations against James are relevant because she herself again has sued Donald Trump for fraud. So. So look, real quick, I'm going to list the things [00:08:07] that I'm worried about in order. So I'm worried when we have both judges and attorney generals running for office, because Letitia James knew that she would be more likely to win if she said, I'm going to target Donald Trump. And it did help her win. And that's not a good thing. [00:08:24] We don't want attorney generals saying, I'm going to target our political opponents, and that's a popular position and that's going to help me win. Because remember, they could do it in a red state saying, you know what, I'm going to target Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, whoever else. Pick me, elect me, and I'll do unfair prosecutions. [00:08:40] Now, Letitia James prosecutions, in my opinion, were not unfair, but I'm worried about that as a concept. Right? Second thing I'm worried about is hypocrisy. If Letitia James did do these things and they are material and she and they could prove intent. Well, then that's a massive case of hypocrisy. [00:08:55] And I'm very worried about that. And finally, the thing that I'm most worried about is an enemies list. And Trump clearly has an enemies list. And he's so crazy that he put it in a presidential memo and he said, these are my enemies, and I want the Justice Department to target him. That's terrible. Terrible, right? [00:09:13] And by the way, you knucklehead, when you put it in a presidential memo, they're going to use it in court and say, well, obviously I'm this prosecutions nonsense. The president literally put me on an enemies list, right? So these are very bad developments for the country. Every time you ring the bell below, an angel gets its wings. [00:09:31] Totally not true, but it does keep you updated on our live shows.