New York Attorney General Letitia James has found herself at the center of a contentious dispute over subpoenas sent by John Sarcone, the Trump administration's hand-picked federal prosecutor in Albany. According to documents obtained by Gothamist, Sarcone personally requested the subpoenas, which targeted cases brought by James against Donald Trump's businesses and the National Rifle Association.
The unusual move was seen as a personal attempt by Sarcone to investigate allegations of selective prosecution against James, with lawyers from her office labeling it "a bad faith attempt to harass Mr. Trump's critics." The investigation centered on whether James' cases were motivated by a desire to punish her adversaries for their political views.
Sarcone's appointment as interim U.S. attorney had expired three weeks before the subpoenas were sent, raising questions about his authority to issue them. Lawyers from James' office argue that Sarcone's personal involvement makes the subpoenas invalid.
The case is part of a larger battle between Trump's Department of Justice and critics who have been indicted or investigated. Many federal cases brought by these individuals have been prosecuted by people without prior experience as prosecutors, who were previously employed as Trump's lawyers.
A judge in Virginia recently heard arguments about the validity of indictments brought by acting U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan against James and former FBI Director James Comey. The case is seen as a test of whether Halligan was properly appointed and whether her actions are valid under federal law.
James has pleaded not guilty to charges brought by Halligan related to alleged mortgage fraud, with the New York attorney general claiming that the case is politically motivated. The investigation into James' cases against Trump's businesses and the NRA is ongoing, with Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard Belliss arguing that there was sufficient evidence to pursue the matter.
The dispute has raised questions about the independence of the Department of Justice and the role of appointed prosecutors in enforcing federal laws. With no scheduled oral arguments, the case remains pending before U.S. District Court Judge Lorna Schofield, who is expected to rule on Halligan's status before Thanksgiving.
The unusual move was seen as a personal attempt by Sarcone to investigate allegations of selective prosecution against James, with lawyers from her office labeling it "a bad faith attempt to harass Mr. Trump's critics." The investigation centered on whether James' cases were motivated by a desire to punish her adversaries for their political views.
Sarcone's appointment as interim U.S. attorney had expired three weeks before the subpoenas were sent, raising questions about his authority to issue them. Lawyers from James' office argue that Sarcone's personal involvement makes the subpoenas invalid.
The case is part of a larger battle between Trump's Department of Justice and critics who have been indicted or investigated. Many federal cases brought by these individuals have been prosecuted by people without prior experience as prosecutors, who were previously employed as Trump's lawyers.
A judge in Virginia recently heard arguments about the validity of indictments brought by acting U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan against James and former FBI Director James Comey. The case is seen as a test of whether Halligan was properly appointed and whether her actions are valid under federal law.
James has pleaded not guilty to charges brought by Halligan related to alleged mortgage fraud, with the New York attorney general claiming that the case is politically motivated. The investigation into James' cases against Trump's businesses and the NRA is ongoing, with Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard Belliss arguing that there was sufficient evidence to pursue the matter.
The dispute has raised questions about the independence of the Department of Justice and the role of appointed prosecutors in enforcing federal laws. With no scheduled oral arguments, the case remains pending before U.S. District Court Judge Lorna Schofield, who is expected to rule on Halligan's status before Thanksgiving.
. Sarcone's investigation is just a bunch of noise. He's got no business investigating James' office if he's not even supposed to be doing his job anymore. It's like he's trying to cover his own behinds because his time as interim U.S. attorney was up 
. This whole thing is just more drama from the Trump side 
, and I'm sure it'll all blow over soon.
Sarcone trying to investigate James and now everyone's all like what's going on? 
I mean, if he was already done with his job three weeks ago, does that even count? 
It's like he's trying to be some kinda special snowflake prosecutor. 
And let's be real, who appoints someone without experience as a prosecutor and then gives them the power to issue subpoenas? 
. Like, if he's not even in office anymore, how does that work? It just seems like another example of the weird power struggles going on between DOJ and these politicians 
. And what's up with all these inexperienced prosecutors getting appointed by Trump, it's crazy 
. I mean, can't we just have some actual lawyers who don't have a personal connection to the White House? 
The fact that Sarcone sent those subpoenas himself, despite being out of his job position already, just seems super fishy 
. And can we talk about how weird it is that the DOJ is sending these subpoenas against Letitia James and her cases? Like, aren't they supposed to be impartial or something? 
. And don't even get me started on the fact that some of these prosecutors have no experience being a real prosecutor... how are they supposed to do their job? 
. I hope that U.S. District Court Judge Lorna Schofield can get to the bottom of this and figure out what's really going on 
.
it's like saying "oh, you're investigating me, so I'm gonna investigate you back". that's not how the system works. and what's with this "bad faith" nonsense? sarcone's actions are as shady as they come. if james is guilty of something, then let's see some real evidence, not just a bunch of subpoenas sent by a guy who was already done at his job 
. seriously though, it does seem pretty shady that he asked for those subpoenas when his appointment had already expired... like, what's next? 
And what about this whole thing with Halligan's appointment and her actions being valid under federal law?