Connect with us

News

What we know about the charges against New York’s Attorney General Letitia James

Published

on

What we know about the charges against New York’s Attorney General Letitia James

Watch: How Letitia James ended up in Trump’s crosshairs

New York Attorney General Letitia James has been criminally indicted on federal bank fraud charges over a property she purchased in Virginia.

US President Donald Trump has pushed his officials to legally pursue James, among other political opponents of his.

James denies any wrongdoing, calling the case a “desperate weaponisation of our justice system”. A similar accusation was made against her by Trump and his allies when James won a civil fraud case against him in 2023.

Here is what we know about the case against James – and a recap of the one she led against Trump.

Advertisement

What has Letitia James been charged with?

The US Department of Justice (DoJ) says James has been charged with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

The charges relate to James’s three-bedroom property in Norfolk, Virginia.

Prosecutors allege she secured a mortgage claiming the property as her secondary residence, while her primary residence was in Brooklyn, New York. Instead, she rented out the property to a family of three, according to court documents.

The prosecution alleges that James was required to occupy and use the property as her secondary residence, not as a rental investment property, in order to secure a favourable loan.

Advertisement

Prosecutors allege she saved $18,933 (£14,229) through this “misrepresentation”, including by securing a lower interest rate.

“No one is above the law,” US Department of Justice attorney Lindsey Halligan said in a statement.

James has previously said she made an error while filling out paperwork for the property, which was then corrected. She has called the charges “baseless” and has taken aim directly at Trump.

“He is forcing federal law enforcement agencies to do his bidding, all because I did my job as the New York State attorney general,” she said.

James’s attorney Abbe Lowell later said she would “fight these charges in every process allowed in the law”. Lowell added: “We are deeply concerned that this case is driven by President Trump’s desire for revenge.”

Advertisement

Who else is Trump pursuing – and what’s the background?

Legal action against James had been expected, after Trump named her in a list of political opponents he wanted his administration to legally pursue.

“We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility,” the president wrote last month in a Truth Social post.

“They impeached me twice, and indicted me (5 times!)” he said of those opponents.

Former FBI director James Comey and Democratic Senator Adam Schiff were also mentioned in Trump’s post.

Advertisement

Within a few days, Mr Comey was charged with making false statements to lawmakers and obstructing a congressional proceeding. He has pleaded not guilty.

The bank fraud case against James was floated publicly in April, when a letter penned by the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) was obtained by US media. It said the FHFA had made a criminal referral to the justice department, alleging James had falsified her bank and property records.

Trump’s case hit a bump when the lawyer overseeing federal prosecutions in the Eastern District of Virginia, Erik Siebert, resigned in September.

Although Siebert did not provide a reason for quitting, Trump said he was “fired” after he said “we had no case” against James.

Trump appointed to the position his former personal lawyer Lindsey Halligan – who is accused by James of being “blindly loyal not to the law, but to the president”.

Advertisement

What happened in James’s case against Trump?

Getty Images Letitia James sitting on a wooden bench in court in focus, with Trump and his lawyer in the foreground out of focusGetty Images

Trump and James have stared each other down in court before.

James launched a civil fraud case against Trump and his company in 2022.

The court found the following year that Trump had been liable for overstating the value of his business assets to obtain favourable loans.

Throughout the trial, Trump denied wrongdoing and repeatedly referred to the case as a “witch hunt”.

Following a ruling ordering Trump to pay $500m (£375m), James said: “Today, we prove that no one is above the law. No matter how rich, powerful, or politically connected you are.”

Advertisement

But Trump appealed against the ruling, and in August 2025, a court threw out the $500m penalty against him, which the president called a “total victory”.

However, the same court upheld Trump’s fraud liability and did not throw out the non-financial penalties.

James’s office said it would appeal against the overturned penalty.

When did the feud between Trump and James begin?

Public scuffles between Trump and James stretch back to the 2018 contest for New York’s attorney general, which happened during Trump’s first term in the White House.

Advertisement

During her campaign to become the state’s top law enforcement officer, James called Trump an “illegitimate” president.

Trump was even mentioned during her victory speech on election night. “He [Trump] should know that we here in New York – and I, in particular – we are not scared of you,” she told cheering supporters.

James has also mocked Trump’s 1987 best-selling self-help book when describing his alleged fraud.

“Claiming that you have money that you do not have, does not amount to the Art of the Deal,” she said, referring to the book’s title. “It’s the art of the steal.”

The pair have sparred on social media for years, and Trump has responded to his opponent with name-calling.

Advertisement

News

House votes to rein in Trump on Iran as war loses GOP support

Published

on

House votes to rein in Trump on Iran as war loses GOP support

Washington — The House on Wednesday passed a measure that would force President Trump to end the war with Iran without congressional authorization, marking the first time the lower chamber has defied the White House on the conflict. 

The House voted 215 to 208 to approve the war powers resolution with the help of four Republicans. Democratic Rep. Jared Golden of Maine, who has voted against the three previous failed attempts, also dropped his opposition and voted for the measure, giving his party unanimity on the issue.

Republican Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Tom Barrett of Michigan and Warren Davidson of Ohio voted with Democrats in favor of the measure.

Democrats in the chamber erupted in applause after passage.

The vote was supposed to take place before lawmakers left for the Memorial Day recess, but House GOP leaders abruptly pulled the vote when it became clear they did not have the numbers to block it. Several Republicans were absent and others were expected to support it. 

Advertisement

The Senate advanced a similar measure in May to rein in Mr. Trump on Iran after four Republicans joined all but one Democrat to push it forward. Three Republican absences also helped deliver the breakthrough after seven previous unsuccessful votes. 

But the Senate’s procedural vote was just the first step on the way to potential passage, and Republicans will have another opportunity to block it in the coming days.

It’s unclear when they plan to vote on the House version. In a statement, House Democratic leaders called on Senate Republicans “to do the right thing.” 

Support for the war from some Republicans waned after the conflict passed a statutory 60-day deadline under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which says the president must remove armed forces from hostilities if Congress has not authorized the war. The war passed the deadline on May 1, but the administration has argued that a fragile ceasefire stopped the clock in early April, though both sides have carried out attacks since then.

The Trump administration has also argued the War Powers Resolution of 1973 is unconstitutional, though that theory has never been tested in court.

Advertisement

Republicans who have voted in favor of limiting Mr. Trump’s military powers in Iran have been uncomfortable with the lack of congressional authorization on the war and a strategy to end it. Some fear the war’s unpopularity and the economic fallout could harm the GOP’s chances at keeping control of Congress after the midterm elections in November. 

GOP Rep. Ashley Hinson of Iowa, who is running for Senate, said in a private exchange at a campaign stop last week that the war could be a “political liability” if it continues beyond “the next couple of weeks,” according to audio obtained by CBS News. 

But Mr. Trump said last month he was in “no hurry” to make a deal with Iran ahead of the midterms. 

“Everybody’s saying, ‘Oh, the midterms, I’m in a hurry.’ I’m in no hurry,” he said. 

The resolution approved Wednesday was introduced in April by Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. It directs the president “to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran,” unless Congress declares war or authorizes the use of military force. 

Advertisement

Rep. Brian Mast of Florida, the Republican chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, earlier Wednesday called it a “stupid political vote” that “weakens the president’s hands as he’s negotiating with Iran.” 

After the vote, Meeks brushed off the assertion that the war powers votes have undercut the president during negotiations with Iran. When asked whether Democrats would keep forcing votes to end the Iran war, Meeks told reporters, “You can expect us to continue to do our jobs.” 

“We’re going to continue to do our constitutional responsibilities,” he said. 

Fitzpatrick, who also voted in favor of a war powers resolution in May, said, “The law is the law.” 

“We have to follow the law. There’s a law on the books,” Fitzpatrick said. “So you have two choices: You either follow the law or you change the law. You can’t violate the law. That’s not an option.” 

Advertisement

During floor debate on the measure on May 20, Democrats questioned why Republicans haven’t held a vote on an authorization for military force to provide Mr. Trump with legal guardrails for attacking Iran. 

“If my Republican colleagues believe this is justified, they should bring an AUMF to the floor,” Meeks said.

There’s been little momentum so far behind an AUMF introduced by Barrett earlier in May. 

Rep. Kevin Kiley of California, an independent who caucuses with Republicans, argued there are “better tools” for Congress to assert its authority. 

“We actually have the ability to provide direction as to how funds should be used,” Kiley said, referring to Congress’ power of the purse. “I understand why people want to use whatever tools are available, but I believe that Congress should use those tools of congressional oversight and the powers we have under Article I that really have teeth here.” 

Advertisement

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Map: 5.1-Magnitude Earthquake Strikes off the Coast of California

Published

on

Map: 5.1-Magnitude Earthquake Strikes off the Coast of California

Advertisement

Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown.  All times on the map are Pacific time. The New York Times

Advertisement

A moderately strong, 5.1-magnitude earthquake struck in the North Pacific Ocean on Wednesday, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The temblor happened at 5:45 a.m. Pacific time about 40 miles west of Petrolia, Calif., data from the agency shows.

Advertisement

As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Aftershocks detected

Subsequent quakes have been reported in the same area. Such temblors are typically aftershocks caused by minor adjustments along the portion of a fault that slipped at the time of the initial earthquake.

Quakes and aftershocks within 100 miles

Advertisement

Aftershocks can occur days, weeks or even years after the first earthquake. These events can be of equal or larger magnitude to the initial earthquake, and they can continue to affect already damaged locations.

Advertisement

When quakes and aftershocks occurred

 All times are Pacific time. The New York Times

Advertisement

Sources: United States Geological Survey (epicenter, aftershocks, shake intensity); LandScan via Oak Ridge National Laboratory (population density) | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Wednesday, June 3 at 6:03 a.m. Pacific time. Aftershocks data is as of Wednesday, June 3 at 8:01 a.m. Pacific time.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

News

California’s primary for governor is undecided as candidates vie to be in the top two

Published

on

California’s primary for governor is undecided as candidates vie to be in the top two

Xavier Becerra, Democratic gubernatorial candidate for California, and Steve Hilton, Republican gubernatorial candidate for California, shake hands while arriving for a gubernatorial debate at KRON Studios in San Francisco in April.

Jason Henry/Getty Images North America


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Jason Henry/Getty Images North America

SAN FRANCISCO — The primary election for California governor is too close to call, with vote counting continuing Wednesday. Democrat Xavier Becerra and Republican business executive Steve Hilton lead the field with Democrat Tom Steyer in third place.

In California’s unusual primary system, all candidates, regardless of party, appear on a single ballot open to any registered voter. The top two candidates then move on to the general election, even if they’re from the same party. This year, voters had 60 names for governor to choose from.

Advertisement

The winner will lead the country’s most populous state, where leaders often take on national political prominence. Incumbent Gov. Gavin Newsom is at his two-term limit and could be a Democratic contender for president.

Becerra, former Health and Human Services secretary under President Joe Biden, pitched himself to voters as an experienced political leader who isn’t afraid of President Trump, but his lead caps one of the most surprising and dramatic comebacks in recent state political history. As recently as April, polls were showing Becerra — also a former member of Congress and California attorney general — languishing in single digits in a crowded field.

In his remarks at his watch party in Los Angeles, Becerra noted his underdog status.

“Here in Hollywood’s hometown, we love a good underdog success story,” he said, drawing parallels between his campaign and his immigrant parents’ success story in California. “Guess what? The underdog stayed in the fight. Like my parents, I never gave up. Never stopped putting one foot in front of the other. Never stopped believing in the beacon-like goodness of California. And thankfully, neither did you.”

Hilton is a former Fox News commentator who also served as a political adviser to former British Prime Minister David Cameron. He was endorsed by President Trump in April, helping him to pull ahead of Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, the other major Republican in the race. Hilton has campaigned on the idea that California needs change after 16 years under total Democratic control.

Advertisement

The race is narrowing down after a tumultuous campaign

At his watch party in Huntington Beach, the British-born candidate — who became an American citizen five years ago — said it was the “honor of his lifetime” to receive over 1 million votes so far.

“Change is coming to California and it’s long overdue,” Hilton said. “We’re not there yet, but it’s looking good. It looks very much as if Californians really will have the chance to vote for change in November and take our state in a new direction.”

Democratic billionaire activist Steyer spent more than $213 million of his own money to boost his candidacy and push a progressive, populist message. While he was trailing Becerra and Hilton on Tuesday night, he said at his watch party in San Francisco that he remains confident he can close the gap in the days ahead.

“Together, we’ve scared the hell out of the corporate interests used to getting their way,” Steyer said. “It might take some time to figure out where this is going. We’re going to wait until every ballot is counted. We’re gonna give democracy a time to work. And we know we finished really strong.”

The early results are not certain to hold, in part because of unusual voting patterns in this primary election: Ballot-tracking data heading into Tuesday evening showed that Republicans were more likely to vote early by mail, while Democratic voters in this deep-blue state held onto their mail-in ballots or chose to vote in person. That’s the reverse of recent elections, which saw more Democrats voting by mail and Republicans tending to vote in person on Election Day.

Advertisement

The uncertainty on election night capped a race that remained crowded and unsettled to the end. To some extent, the race was defined by who wasn’t running.

Some of the state’s most high-profile Democrats — former Vice President Kamala Harris, U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla and California Attorney General Rob Bonta — all passed on a potential bid to succeed Newsom.

The race was disrupted in April when then-U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell’s campaign for governor imploded amid allegations of sexual assault and harassment. Swalwell resigned from Congress shortly after the accusations surfaced and has denied assault allegations.

Swalwell had been gaining in polls and racking up high-profile endorsements, and his exit seemed to primarily benefit Becerra, who had been stuck in single digits in many polls. Ultimately, it quieted fears among Democrats who worried that the messy Democratic field could result in Bianco and Hilton winning the top spots in the June primary.

Marisa Lagos covers California politics at KQED and co-hosts the Political Breakdown show and podcast.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending