Forum

Let me ask you an honest question: Why did most conservatives believe she was committing crimes long before any charges were brought?

My answer is very simple: When an experienced prosecutor charges an outstanding businessman philanthropist with an impeccable record for a trumped-up make-believe crime, then there must be something seriously wrong with that prosecutor! That is not normal!

Look at it this way. When New York Attorney General Letitia James was indicted recently on charges of bank fraud and false statements in connection with a 2020 mortgage application, the shockwaves were felt far beyond the legal world.

If nothing else, the moment is a stark reminder: in a just society, no one, not even those tasked with enforcing the law, should be presumed beyond its reach.

According to the five-page federal indictment unsealed on October 9, 2025, prosecutors allege that James misrepresented a Virginia property as a secondary residence to secure more favorable mortgage terms, while in reality, they claim, she rented it out.

The charges are serious: bank fraud and false statements to a financial institution. If convicted, each count carries up to 30 years in prison and large fines.

James and her legal team have pushed back forcefully, calling the charges baseless and politically motivated, part of what they view as a retaliatory campaign by the Trump administration, especially in light of James’s prior civil case against Trump’s business empire.

Crucially, the indictment remains merely an accusation. Under our system, James is presumed innocent until proven guilty in court.

The notion that “what goes around comes around” often carries moral weight: a kind of cosmic justice that even those in power may one day face the consequences of their actions. In modern public life, it’s also a warning: today’s enforcers may be tomorrow’s defendants.

Letitia James, during her tenure, pursued high-profile cases, most notably her civil fraud lawsuit against Trump and his business interests in New York, which resulted in hefty penalties and reputational consequences.

If so, the irony is irrefutable. The prosecutor is now being prosecuted, and the accuser is facing accusations. Perhaps it also serves as a check, however messy, on concentrations of power.

This case is now a litmus test for several things:

1. The independence of our prosecutors. Some reports suggest that career DOJ attorneys resisted moving forward, only to be overridden by political appointees.
2. The principle that no one is above the law. If James is convicted, it should be because the evidence warrants it, not because she was convenient.
3. The preservation of public trust. When official enforcers become the enforced, citizens will rightly question whether the system is evenhanded.

If we are a society that believes in fairness, then let this be a moment not of vengeance, but of clarity: the system must treat everyone with the same presumptions, the same rigor, and the same vulnerability.

And if what goes around really does come around, let it be not retribution, but justice.

Final Word: I don’t think this is payback but inevitable, and it looks like she was caught in her own web of deception. Oops!