For the second time in a week, a grand jury on Thursday rejected a new indictment against New York Attorney General Letitia James, dealing another major blow to the Justice Department’s efforts to prosecute the president’s political opponents.
The repeated failures amounted to a stunning rebuke of prosecutors’ efforts to pressure Trump to reinstate criminal cases and signaled a growing public wariness of the administration’s retaliatory efforts.
In any case, the grand jury rejection is an unusual situation, but it is especially painful for the Justice Department, which has been determined to exact revenge on Trump’s enemies, including James and former FBI Director James Comey. On another occasion, citizens were overwhelmed after hearing the government’s evidence against James and became reluctant to rubber-stamp what prosecutors tried to portray as a clear-cut criminal case.
In November, a judge threw out the original indictment against James and Comey, ruling that Lindsey Harrigan, the prosecutor who presented the charges to a grand jury, was illegally appointed as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.
The Justice Department on Thursday asked a grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, to return the indictment after another grand jury in Norfolk declined to return one last week. The failure to secure charges was confirmed by a person who was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.
As of Thursday, it was not immediately clear whether prosecutors would make a third attempt to seek new charges. James’ lawyer has denied any wrongdoing, but said: “This unprecedented dismissal makes it even clearer that this case should never have seen the light of day.”
“This lawsuit has already damaged the department’s reputation and raises worrying questions about its integrity,” defense attorney Abby Lowell said in a statement. “Further attempts to reinstate these discredited charges would make a mockery of our justice system.”
James, a Democrat who infuriated Trump after Trump’s first term with a lawsuit accusing him of building a business empire by lying about his wealth, was originally charged with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution in connection with a 2020 home purchase.
At the time of the sale, she signed a standard document called a “Second Home Covenant” in which she agreed to keep the property primarily for “her personal use and enjoyment for at least one year” unless the lender agreed otherwise. Prosecutors allege that rather than use the home as a separate residence, James rented it out to a family of three and was able to obtain favorable financing terms not available for investment properties.
Both Mr. James and Mr. Comey’s lawsuits were filed shortly after the administration appointed Mr. Harrigan, a former Trump lawyer with no prosecutorial experience, as U.S. attorney as the president urged the public to take action against his political opponents.
But U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Curry dismissed the case last month, citing the unconventional mechanism the Trump administration used to appoint Harrigan. The judge dismissed them without prejudice and allowed the Justice Department to try again.
Harrigan had been named to replace interim U.S. Attorney Eric Siebert, a veteran prosecutor who resigned in September following pressure from the Trump administration to bring charges against both Comey and James. Mr. Siebert walked out after President Trump told reporters he wanted Mr. Siebert “out.”
Lawyers for Mr. James separately argued that the suit was a retaliatory prosecution brought to punish Trump’s critics, who spent years investigating and suing the Republican president and winning a stunning verdict for defrauding banks by inflating the value of real estate holdings on financial statements. The fine was later canceled by a higher court, but both sides are appealing.
Comey was separately indicted on charges of lying to Congress in 2020. Another federal judge has temporarily barred prosecutors from accessing the computer files of Daniel Richman, a close friend of Comey and a law professor at Columbia University, who prosecutors view as a central figure in any potential case against the former FBI director, complicating the Justice Department’s efforts to pursue new charges against Comey.
Prosecutors moved Tuesday to reverse the order, calling Richman’s request for the files back a “strategic measure to obstruct investigation and potential prosecution.” They argued that the judge exceeded her limits by ordering the return of Mr. Richman’s assets and argued that the ruling hampered their ability to proceed with the case against Mr. Comey.
Richer and Kunzelman contributed to The Associated Press. Richer reported from Washington. Associated Press writer Eric Tucker in Washington contributed to this report.
