Letitia James was out to get Trump
From Jonathan Turley’s “Letitia James exposed as fighting only for revenge, not justice”:
According to whistleblower Daniel Wiesenfeld, a former Brooklyn prosecutor who works in the Investor Protection Bureau, James produced her chosen defendant and ordered her staff to find a crime, any crime.
Wiesenfeld sent an email to call on fellow lawyers not to assist James further in weaponizing her office. He recounted his own experience as a prosecutor in her office and how Bureau Chief Shamiso Maswoswe allegedly directed him to target “Trump himself, Truth Social, Hewlett Packard (DOJ approved merger) . . . without having a credible reason for targeting the organizations and individuals.”
He added that “If you believe Trump is using the [Department of Justice] attorneys to prosecute his enemies and further his political interests, you should find it equally troubling that Tish [James] is doing exactly the same thing.”
In his blistering email, Wiesenfeld reminded his colleagues that they have other things to do than hunt down James’ enemies. While she wastes “significant public taxpayer dollars to target convenient public enemies,” Wiesenfeld reminded them that there is “rampant nonprofit homeless shelter fraud and antisemitic crimes in and around synagogues.”
Instead, James concentrated on an absurd civil case against Trump where the “victims” made money, lost nothing, and wanted more business from the Trump corporation.
We’ve known this for a long long time. The basic idea is not new and in fact, James campaigned on it. She had identified the criminal and all she had to do was find the crime. The one she and her underlings found was absurd, underscoring how difficult it was to come up with a crime for which to prosecute Trump. They had to essentially make one up.
So, what is new about this? The details are being fleshed out via a whistleblower.
Turley points out, correctly I believe, that most on the left still applaud her:
James is unlikely to be deterred by Wiesenfeld’s email. She knows that the far left still prefers performative lawfare to actual enforcement of fraud and other laws. Some voters would willingly watch billions stolen in program fraud in exchange for just one more trophy Trump conviction.
In fairness to James, she has always been open about what she is and what she was offering.
Absolutely.
Not only that, but some of the left are recipients of the largesse of that fraud. So of course they don’t mind – it’s a win/win situation for them.
[NOTE: I recently heard a bunch of very garden-variety non-DSA Democrats talk with relish about wanting to impeach Trump. Again. For what, they didn’t say; it was just assumed this would be a good thing.]
Laverenti James, she’s out to Beria. And bury Don.
(bury you)
For liberals, hating Trump is the centerpiece of their souls. And yet he’s only improved their prospects, and those of their children and grandchildren.
They are lost in hate.
Between the time James received her law degree and the time she passed the bar examination, the examination was administered at least 3x. Either she was skipping it or she kept failing it. She practiced law for ten years, employed as a legal aid lawyer. She was elected to public office in 1999 and allowed her license to lapse. When she was elected attorney-general, she hadn’t practiced in 19 years and did not have a valid license. The candidate she defeated in 2018 was a black BigLaw partner for whom taking the attorney-general’s job would have been a considerable personal sacrifice. Letitia is who the NY electorate wanted in lieu of that man.
==
She’s also a childless spinster. Her career in law wasn’t a bust because she was distracted by family responsibilities.
==
BTW, you want to know another Democratic pol whose legal career bears a remarkable resemblance to hers? Keith Ellison.
==
The political culture in New York is gangrenous.
IMO, the Constitution of New York should incorporate a requirement that no one be eligible for the position of state attorney-general, district attorney, or public defender if they are not qualified to sit on one or another of the state’s superior courts and they lack a sufficient history of being employed as a staff attorney in a state attorney-general’s office, a district attorney’s office, or a public defender’s office as the case may be. You might define a requisite history as four years (pro-rating p/t employment). The history wouldn’t not have had to have been compiled in the state in question; any state or territory would do. To qualify to sit on a superior court, the requirement might be that you have been a member of the bar active and in good standing (in some state or territorial jurisdiction) for a minimum of 13 years and that you be a member of the state’s bar active and in good standing at this time. You might also do away with competitive election as a means of filling the position of attorney-general and district attorney. Posit the state legislature might choose the attorney-general and conventions of local councillors choose the district attorneys and public defenders. The occupants could serve until they were mandated to retire with their tenure regulated by recall referenda or by regular retention-in-office referenda.
Gas gangrenous, it’s in the air they breath.
“… gas gangrene is a severe, rapidly progressing bacterial form (of gangrene) that produces gas in tissues and primarily affects muscles.” – Copilot. From reading military history, gas gangrene was quickly lethal.
I think everyone knew that
Miranda Devine’s post has some information missing from Turley’s (at Neo’s link), which clarified a few points and raised some new questions.
I thought at first he was one of the recent crop of “whistleblowers” revealing things we already suspected (or even knew) years ago, but with documents.
Instead, it looks like he is a newcomer to Tish’s circle.
Was he unaware of what she has been up to the last few years?
https://nypost.com/2026/08/30/opinion/miranda-devine-ag-letitia-james-evil-eye-on-trump-and-blind-eye-to-ny-crime/
The more mysterious question:
om
Good word play. Lavrenti Beria’s well-known quote is
Ironically, it wasn’t difficult to find crimes that Beria himself had committed. IIRC, after Stalin’s death he was in favor of toning down the Cold War.
“… the far left still prefers performative lawfare to actual enforcement of fraud and other laws.”
TRUE AND HORRIBLE.
Gringo:
IIRC those who survived after Stalin died quickly decided that Beria was too dangerous to remain alive, so he was liquidated/ eliminated/terminated/ sent to sing in the celestial choir. What goes around came around finally.
Not that they (KGB, FSB) got much more civilized it seems: balconies, polonium, nerve agents, etc.
And yet many of of us are still waiting for the perp walks and the orange jail duds.
Are we seeing a Barbara Streisand effect here, as well?
AesopFan,
In case you didn’t know, having “F**k You Money” means that one is rich enough not to worry about the consequences of one’s actions. (I read this in Scott Adams’ book “Win Bigly.”)
Apologies if you already knew this.
Tish James is crooked?
Aw, c’mon!!!
Tell us something we don’t already know!!
– – – – – – –
Meanwhile President Fentanyl-Tranq rides again…
‘Oversight Committee Launches Probe Into Biden DEA’s ‘Walking Fentanyl’ Operation;
‘“As a result, New Mexico was heavily affected by fentanyl with a nearly 21 percent increase in fentanyl poisoning deaths compared to a 14 percent decrease in the United States overall.”’—
https://legalinsurrection.com/2026/08/oversight-committee-launches-probe-into-biden-deas-walking-fentanyl-operation/
Letitia James was out to “get Trump.” Yes.
Fani Willis went after Trump in Georgia on specious charges. Yes.
Elected Democrats, and some running to be elected plan to impeach Trump if they win back control of the House. Yes.
A group of federal judges make up the go-to cadre who can be counted on to stifle Executive Orders when Trump puts them out. Yes.
A few Democrat politicians (inter alia Pritzker and Newsom) who have little to run on in the upcoming elections have settled on anti-Trump platforms in the hope they can energize their base. Yes.
And finally, a recurring talking point Democrats are using to whip up fervor in their base is a promise to pack the Supreme Court and do away with the Electoral College.
It’s all true. And in the 70 or so years I have been politically aware, I don’t recall a similar foaming-at-the-mouth effort. I remember some anti-Kennedy rumblings, initially aimed at his nomination of his brother as AG. And people certainly went after W, claiming he was a mental lightweight and dodged the draft. And I guess Ford was also attacked as being intellectually underwhelming and Nixon was hated, but even with all the hatred of Nixon, which was very personal and not fact-based, I don’t remember even him being as personally attacked as Trump. I might not be remembering all the previous vitriol, but I am not forgetting previous constant lawfare against a sitting president. It feels to me as if we’re reaching peak crazy. It is very unsettling.
They want to impeach Trump because his vulgarity disgusts them.
—
-You want to impeach Trump because of Gold toilets, don’t you?
-Gold … toilets???
-So vulgar, so disgusting — but is that a good reason to impeach Trump?
Them: It’s not the gold toilets …
– You think the gold toilets are fine???
T: No, they’re terrible.
– And that’s why you want to impeach him, right. Because of his terrible taste.
T: No, he’s bad blah blah blah
– Sounds like you hate his taste, not his policies.
—
I’ve not quite had such a conversation with my Dem friends, but such is in my mind.
Remember tho, it’s Dem Derangement Syndrome.
Dems who are Deranged.
(Because of the Demonization against Republicans, who are eeeeevil).
In 2028 there will be more Vance/Rubio/DeSantis DS talked about, but it will be the latest Dem Derangement Syndrome.
@Tom Grey:They want to impeach Trump because his vulgarity disgusts them.
I don’t think that’s why, I think it’s because he threatens them. He threatens them while and because he does the things most of us here approve of. They have good reason by their lights. It’s not just his style.
Gravitas and dignity didn’t stop Reagan from being portrayed as an amiable dunce whose finger should be nowhere near the Button, or George W. Bush from being portrayed as a village idiot and another Hitler. But they weren’t impeached because whatever the virtues of those gentlemen they did not threaten the Swamp.
Now in Reagan’s day the Swamp was still loyal and competent, if not exactly efficient. By W’s time the Swamp was considerably less competent and starting to think it really should be in charge of things, and Obama and Biden let it do that. And here we are.
Of course James is corrupt. But now Trump and MAGA are guilty of the same corruption in going after Jerome Powell, Comey, Lisa Cook, James herself, and others. If you become the very thing that you complain about, no one really wants to hear you complain about it anymore.
Advocates of Trump’s retaliatory lawfare argue that it is necessary to deter Dems. Well, your test will come in 2029. If Dems refrain from further lawfare or scale back relative to what they did from 2020-2024, I will admit that you were right. Good luck.
@Bauxite:But now Trump and MAGA are guilty of the same corruption in going after Jerome Powell, Comey, Lisa Cook, James herself, and others.
I don’t want to misunderstand you. Are you saying that these people you have named, and the “others” you didn’t name, did nothing illegal?
Advocates of Trump’s retaliatory lawfare argue that it is necessary to deter Dems.
This is not actually what we argue. What we actually argue is that for one side to not do it when the other does it is suicide, and that if both sides do it, they may later decide to both stop doing it, or they both might continue doing it forever, but there is no chance of it ever stopping if only side keeps doing it and never suffers any retaliation.
It went on for YEARS before Trump was on the scene.
If it stops, great, but if it never stops, well, those are the new rules and we all have to play by them, and at least it’s a fair fight.
There are of course, those who always want us to roll over; all honorable men of course, and lifelong Republicans to a man, of course, the best way to conserve conservatism is to never fight as hard the Left does for it, everyone knows that.
Well, Niketas Choniates – did James do anything illegal? Her indictments were thrown out. And then the career prosecutors (they who could indict a ham sandwich) couldn’t get a grand jury to indict on the evidence they had.
How about Comey? Most of his indictments were thrown out too. And is there any chance on God’s green earth that a jury is going to convict him of intending to threaten to kill the president by arranging sea shells in the sand? (In a word, no.)
How about Lisa Cook? The facts on that one are murky at best. Cook says that the mortgage application for her second house had a paperwork error and that she correctly listed the second residence as a vacation home at other places in the application. The state is going to prove intentional fraud on that record? Ah, no.
And even if there were crimes (which I doubt), if you’re A-OK with having a political hack like Bill Pulte comb through government records to play “show me the political enemy and I’ll show you the crime,” that’s fine. But man, what goes around comes around. I guarantee that Democrats are going to be much, much better at that game. Unlike most of Trump’s staff, Democrats actually know how the government works. They’ll find things. And, like I said, you’ll have no grounds to complain.
@Bauxite:Well, Niketas Choniates – did James do anything illegal? Her indictments were thrown out
“Did nothing illegal” and “indictment thrown out” are not the same thing, and you know it.
So, kindly answer the question I asked. For Cook you have
“Cook says that the mortgage application for her second house had a paperwork error”
so the answer is “yes Cook did something illegal”. I give you credit for that one.
So for everyone listed other than Cook, is it your position that they did nothing illegal?
But man, what goes around comes around. I guarantee that Democrats are going to be much, much better at that game.
What is this “going to be”? You are pretending that the last 20 years didn’t happen?
It is well past time we tried to get as good at as they are AND HAVE BEEN FOR THE LAST TWENTY YEARS.
CC™-R (Bauxite) now becomes the defender of the Deep State hacks and crooks, because he is now a caricature of a serious person.
Stage IV Ahab ideation.
Contemptable.
Borrowing Mssr. Reneault’s shocked face and demeanor:
I am Shocked, Shocked to find that a liberal DA was so deeply involved in partisan politics!!!