New York Attorney General Letitia James is now in the hot seat with a federal criminal investigation breathing down her neck.
The bombshell news, confirmed by sources to Breitbart News, reveals that James faces scrutiny over alleged "deprivation of rights" tied to her relentless pursuit of President Donald Trump and another undisclosed matter, with an active grand jury and subpoenas already in play.
Let’s rewind a bit to understand how James got here. Before even taking office, she campaigned on a promise to target Trump, a pledge detailed by Breitbart News editor-in-chief Alex Marlow in his book "Breaking The Law."
Her public statements, like vowing to sue Trump daily, set the tone for what many conservatives see as a politically motivated crusade.
“I look forward to suing [Trump],” James once declared, as quoted by Marlow, showcasing her intent from the start. But is this zeal crossing a legal line? Critics argue her actions may have ventured into abusing her authority under the guise of official duty.
The Justice Department’s probe, ordered by Attorney General Pam Bondi, is no small matter. It’s being handled by a U.S. Attorney’s office in New York—possibly the Northern District given James’ Albany base—and focuses on whether she willfully deprived rights protected by the Constitution or federal law.
A grand jury is already active, and subpoenas have been issued directly to James. This isn’t just a paper-pushing exercise; it’s a full-on criminal investigation that could carry severe consequences if convictions follow.
The Justice Department’s own website spells out the stakes: Section 242 of Title 18 criminalizes actions by officials that strip away constitutional rights while acting under “color of law.”
This means any official—be it a judge, law enforcement, or attorney general—can be held liable for overstepping their lawful bounds while pretending to perform their duties. For James, this could be a legal tightrope.
Convictions under this statute aren’t a slap on the wrist. Depending on the offense’s severity, penalties can escalate to life imprisonment or even the death penalty, as noted on the DOJ’s site. That’s a sobering reminder of how seriously the feds take these allegations.
James’ case isn’t just about one issue, either. Beyond the Trump-related accusations, there’s another unspecified instance under scrutiny, plus a separate FBI investigation into potential mortgage fraud revealed earlier this year. She’s juggling multiple federal inquiries, a precarious spot for any public official.
Conservatives have long argued that James’ fixation on Trump reeks of partisan lawfare. Rep. Elise Stefanik, a prominent Republican, even demanded James’ disbarment in a detailed letter to New York’s professional standards committee, citing dozens of prejudicial remarks made against Trump before any legal action was taken.
Yet, fairness demands we consider if this investigation itself could be politically charged. While the facts point to serious allegations, the timing and high-profile nature of James’ target—Trump—raise questions about whether this is genuine accountability or a counterpunch from the right. Still, an active grand jury suggests there’s more than just smoke here.
The “color of law” concept, as explained by the DOJ, casts a wide net over public officials’ actions. When someone like James, cloaked in the authority of her office, allegedly overreaches, it’s not just a policy disagreement—it’s a potential federal crime. That’s a line many Americans, left or right, would agree shouldn’t be crossed.
What happens next is anyone’s guess, but the stakes couldn’t be higher for James. If the investigation uncovers evidence of willful rights deprivation, her career—and freedom—could hang in the balance. Even without a conviction, the political damage of multiple federal probes is a tough look for any elected official.
For Trump supporters, this feels like a long-overdue reckoning for what they see as a progressive agenda weaponizing the legal system.