Legal analysts were appalled by the report that President Donald Trump's Justice Department had indicted New York Attorney General Letitia James.
The indictment was for "bank fraud" and involved a box that James checked, indicating which property was her primary residence.
James is a long-time foe of Trump's, and he publicly called on Attorney General Pam Bondi to indict James along with former FBI Director James Comey and Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA). Two of those three have now been indicted.
Michigan Law School Professor Leah Litman pointed to the Supreme Court opinion that handed President Donald Trump immunity: "Investigative and prosecutorial decisionmaking is the special province of the Executive ... allegations that the requested investigations were shams or proposed for an improper purpose do not divest the President of [his] exclusive authority."
"A total joke. This will be dismissed, but that's not the point," said legal analyst Benjamin Kabak.
Just Security co-author Ryan Goodman pointed to Oct. 6 MSNBC reporting reading, "Yusi, who oversees major criminal prosecutions in the Norfolk office...confided to coworkers that she sees no probable cause to believe James engaged in mortgage fraud."
Just last month, he pointed out, appeared the CNN report saying, "Justice Department prosecutors in Virginia believe they have not gathered enough evidence to indict Letitia James."
He contrasted it with the Thursday reporting that James had been indicted.
Several legal reporters and experts pointed out that when the news broke that the grand jury was meeting and discussing the matter, it could have been illegally leaked.
The Atlantic's legal writer Quinta Jurecic wrote, "Typically, you don't receive play-by-plays of what a grand jury is doing."
Reuters legal reporter Brad Heath further explained, "Grand jury matters are secret by law. It is surpassingly unusual for the press to learn about a case being presented to a grand jury in real time."
A Delaware lawyer noted, "Typical is long behind us."
Anna Bower pointed out to Lawfare readers that Molly Roberts penned an explainer this week, writing, “It’s hard to imagine a worse case than the one against James Comey—until you see the one against the attorney general of New York.”
"Good piece, but all you REALLY need to know about the indictment is that it was personally secured by Lindsey Halligan, the wildly unqualified Trump lackey who was installed (illegally, it seems) for the lone purpose of bringing these bogus charges. This will not result in a conviction," commented Slate legal writer Mark Joseph Stern about the Roberts article.
Lawfare's Roger Parloff dropped legal jokes.
"So not only can you indict a ham sandwich, you can be indicted *by* a ham sandwich," he quipped.
Meanwhile, the Eastern District of Virginia, where James was indicted, is next door to the Washington, D.C. district in which a grand jury refused to indict a man for throwing a sandwich.
