Bondi Names Special Prosecutor in Mortgage Fraud Cases Against Schiff, James
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi on Friday announced the appointment of a special prosecutor to oversee politically sensitive cases against New York Attorney General Letitia James and U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff, both Democrats — but they might not like her pick.
Advertisement
Bondi told Fox News’ Peter Doocy that a special prosecutor is necessary to avoid any appearance of political animus that could influence a jury or judge’s decision about whether either defendant is guilty. James and Schiff are both accused of misrepresenting their residences to obtain better mortgage rates, ABC News reported.
Taking over will be Ed Martin, President Donald Trump’s nominee to become U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia that was tanked by retiring GOP Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina.
Martin’s selection came the same day a grand jury was convened to consider charges against James, who was referred to Bondi by federal mortgage authorities after discrepancies were found on paperwork for several properties she purchased.
Documents appeared to show James listing her father as her husband — potentially to get more favorable home loan terms for married couples — and undercounting the number of units in a Brooklyn brownstone in what may have been an attempt to avoid costly safety upgrades.
Schiff was referred for claiming his primary residence at a Maryland property he bought in 2009, which he did not list as a secondary residence until 2021. At the time, Schiff was serving as a member of the U.S. House representing California, where he was constitutionally required to live.
Both Democrats have denied the allegations and accused the Trump administration of weaponizing the Justice Department against them — a claim Trump made against them during his own criminal and civil cases.
“Any weaponization of the justice system should disturb every American,” a spokesperson for James said at the time.
“We stand strongly behind our successful litigation against the Trump Organization and the National Rifle Association, and we will continue to stand up for New Yorkers’ rights.”
In a separate statement, James’ personal attorney, Abbe D. Lowell, called the subpoenas “improper.”
“Investigating the fraud case Attorney General James won against President Trump and his businesses has to be the most blatant and desperate example of this administration carrying out the president’s political retribution campaign,” Lowell said.
“Weaponizing the Department of Justice to try to punish an elected official for doing her job is an attack on the rule of law and a dangerous escalation by this administration.”
FBI Director Kash Patel in May confirmed the existence of a separate investigation into James after a Trump administration official accused her of mortgage fraud. James’ lawyer has said that the accusation was a lie based on a purposeful misreading of documents in a lawful real estate transaction.
Martin, who was named special prosecutor to help conduct that probe, has been leading the department’s Weaponization Working Group since his nomination for District of Columbia U.S. attorney was pulled amid Republican lawmakers’ concerns about his scant prosecutorial experience and support for Jan. 6 rioters.
Martin is also involved in a separate investigation into Schiff, whom Trump has called to be prosecuted over mortgage fraud allegations related to a property in Maryland.
Schiff’s attorney called the allegations “transparently false, stale, and long debunked.”
“Mr. Martin is a January 6-defending lawyer who has repeatedly pursued baseless and politically motivated investigations to fulfill demands to investigate and prosecute perceived enemies,” said Preet Bharara, a former U.S. attorney in New York who is representing the senator.
“Any supposed investigation led by him would be the very definition of weaponization of the justice process.”
Schiff has claimed that Trump conspired with Russian forces to win the 2016 election, but never produced the evidence he said he had.
James successfully prosecuted Trump for inflating the value of assets owned by the Trump Organization, which resulted in nearly half a billion dollars in fines. Trump is appealing the decision.
Seditious Six' Mark Kelly Does It AGAIN - Pete Hegseth Promises A Legal Response
Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), a retired U.S. Navy captain, drew criticism after discussing details from a classified Pentagon briefing during a live interview on CBS News. In the segment with anchor Margaret Brennan, Kelly described the impact of U.S. military operations in the Middle East on American weapons stockpiles. He specifically referenced munitions including Tomahawk cruise missiles, ATACMS, SM-3 interceptors, THAAD rounds, and Patriot systems, stating it was “shocking how deep we have gone into these magazines.”
Kelly attributed the depletion to decisions made by the current administration, saying the president acted “without a strategic goal, without a plan, without a timeline,” which he argued left the United States less prepared for potential conflicts elsewhere, including a hypothetical scenario involving China and Taiwan. He noted that replenishing the stockpiles would take years.
The comments followed a classified briefing provided to members of Congress on the effects of recent U.S. involvement in the Iran conflict. National security experts and administration officials have expressed concern that public discussion of specific munitions levels and readiness timelines could compromise operational security and provide adversaries with actionable intelligence.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth responded swiftly, stating that the Department of Defense’s legal counsel would review Kelly’s remarks to determine whether they constituted a violation of his oath or improperly disclosed classified information. Hegseth wrote on social media: “Captain Mark Kelly strikes again. Now he’s blabbing on TV (falsely & dumbly) about a CLASSIFIED Pentagon briefing he received. Did he violate his oath…again? @DeptofWar legal counsel will review.”
Kelly has faced previous scrutiny for a video earlier this year in which he and several Democratic colleagues encouraged military members to evaluate the legality of orders from President Trump, remarks some critics labeled as seditious. As a former naval aviator and astronaut, Kelly has frequently drawn on his military background when discussing national security issues.
The senator’s office has not issued a direct response to Hegseth’s statement. In the interview, Kelly framed his comments as part of legitimate congressional oversight, noting that members of Congress receive classified briefings to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities.
The episode highlights ongoing tensions between the executive and legislative branches over the handling of sensitive national security information. Legal analysts note that members of Congress are generally protected by the Speech or Debate Clause when discussing matters related to their official duties, but the public disclosure of classified details can still trigger internal reviews and potential referrals to the Department of Justice.
The Pentagon has declined to confirm or deny the accuracy of Kelly’s description of stockpile levels. Officials have previously warned that public speculation about munitions readiness can embolden adversaries and complicate deterrence strategy, particularly with respect to China’s military posture in the Indo-Pacific.
The incident occurs against the backdrop of heightened U.S.-Iran tensions and broader concerns about military readiness. Both Republican and Democratic lawmakers have expressed worries about the pace of munitions replenishment following sustained operations in multiple theaters. However, the public nature of Kelly’s remarks has intensified partisan debate over congressional responsibility and the boundaries of classified information.
As the Department of Defense legal review proceeds, the matter is likely to fuel further discussion about the balance between transparency, oversight, and national security in an era of heightened geopolitical competition.
Former General Milley Says Armed Forces Must Serve the Constitution Above Politics
Mark Milley Issues Stark Warning at Arlington National Cemetery — “Military Must Serve the Constitution, Not a President”
In times of political strain and national uncertainty, the most enduring principles of a democracy are often reaffirmed not through legislation or elections alone, but through the voices of those entrusted with its defense. The statement attributed to Mark Milley, delivered at Arlington National Cemetery, speaks directly to one of the foundational pillars of the United States: the subordination of military power to constitutional authority rather than individual leadership.
At the heart of Milley’s message lies a principle that distinguishes democratic systems from authoritarian ones—the military’s oath is sworn to the Constitution, not to a person. This idea, while deeply embedded in American civic tradition, gains renewed significance in moments when political divisions intensify and questions of loyalty arise. By emphasizing this distinction, Milley reinforces a core safeguard against the concentration of unchecked power: that no leader, regardless of position, stands above the constitutional framework.
The setting of Arlington National Cemetery adds a profound symbolic dimension to the statement. It is a place where the cost of preserving constitutional ideals is made visible in rows of white headstones, each representing a life given in service to something larger than individual ambition or political allegiance. Speaking in such a setting transforms a statement into a moral reflection, linking present concerns to a legacy of sacrifice. It reminds the nation that the principles under discussion are not abstract—they have been defended at the highest possible cost.
This message arrives amid ongoing debates about the relationship between civilian leadership and military responsibility. In any democracy, the military must remain under civilian control; yet that control is exercised through lawful authority rooted in constitutional order, not personal loyalty. The distinction is subtle but critical. It ensures that the armed forces operate as an institution of the state rather than as an instrument of any one leader’s will. When this balance is maintained, it protects both democratic governance and the integrity of the military itself.
Criticism of Milley’s remarks, particularly from allies of Donald Trump, reflects the broader polarization shaping contemporary political discourse. Some view such statements as overreach by military figures into political territory, raising concerns about the appropriate boundaries between military leadership and public debate. Others interpret them as necessary clarifications during a time when those boundaries may appear blurred. This divergence of interpretation underscores the difficulty of navigating institutional roles in a highly charged environment.
Yet beyond the immediate controversy, Milley’s words serve a broader purpose. They invite reflection on the nature of allegiance in a constitutional democracy. Loyalty, in this context, is not directed toward individuals but toward enduring principles—rule of law, separation of powers, and the rights enshrined in the Constitution. These principles provide continuity even as leaders change, ensuring that the nation’s identity is not tied to any single figure.
Ultimately, the significance of this moment lies not in partisan reactions but in the reaffirmation of a fundamental truth: the strength of a democracy depends on the clarity of its commitments. By reiterating that the military serves the Constitution above all, Milley echoes a tradition that has helped sustain American governance through crises both past and present.
In the quiet solemnity of Arlington, where history is etched in stone, such a reminder carries particular weight. It speaks not only to those currently in positions of power but to future generations, emphasizing that the preservation of democratic ideals requires constant vigilance—and, at times, the courage to restate what should never be forgotten.
