federal charge

NORFOLK, Va. — New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James is set to make her first court appearance in a mortgage fraud case on Friday, the third adversary of President Trump to face a judge on federal charges in recent weeks.

James was indicted earlier this month on charges of bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution in connection with a 2020 home purchase in Norfolk, Va. The charges came shortly after the official who had been overseeing the investigation was pushed out by the Trump administration and the Republican president publicly called on the Justice Department to take action against James and other political foes.

James, a Democrat who has sued Trump and his administration dozens of times, has denied wrongdoing and decried the indictment as “nothing more than a continuation of the president’s desperate weaponization of our justice system.”

The indictment stems from James’ purchase of a modest house in Norfolk, where she has family. During the sale, she signed a standard document called a “second home rider” 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.

Rather than using the home as a second residence, the indictment alleges, James rented it out to a family of three. According to the indictment, the misrepresentation allowed James to obtain favorable loan terms not available for investment properties.

James drew Trump’s ire when she won a staggering judgment against the president and his companies in a lawsuit alleging he defrauded banks by overstating the value of his real estate holdings on financial statements. An appeals court overturned the fine, which had ballooned to more than $500 million with interest, but upheld a lower court’s finding that Trump had committed fraud.

James’ indictment followed the resignation of Erik Siebert as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia after he resisted Trump administration pressure to bring charges. Siebert was replaced with Lindsey Halligan, a White House aide and former Trump lawyer who had never previously served as a federal prosecutor and presented James’ case to the grand jury herself.

On Thursday, lawyers for James asked for an order prohibiting prosecutors from disclosing to the news media information about the investigation, or materials from the case, outside of court.

The motion followed the revelation from earlier this week that Halligan contacted via an encrypted text messaging platform a reporter from Lawfare, a media organization that covers legal and national security issues, to discuss the James prosecution and complain about coverage of it. The reporter published the exchange that she and Halligan had.

“The exchange was a stunning disclosure of internal government information,” lawyers for James wrote.

They added: “It has been reported that Ms. Halligan has no prosecutorial experience whatsoever. But all federal prosecutors are required to know and follow the rules governing their conduct from their first day on the job, and so any lack of experience cannot excuse their violation.”

The motion also asks that the government be required to preserve all communications with representatives of the media as well as to prevent the deletion of any records or communications related to the investigation and the prosecution of the case.

Separately on Thursday, defense lawyers said they intended to challenge Halligan’s appointment, a step also taken this week by attorneys for former FBI Director James Comey in a different case filed by Halligan. Comey has been charged with lying to Congress in a criminal case filed days after Trump appeared to urge his attorney general to prosecute him, and he has pleaded not guilty.

A third Trump adversary, former national security adviser John Bolton, pleaded not guilty last week to charges against him of emailing classified information to family members and keeping top secret documents at his Maryland home.

The Justice Department has also been investigating mortgage fraud allegations against Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff of California, whom Trump has called to be prosecuted over allegations related to a property in Maryland. In a separate mortgage investigation, authorities have been probing allegations against Federal Reserve Board member Lisa Cook, who is challenging a Trump administration effort to remove her from her job. Schiff and Cook have denied wrongdoing.

Finely and Richer write for the Associated Press. Richer reported from Washington. Associated Press reporter Eric Tucker in Washington contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — The case of Jeffrey Epstein, closed long ago by investigators but nevertheless a constant source of fascination to conspiracy theorists, is the story that won’t go away for President Trump, who this week continued to resist releasing documents in the case against bipartisan calls and increasing national interest.

The case has dogged Trump’s second term from the start, ever since the attorney general, Pam Bondi, alluded to the existence of a list of Epstein’s clients sitting on her desk in February. Bondi later said she misspoke and that no such list exists. But the president’s MAGA base and Democrats alike are now calling for the entire Justice Department file of Epstein material to be released, an appeal so far rejected by Trump and his aides.

Trump’s defensiveness over the file has put Republicans on Capitol Hill in the difficult position of appearing to protect Epstein’s co-conspirators, as Democrats take advantage of the internal Republican divide with calls for a vote to release the documents. A poll conducted by the Economist/YouGov this month found that 83% of Trump’s 2024 supporters want the government to release all material related to the Epstein case — “past supporters,” as Trump referred to them Wednesday, calling them “weaklings” and “foolish” for pressing their interest in the case.

Epstein, a wealthy financier with a deep bench of powerful friends, died in a New York City prison in August 2019 facing federal charges over a child sex trafficking conspiracy. The charges followed reporting by the Miami Herald of a scandalous sweetheart deal brokered by federal prosecutors in Florida that had allowed Epstein to serve a months-long sentence and avoid federal charges that could have resulted in life imprisonment.

One of those prosecutors, Alexander Acosta, later became Labor secretary in Trump’s first administration. He resigned amid a public outcry, weeks before Epstein’s death.

The New York City medical examiner and the inspector general of the Justice Department have ruled Epstein’s death a suicide. This month, the FBI released what it characterized as the “full raw” footage from a camera near what it says was Epstein’s prison cell at the time of his death. But suspicions of conspiracy were only turbocharged by the release of the tape, which Wired first reported had three minutes cut from the original footage, according to metadata of the file.

Epstein’s known association with some of the world’s most famous men, including Bill Gates, Bill Clinton and Prince Andrew, have fueled calls for their release. But it is Trump’s highly public relationship with Epstein that has caused the story to resurface.

“Time to drop the really big bomb: @realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files,” Elon Musk, Trump’s largest donor in the 2024 presidential campaign and his close aide in the White House at the beginning of his term, wrote on X during their fallout last month. “That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!” (He later deleted the post.)

Photos of Trump and Epstein attending parties together have proliferated online. And Trump frequently acknowledged their friendship before entering politics. “I’ve known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy,” Trump told New York magazine in 2002. “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”

On Wednesday, Trump said Bondi should release only material from the Epstein files that “she thinks is credible.” When asked whether he would support the appointment of a special counsel to examine the case, he replied, “I have nothing to do with it.”

“I would say these files were made up by [former FBI Director James] Comey and [former President] Obama, made up by the Biden [administration], and we went through years of that with the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax,” he said.

On Wednesday, Maurene Comey, James Comey’s daughter and a federal prosecutor who had worked on the Epstein case, was dismissed from the Justice Department. Comey said Thursday that the department gave her no reason for her firing.

In a briefing Thursday, White House Press secretary Karoline Leavitt reiterated the president’s opposition to a special prosecutor.

“The president would not recommend a special prosecutor in the Epstein case,” she said. “That’s how he feels.”

Legitimate concerns have been raised over releasing documents from the case that could reference individuals who are not credibly suspected of wrongdoing. But those calling for the release of the entire file now say that the scale of Epstein’s child sex trafficking ring, and the corruption around efforts to protect him over nearly two decades, are a matter of public interest.

“We want the entire file — we don’t trust Bondi to say what’s credible and what’s not,” Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Democrat from Maryland and ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, told MSNBC on Thursday. “We can be the judge of that ourselves.”

On Capitol Hill, responding to Republican concerns over the optics of voting against the release, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) is considering a measure that would call for the files to be made public.

The measure would be nonbinding, a source familiar with the matter said.

WASHINGTON — Just hours after she pleaded not guilty to federal charges brought by the Trump administration, Rep. LaMonica McIver of New Jersey was surrounded by dozens of supportive Democratic colleagues in the halls of the Capitol. The case, they argued, strikes at the heart of congressional power.

“If they can break LaMonica, they can break the House of Representatives,” said New York Rep. Yvette D. Clarke, chair of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Federal prosecutors allege that McIver interfered with law enforcement during a visit with two other House Democrats to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Newark. She calls the charges “baseless.”

It’s far from the only clash between congressional Democrats and the Republican administration as officials ramp up deportations of immigrants around the country.

Sen. Alex Padilla of California was forcibly removed by federal agents, wrestled to the ground and held while attempting to ask a question at a news conference of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. At least six groups of House Democrats have recently been denied entry to ICE detention centers. In early June, federal agents entered the district office of Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) and briefly detained a staffer.

Congressional Republicans have largely criticized Democrats’ behavior as inflammatory and inappropriate, and some have publicly supported the prosecution of McIver.

Often in the dark about the Trump administration’s moves, congressional Democrats are wrestling with how to perform their oversight duties at a time of roiling tensions with the White House and new restrictions on lawmakers visiting federal facilities.

“We have the authority to conduct oversight business, and clearly, House Republicans are not doing that oversight here,” said New Jersey Rep. Rob Menendez, one of the House Democrats who went with McIver to the Newark ICE facility.

“It’s our obligation to continue to do it on-site at these detention facilities. And even if they don’t want us to, we are going to continue to exert our right.”

A stark new reality

The prospect of facing charges for once routine oversight activity has alarmed many congressional Democrats who never expected to face criminal prosecution as elected officials. Lawmakers in both parties were also unnerved by the recent targeted shootings of two Minnesota lawmakers — one of them fatal — and the nation’s tense political atmosphere.

“It’s a moment that calls for personal courage of members of Congress,” said Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.). “I wish that we had more physical protection. I think that’s one of those harsh realities that members of Congress who are not in leadership recognize: that oftentimes, we do this job at our own peril, and we do it anyway.”

The arrests and detentions of lawmakers have led some Democrats to take precautionary measures. Several have consulted with the House general counsel about their right to conduct oversight. Multiple lawmakers also sought personal legal counsel, while others have called for a review of congressional rules to provide greater protections.

“The Capitol Police are the security force for members of Congress. We need them to travel with us, to go to facilities and events that the president may have us arrested for,” said Rep. Jonathan Jackson (D-Ill.).

‘Not a lot of transparency’

As the minority party in the House, Democrats lack the subpoena power to force the White House to provide information. That’s a problem, they say, because the Trump administration is unusually secretive about its actions.

“There’s not a lot of transparency. From day to day, oftentimes, we’re learning about what’s happening at the same time as the rest of the nation,” said Rep. Lucy McBath (D-Ga.), who led a prayer for McIver at the Capitol rally.

To amplify their concerns, Democrats have turned to public letters, confronted officials at congressional hearings and used digital and media outreach to try to create public pressure.

“We’ve been very successful when they come in before committees,” said Rep. Lauren Underwood (D-Ill.), who added that she believed the public inquiries have “100%” resonated with voters.

Tapping into the information pipeline

Congressional Democrats say they often rely on local lawmakers, business leaders and advocates to be their eyes and ears on the ground.

A few Democrats say their best sources of information are across the political aisle, since Republicans typically have clearer lines of communication with the White House.

“I know who to call in Houston with the chamber. I think all of us do that,” Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas) said of how business leaders are keeping her updated.

Garcia said Democrats “need to put more pressure” on leading figures in the agriculture, restaurant and hospitality sectors to take their concerns about the immigrant crackdown to President Trump’s White House.

“They’re the ones he’ll listen to. They’re the ones who can add the pressure. He’s not going to listen to me, a Democrat who was an impeachment manager, who is on the bottom of his list, if I’m on it at all,” Garcia said.

Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) had a working relationship with a for-profit ICE facility in his district until the Department of Homeland Security in February ended reports as part of an agency-wide policy change. A member of Crow’s staff now regularly goes to the facility and waits, at times for hours, until staff at the Aurora facility respond to detailed questions posed by the office.

‘Real oversight’ requires winning elections

Still, many House Democrats concede that they can conduct little of their desired oversight until they are back in the majority.

Rep. Marc Veasey (D-Texas) said that “real oversight power and muscle” only comes “when you have a gavel.”

“Nothing else matters. No rousing oratory, no tours, no speeches, no social media or entertainment, none of that stuff,” Veasey said. “Because the thing that keeps Trump up at night more than anything else is the idea he’s going to lose this House and there’ll be real oversight pressure applied to him.”

Brown writes for the Associated Press.