In a sharp opinion piece headlined Fooled Around, Found Out”, a prominent columnist attacked New York Attorney GeneralLetitia James following her recent indictment for alleged mortgage fraud. The columnist portrays James as a political crusader turned hypocrisy-laden defendant, suggesting she overstepped legal bounds in her crusade against Donald Trump only to be ensnared by similar charges. But how fair is the critique? This article investigates the indictment, the columnist’s arguments, James’s defense, and whether the rhetorical framing holds up under scrutiny.

The Indictment: What the Government Alleges

To understand the columnist’s critique, one must first examine the substance of the indictment and the underlying allegations.

In October 2025, a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia indicted Letitia James on bank fraud and false statements charges.

The central allegation is that when James purchased a Norfolk, Virginia property in 2020, she mischaracterized it as her primary residence (to obtain favorable mortgage terms) while in fact renting it out.

Prosecutors claim she benefitted by about $19,000 in interest savings over the term of the mortgage.

Additional allegations include misrepresentation regarding her Brooklyn property (claiming fewer units than present to qualify for a certain loan class) and previously listing her father as her spouse on mortgage documents.

Her attorney, Abbe Lowell, responded that the allegations are “baseless” and argued they represent political retaliation.

The defense asserts that she clearly communicated the Virginia property was intended for her niece, not as her own primary residence, and points to contemporaneous emails to support this.

Letitia James herself has publicly decried the indictment as a politically motivated weaponization of the justice system. “These charges are baseless… I will not be silenced, I will not be bullied” she stated.

The matter is scheduled to proceed in court, with James due to appear in Norfolk, Virginia.

The Columnist’s Critique: “Fooled Around, Found Out”

The columnist’s piece adopts a scathing tone. Key arguments and rhetorical strategies include:

Hypocrisy framingThe columnist draws a direct contrast: James, who aggressively pursued civil fraud cases against Trump and promoted herself as a champion of financial accountability, now faces similar allegations of document-to‑bank wrongdoing. The writer implies a kind of poetic justice: that in battling others’ financial misdeeds, she “fooled around” and was “found out.”

Questioning her moral authorityThe column suggests that James’s moral high ground—and her past legal crusades—are now tainted. Because she tried to hold powerful actors to account, the columnist argues, she should be held to an even higher standard.

Political motivation skepticismThe columnist acknowledges James’s claim of retaliation by Trump but expresses deep skepticism that all of the evidence would suddenly emerge, suggesting the timing is suspect and implying that political enemies often weaponize prosecutions.

Demand for transparency and proofThe writer presses for full disclosure of documents, emails, and bank records so the public can judge whether James’s denial holds up. The column uses rhetorical cues implying that unless the defense can conclusively refute each allegation, the indictment must be taken seriously.

Warning of slippery slopeThe columnist warns that if an attorney general can be indicted for mortgage misstatements, the precedent could destabilize political and legal norms—possibly chilling future efforts at public accountability.

While rhetorically forceful, the columnist’s claims mix confirmed facts, interpretation, and insinuation. The rest of this article examines how well those claims align with the record.

Assessing the Critique: Strengths, Weaknesses & Nuance

What the columnist gets right

The framing of irony is compelling. There is indeed a potent tension in the idea that someone who made financial integrity a pillar of her public persona now faces allegations of financial misrepresentation.

The call for transparency is valid. Given the gravity of the accusations, full and clear documentation—mortgage records, broker communications, property deeds—is essential, and public scrutiny is justified.

The political context matters. Critics (including James herself) raise plausible concerns about selective prosecutions and the role of partisan influence in U.S. justice.

Acknowledging standard of proof. The columnist correctly notes that errors on mortgage forms do not necessarily amount to criminal intent; the burden of proving mens rea is high.