The tables just turned on one of Trump’s most vicious persecutors.
Letitia James spent years launching lawfare attacks against Donald Trump.
But Jonathan Turley spotted one legal loophole that could let Letitia James walk away scot-free.
James faces federal fraud charges after years of targeting Trump
New York’s Attorney General Letitia James built her entire political career on one promise – taking down Donald Trump by any means necessary.
She branded Trump an "illegitimate president" during her 2018 campaign and vowed to investigate everything from his real estate dealings to gun rights.
A federal grand jury handed down a two-count indictment against James on Thursday for mortgage fraud allegations surrounding a Norfolk, Virginia house purchase that allegedly netted her at least $19,000 in illegal savings.
The irony is rich – the woman who accused Trump of inflating property values to secure better loans now stands accused of doing exactly the same thing for personal profit.
George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley appeared on Fox News’ "America Reports" to break down the case against James.
And what he revealed should have every conservative paying close attention.
Legal expert warns prosecutors face an uphill battle
Turley didn’t mince words about the challenges federal prosecutors will face trying to convict James.
"This is going to be a tough case for the Department of Justice to be able to land," Turley explained to co-hosts John Roberts and Sandra Smith.
The first obstacle? Geography.
While prosecutors managed to get the indictment out of New York, the case will be tried in a deeply blue Virginia district where James could find a sympathetic jury.
But that’s not even the biggest problem.
Turley flagged a potential "technicality" that could torpedo the entire prosecution before it ever reaches trial.
"James is likely to say that the acting U.S. attorney, who signed off on these charges, was not appropriately appointed, and therefore should not have held that office," Turley said. "If that is the case, then the indictment would go down."
Here’s where it gets interesting.
Trump appointed Lindsey Halligan to replace Erik Siebert as acting United States attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia after Siebert resigned under pressure over the indictment of former FBI Director James Comey.
The appointment timing could be James’ get-out-of-jail-free card
The legal technicality James will likely raise centers on federal rules governing acting appointments.
"The argument is that the president has 120 days to assign an acting U.S. attorney, but he had already used that period with her predecessor," Turley explained.
Translation: If James’ lawyers can successfully argue that Halligan’s appointment violated federal appointment procedures, every decision he made – including approving the indictment against James – becomes legally void.
It’s the kind of procedural argument that could let a guilty defendant walk on a complete technicality.
"There is also suggestion that the reason that predecessor was let go, or forced out, is that he was not going to sign off on this prosecution," Turley noted.
So Trump had to remove one prosecutor who wouldn’t pursue the case, appoint another who would, and now James gets to challenge whether that second appointment was even legal.
"So, it’s going to get very messy very fast in this case," Turley warned.
The key difference between James’ case and Trump’s case
Despite the procedural hurdles, Turley did point out one major advantage prosecutors have against James that they never had against Trump.
"The government is alleging she made serious money, that by misrepresenting the status of this property, she made thousands of dollars," Turley said. "And so, unlike her case [against Trump], they can actually cite the money that ended up benefiting her."
That’s a crucial distinction.
James spent years trying to prove Trump somehow benefited from allegedly inflating property values, but could never point to concrete financial gains.
In her own case, prosecutors have a clear paper trail showing exactly how much money James pocketed through the alleged fraud – at least $19,000 in loan savings.
It’s the kind of direct financial benefit that makes fraud cases much easier to prove.
But even with that advantage, Turley still thinks James has the upper hand.
"Now, does that mean they can make this case with an entire jury in northern Virginia? I think the odds still favor James," he concluded.
James built her career on targeting Trump and conservatives
The charges against James reveal the stunning hypocrisy at the heart of her crusade against Trump.
During her 2018 campaign, James didn’t just promise to investigate Trump – she made it clear she had already decided he was guilty.
She called him an "illegitimate president" and vowed to use her office to target him.
She was openly admitting she planned to weaponize the Attorney General’s office against her political enemies.
This wasn’t about enforcing the law – it was about using prosecutorial power to advance a partisan agenda.
Now James faces the very type of fraud charges she’s spent years trying to pin on Trump.
The difference? Prosecutors actually have evidence that James personally profited from her alleged crimes.
But thanks to the legal technicality Turley identified, she might walk away without ever facing a jury.
If James beats these charges on a procedural argument after spending years persecuting Trump, it will be one of the most infuriating examples of two-tiered justice in American history.
Justice delayed could very well mean justice denied – and Letitia James knows it.
¹ Harold Hutchison, "Jonathan Turley Flags Potential Technicality Letitia James Could Exploit To Avoid Conviction," Daily Caller, October 10, 2025.
