New York Attorney General Letitia James has spent years targeting Donald Trump with lawfare.
She’s made a career out of weaponizing her office against conservatives.
But Letitia James used one argument against a DOJ investigation that exposed her hypocrisy completely.
James cries "weaponization" when tables turn
For years, Letitia James turned the New York Attorney General’s office into her personal anti-Trump weapon.
She campaigned on a promise to investigate Trump before she even knew what crimes he might have committed.
James spent years pursuing Trump with bogus fraud cases and coordinated legal attacks designed to bankrupt him and destroy his business empire.
But now that federal investigators are looking into whether James herself violated constitutional protections by abusing her power, she’s singing a very different tune.
James’ attorney Abbe Lowell rushed to defend his client by complaining about the "weaponization of the justice system."¹
"[It is] the most blatant and desperate example of this administration carrying out the president’s political retribution campaign," Lowell whined to The New York Times.²
Wait – this sounds familiar.
That’s the exact same argument Trump supporters have been making about James’ persecution campaign for years.
The perfect example of leftist hypocrisy
James and her team are now using Trump’s own talking points to defend themselves.
"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," Lowell declared.³
This is rich coming from the woman who literally campaigned on weaponizing her office against Trump.
During her 2018 campaign, James promised New Yorkers she would use the Attorney General’s office to target Trump.
"I will shine a light into every dark corner of his real estate dealings, and every dealing," James said during her victory speech in Brooklyn.⁴
She didn’t investigate crimes and then find Trump committed them.
She targeted Trump first and then went hunting for crimes to pin on him.
James also promised during her 2018 campaign to "use every area of the law to investigate President Trump and his business transactions and that of his family as well."⁵
That’s the textbook definition of weaponizing law enforcement for political purposes.
Federal investigators turn the tables
Now federal prosecutors are investigating whether James violated constitutional protections under the "color of law" – a legal term that describes abuses of power by government officials.⁶
The grand jury investigation in Albany is examining whether James’ lawsuits against Trump, his business empire, and the National Rifle Association deprived them of their legal rights.
James spent years arguing that Trump wasn’t above the law.
Now she’s about to find out that neither is she.
Geoff Burgan, a spokesman for James, said her office "stands strongly behind our successful litigation against the Trump Organization and the National Rifle Association."⁷
But standing behind your actions doesn’t make them legal or constitutional.
James may have won some battles in the courtroom, but winning through abuse of power isn’t the same as winning legitimately.
The chickens come home to roost
James built her entire political career on targeting Trump and conservatives.
She turned the New York Attorney General’s office into a partisan weapon designed to destroy her political enemies.
James ignored due process, presumption of innocence, and basic fairness in her crusade against Trump.
Now she’s complaining when federal investigators apply the same scrutiny to her office that she applied to Trump’s business.
The hypocrisy is stunning but not surprising.
Leftists like James believe the law is a tool to be used against their political enemies.
But when that same law gets turned around and applied to them, suddenly they become champions of due process and opponents of "weaponization."
James spent years trying to destroy Trump through selective prosecution and abuse of power.
Now she gets to experience what it feels like to be on the receiving end of a federal investigation.
The difference is that Trump was innocent of the crimes James accused him of.
James, on the other hand, may actually be guilty of abusing her office for political purposes.
That’s why she’s panicking and adopting Trump’s own arguments about prosecutorial misconduct.
When you have to steal your opponent’s talking points to defend yourself, you’ve already lost the argument.
¹ Abbe Lowell, quoted in The New York Times, "DOJ Investigation Statement," August 7, 2025.
² Ibid.
³ Ibid.
⁵ Letitia James, Interview with NBC News, December 2018.
⁶ Multiple sources, Associated Press, CNN, NBC News, August 8, 2025.
⁷ Geoff Burgan, Statement to Press, August 8, 2025.
