When it comes to politics, there is one constant: accusations of “retaliation” and “weaponization” are thrown around so often that the words lose their meaning. Now, as federal prosecutors investigate New York Attorney General Letitia James for possible civil rights violations and mortgage fraud, a chorus of Democratic attorneys general has rushed to her defense, issuing an open letter condemning the investigation as an abuse of power.
The problem is not that James’s defenders are speaking out. The problem is that their defense conveniently ignores the substance of the charges. The Department of Justice has convened a grand jury to determine whether James violated Donald Trump’s civil rights in her high-profile fraud lawsuit, and whether she misrepresented her residency on a Virginia mortgage application. These are not minor clerical disputes. They are serious charges—charges that could end the career of any ordinary lawyer, much less the state’s top prosecutor.
Instead of addressing the evidence, James’s defenders cry “retaliation.” But as Thomas Sowell often reminds us, arguments that hinge on motives or feelings distract from the core question: what actually happened? Did James break the law, yes or no?
Consider the irony. The very same political leaders who applauded James for aggressively pursuing Trump now insist she is above scrutiny. They celebrated her when she used the full weight of her office to investigate a political opponent. Now, when the weight of federal scrutiny turns toward her, they demand special treatment. This is not a principle. This is partisanship. And it undermines trust in the rule of law.
At Black Westchester, we have had forensic accountant Sam Antar, a Democrat with no love for Trump, on our show to examine these claims. Antar—the man who exposed the infamous Crazy Eddie fraud—did not deal in rhetoric. He dealt in receipts. His analysis found that the mortgage allegations against James are credible, rooted in documents that cannot be explained away by political spin. If a forensic accountant with a track record of exposing fraud sees evidence, should we really dismiss it as “retaliation”?
The larger issue here is not James herself. It is what happens when politics becomes a shield against accountability. When public officials are treated as untouchable because of their party affiliation, the public loses faith in the very institutions that claim to defend them. Sowell once wrote that “The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best.” When political insiders decide that accountability applies only to their opponents, not to themselves, they have already answered that question in the worst way possible.
The rule of law is not a weapon. It is a standard. If Letitia James has broken the law, she should face consequences just like any other citizen. If she has not, then the investigation will prove that. But to reduce everything to “retaliation” is to substitute emotion for evidence, and politics for principle. The public deserves better. Justice is not about who you like or what party you belong to. Justice is about facts. And right now, the facts against Letitia James demand a serious answer—not political theater.
