New York Attorney General Letitia James is once again at the heart of a political and legal storm—this time not as the prosecutor, but as a potential victim of what investigators fear may have been a tainted federal probe directed by Trump officials.
A federal grand jury in Maryland is now examining whether senior Trump administration figures improperly enlisted unauthorized individuals to assist in mortgage fraud investigations involving James and other political critics of Donald Trump. The inquiry was first detailed by MS NOW reporters Ken Dilanian and Carol Leonnig and highlighted in a Mediaite report.
James Says Justice System Was ‘Weaponized’ — Grand Jury Now Examining If She’s Right
James was indicted last month on mortgage fraud charges—allegations she has forcefully rejected. She entered a not-guilty plea and accused the Trump-aligned Justice Department of turning federal law enforcement into a political weapon.
Now, federal investigators appear to be asking the same question: Was the case against her compromised from the start?
According to two people familiar with the matter, the grand jury is focused on whether Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte and Justice Department prosecutor Ed Martin inserted unapproved operatives into the investigative process. A document reviewed by MS NOW suggests those actions may have contaminated both the James case and a parallel investigation involving Rep. Adam Schiff.
Political Reverberations Deepen
For James, whose office has led major civil and criminal actions involving the Trump Organization, the federal probe shines a harsh light on what may have been occurring behind the scenes while she pursued Trump in court.
If prosecutors conclude the mortgage fraud case was improperly handled—or influenced by individuals with no legal authority to participate—it could fuel claims that her indictment was driven more by political payback than by the rule of law.
A Justice Department in the Spotlight
The grand jury investigation lands during a period of intensified scrutiny over Justice Department conduct during Trump’s presidency. Just three days before this probe became public, a federal judge sharply criticized prosecutor Lindsey Halligan for “critical errors” in a grand jury case involving former FBI Director James Comey, warning that proceedings may have been “tainted.”
The repeated emergence of the same term—tainted—across multiple Trump-era cases is raising alarms among legal experts who say even the perception of political interference erodes confidence in the justice system.
What Comes Next
Neither Pulte nor Martin has publicly addressed the allegations. The Justice Department and FHFA have declined comment.
For now, the Maryland grand jury will continue its work privately. But for Letitia James, who has often been the one holding others accountable, the findings could become a powerful vindication—or escalate an already volatile political standoff.
If the probe confirms misconduct, it may reshape not only her own case but also the broader narrative about how far Trump-era officials were willing to go to pursue the former president’s critics.
