The Trish Regan Show - “SLUSH FUND” SCANDAL: Letitia James Faces Cash Crisis in NY!

Episode Date: June 28, 2025

Letitia James is facing mounting fiscal pressure in New York—political opponents have sprung a $10 million legal-defense fund under question, a federal mortgage-fraud probe looms, and her campaign is scrambling with high-dollar fundraisers to close the gap ahead of a potential 2026 showdown. This is a CLIP from the LIVE Trish Regan Show Episode 170 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Letitia James, who, my goodness, is really and truly up a creek without a paddle because they got no more money in the state of New York. Yeah, Pam Bondi said, I'm cutting off the spigot. You guys, you got nothing because you don't play ball. You don't play by our rules. You don't actually follow the Constitution in the United States. And because you are at odds with us, we don't have to give you a dime. So, Leticia is filing another lawsuit. Oh, she's all proud of this one.

Really, really proud. She actually put this one out on Twitter, her sad little Twitter account. You know, I'm just saying. She didn't get a whole lot of pickup on this, but it makes sense, right? Because actually, her constituency doesn't love what she's doing. You go out into the state of New York and there's a lot of support for one Donald Trump. She's only got a following in Manhattan. Okay, but here is what she put out.

Let me show you right now. The Trump administration, she writes, has used a single sentence buried in the federal regulations to cut billions of dollars in critical funding slashing from education to health care. And so she is suing him because of that, because you can't take away New York's funding. You can't take away Lettisha James' funding. Let me tell you, this woman knows how to get her funding, shall we say, right? Those allegations about the mortgage stuff. Those are pretty serious.

We'll get to those in a second. But here she is out on some little podcast, making the rounds in her friendly little territory places saying she's all over this. brand new sound this afternoon out from Letitia James, the AG of New York, listen in. People are rising up and standing up against this government, partitioning our government, that in fact this is not how we operate, this is not what we wanted, this is not what we voted for, individuals who are demanding due process and individuals who are demanding that this federal government follow the rule of law. And so I'm just, I am just really excited about all of the energy that I am seeing on

the ground. And I'm also very proud of the fact that the one institution that's standing up and fighting back and holding this administration accountable are the courts. Well, the courts are actually standing up. The Supreme Court of the United States of America, as well as the Ninth Circuit Court. I mean, Letitia, along with what? 23 other states decided to file a lawsuit against the Trump administration. They were joined by Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Arizona, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, and Vermont.

I'm very happy not to see New Hampshire on there. Anyway, they filed this lawsuit, you see, because she's saying California should not have had its National Guard federalized by one Donald Trump. But you see, there is this ability for the President of the United States to actually federalize the National Guard. Title 10, U.S. Code 12-406. Federal statute allows for the president to, quote, call into federal service members and units of the National Guard in such numbers as you consider it's necessary to execute the laws of the United States. And guess what? California wasn't executing the laws of the United States.

You know, who else is not executing the laws of the United States of America? That would be New York. Okay. So now the feds are coming in. And yes, they're taking away the money. Letitia's now filing another lawsuit. She's like, this is the one, this is the one. I mean, how many?

I can't even keep up with them. None of them make any sense because they've already been refuted. I mean, she's out there. You saw Elon is taking her on Elon Musk and X because she wants all these rules and regulations surrounding what you can put on social media. And she wants to be the final arbiter of all that and AOC's with her and Kathy Hocles with her. And they're all like, you know what? We don't want misinformation and disinformation.

We have to rein in the media. we're going to put all these rules and regulations and Elon's like, I don't think so. And guess what? He already fought that one in California. And he won. It's already been decided, Letitia, by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. I mean, sure, we can take it all the way up to the Supreme Court if you really want to waste time and money. And guess what the Supreme Court will tell you?

Yes. The President of the United States, thanks to Title X, U.S. Code 12-4-06, can actually call into service the National Guard. And you know what? The president can do this. And it's been done before. Just think George Wallace and Alabama, right? You weren't going to integrate the schools? Well, guess what? They sent the feds down. They nationalized the Guard there. And sure enough, George Wallace had no choice but to comply. And as much as I'm a believer in state rights, you know, there's some things where the state does not have the jurisdiction. And when it comes to things like immigration, no, they don't have the jurisdiction. Justin, thank you so much. And because

they don't have that jurisdiction, guess what? She is increasingly up a creek without a paddle. Just in writing that Letitia is so broke when she goes to the pond, I don't understand the reference anyway. But yeah, she's out of money, okay? Like, New York has no money. I don't think Latisha has any money. That's why she's looking for $10 million in the state budget to fight her legal bills. More on that in a second. But Elise, Stefani, hit the nail on the head when she's like, wait, what are you guys doing? So this is another good one. They're taking $50 million of New Yorkers money, okay, and they're putting it towards legal costs for migrants, many of whom have committed crimes and the administration is trying to take out of the country. By the way, the Supreme Court ruled on

that one the other day too and said, these lower courts cannot get in the way. So Letitia, I know you're so proud of your lower courts, but the lower courts keep getting turned down. Why? Because they have their own crazy TDS bias. And they're forgetting about the, Constitution of the United States of America. And guess what? The feds have the power. I mean, lots of power when it comes to immigration. And, you know, we've talked about this before. You get the naturalization clause, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, the Congress shall have the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. And that means anybody who's going to become a citizen, they get to go through the federal government first. Congress establishes those rules.

So, Letitia, you're in a state. You don't get it. to be your own little island there in Manhattan. No, no, no. You actually have to comply with the laws of the United States of America. And the federal government has the jurisdiction here, and they've got this, you know, they get everything going from them on this one, whether it's the naturalization clause, whether it's the supremacy clause, whether it is the Commerce Clause, one of my favorite, that you can use for quite a bit, right? Because that's also regarded, you know, you have to have some kind of consistency as a United States of America. And this is why we were set up in this federalized system.

So that, yes, you have limited, limited federal power, but there's some kind of basic things. And she doesn't understand the basic things. So she's out there preparing for this hostile takeover of New York, which is going to have to happen. Okay? It's going to have to happen, ladies and gentlemen, because she just doesn't actually, Michael Meadows,

let me get to your comment. Thank you. Thank you so much. It's just thanking me for staying on top of everything. We try to do so very much here on the Trish Regan show. And you know what? You guys have been great because we are now, again, in the top 100. I think we went up.

This week we're like number 62. Up from 80, not bad, right? Hey, we're getting there. Pretty soon we'll be in the top 10. Watch. Joe Rogan, watch out. Anyway, this hostile takeover, Trump's new sweeping directive to ICE sends liberal cities quaking.

He is saying, okay, you guys don't want to do the hard work, the dirty work. Well, I'm sending ICE in to do it. And if you're not going to cooperate with any of this, then Pam Bond is cutting you off. You're going to have no funding, no money. And now Letitia is flipping out. And she's relying on all these lower courts. But the lower courts are not going to get anywhere. I'll tell you one other thing that she's going to have to really focus on right about now.

I told you she's out of money. She's got a lot of legal bills that she's going to pay. Remember when she said, by the way, she's like politically in a very, very bad spot because we've talked about some of these numbers, some of the poll numbers that are pretty, extraordinary. She is in a very delicate spot. You just had that election right in New York City. Well, the rest of New York is not like New York City. They're actually pretty pro-Maga and they're pretty pro-Trump. And so they don't appreciate what Letitia James is doing right now, but she's getting money from somebody to keep moving forward. Well, she's got money from taxpayers. What am I saying?

She's getting money from the taxpayers because, I mean, the GOP doesn't want this happening and they're trying to stop this from happening, but she's got $10 million that she's trying to use for her fancy schmancy lawyer who actually represented none other than Hunter, but in the small world that it is, right? When powerful people cheat to get better loans, she wrote back when Donald Trump was getting charged, what, $500 million? He still is. That hasn't changed.

When powerful people cheat to get better loans, it comes at the expense of honest and hardworking people, quote, everyday Americans cannot lie to a bank to get a mortgage to buy a home. And if they did, the government would throw the book at them. This is coming back to Hunter pretty spectacularly. There simply cannot be different rules for different people. Now, Donald Trump is finally facing accountability for his lying, cheating, and staggering fraud. Because no matter how big, rich, and powerful you are, ha-ha.

Or you think you are, no one's above the law. Gosh, I'm so glad you said it, Tishy. I'm really, really glad you said it. Because Bill Pulte over at FHA, he's got a little something that he had to refer to the DOJ. Because again, if you cheat to get a better loan and you try to use federal taxpayer dollars to do it, you're going to have some problems. And right now, judging at the evidence we've seen thus far, I think you're going to have a really hard time explaining all these allegations away. Here's Bill. We recommended that the DOJ investigate New York Attorney General Letitia James over alleged mortgage fraud.

the AG, Letitia James has responded. We don't have the video, but here's the quote, this investigation into me is nothing more than retribution. It's baseless. It has to do with the fact that on a power of attorney, I mistakenly indicated that I was a state of Virginia resident. And prior to that, I indicated to the mortgage broker that in fact, in bold cap letters that I am not a resident of Virginia

and never will be, they just took the power of attorney and they're using that as a basis for enforcement of their investigation. Bill, do you know why she said she was a resident of Virginia on the power of attorney if in fact she wasn't? Well, I know that we are mortgage experts and we only refer things that we think are mortgage fraud and we stand 100% behind the letter. I'll let the letter speak for itself. I do know and I have seen some reports from that subject, from that subject's criminal defense

lawyer saying certain things. I'll leave it to the DOJ to correct various things. But again, when we see mortgage. fraud, we are going to report it. When we see mortgage fraud, we are going to prosecute it within the confines of our duties. And we are not going to be intimidated by a subject's criminal defense lawyer. We are not going to be intimidated by a politician or just because you have an ask wire behind your name. We are not going to be intimidated by people. If we see mortgage fraud, we're going to do something about it. And I think that you're going to see us be taking this on in a big way. Mortgage fraud is a big

problem. These companies are safe and sound, but where we see it, we are going to do something about it. And that subject's case is no different. Well, what are the ramifications of this now that you've referred this for criminality to the DOJ? Well, I would refer that to the DOJ. Again, as I say, we spend our days. We are mortgage experts. We are not politicians. I view this as an economic job, obviously the president can fire me at any time. So I guess in that way. But look, I look at this as an independent agency. We found the mortgage. fraud, whether it be that particular subject or other subjects, and we work actively with the DOJ and different law enforcement.

How do you like that? So when you apply for a federal loan, it's completely different than, say, what Donald Trump was doing with Deutsche Bank. And the reason why this is actually a criminal referral, and she could find herself in a whole lot of hot water, including, frankly, jail, if this all proves that to be true, is that FHA loans are issued by the federal government, thereby being backed, of course, by U.S. taxpayers. And so in the case of Deutsche Bank with Donald Trump, that was just risking, say, Deutsche Bank's money. And Deutsche Bank said, I'll take that trade and I'll take it all day long.

And guess what? I'd do it again and again and again and again because everybody made money. And the idea that somehow Letitia can come in the middle of it all and say, well, I don't think Mara Lago is worth that. And I think, you know, you lied on your square footage. By the way, it's up to the bank to do the due diligence. In this particular case, though, you're talking about using guns. government dollars, our taxpayer dollars.

I mean, this is why, by the way, an aside, and we did this story yesterday, so go back and watch it if you can, it's so bad that you have this socialist coming into New York City right now, because take a look around the world. Anytime you put these people like a Letitia James who's quasi-socialist or the guy who just won in, or in New York City, or an AOC, et cetera, you find that there is a lot of corruption. And they're all out for themselves. They're all out for the government. they want the government to get bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger, right? Because as the government

gets bigger, then they are the ones that have more and more of the power. You know, Justin makes a good point. I'm going to add this to the broadcast. Justin, I'm just seeing what you're saying about and thank you again for the generosity. You would think an attorney general would not mess up a power of attorney thing. Exactly. Right. So she's going to be held to a higher standard for sure because of her legal background and she should be held to a higher standard. Frankly, I think the woman should be disbarred just because of what she did over Donald Trump and I expect that the appeals court, I'm getting annoyed with them, really annoyed with them, really annoyed. You know why? Like we've been sitting here waiting. We know exactly what they're going to do. For some reason, they can't quite do it. We

know what they're going to do. They're going to throw the whole thing out of court and Latisha James. I'm telling you, this woman not only needs to be disbarred, she needs to be voted out and voted out fast. I mean, if she doesn't go to jail first, and you know how I know? that the appellate court has no use for the case that she brought? Well, they said it. Remember? It was using... I'm sorry, but what's being described sounds an awful lot like a potential commercial dispute between private actors.

Well, to go back to the first question about whether there's other examples of this, there are other examples of this. In the first American case, the Attorney General brought a 6312 case where the transaction at issue was between a very big bank, Wells Fargo, and a professional appraisal firm. But it wasn't it down... wasn't the concern there that the public would ultimately be negatively impact and affected by what those corporate actors were doing? And that's that that concern is here as well, because when

you have hidden risks getting injected into the market, that hurts the market and honest participants in the market. And the legislature also decided, contrary to what defendants think, that making sure that business in New York stays honest is the way to attract and keep business in New York. So to that point, the executive law 6312, I just want to read a section of it. Well, not exactly, but... Yeah, the only judge that seemed to be standing up for her. I loved how they just slammed the woman who was Judith Fale, arguing the case for Letitia James. Like, right off the bat, the judges were like, you don't even have a victim.

What are you doing here? May it please the court, Judith Failed for the New York Attorney General's office. All of the defendants repeatedly violated... Ms. Fail, can you identify any previous... case, in which the Attorney General sued under Executive Law 6312 to upset a private business transaction that was between equally sophisticated partners, where the supposed victim had the ability and legal obligation to discover the allegedly misrepresented matters by conducting its own due diligence, where the supposed wrongdoer advised the supposed victim

through written disclaimers to conduct its own due diligence and to draw its own conclusions where the alleged misrepresentation almost entirely concerned inherently subjective valuations of properties and businesses. Yes. And where, and where the victim never complained about any fraud in the transactional losses from it. Because I've gone through the cases which you've cited, and all of them always involved the consumer protection aspect. It involved protection of the market. Several responses. And I want to add to his question, and little to no impact on the public marketplace. Yeah. Okay. Little to no

impact. You guys remember that? That was just brilliant, right? Little to no impact on the public marketplace. So now she's being sued. She's being, the indictments coming, the grand jury's issuing subpoenas, they need to get to the bottom of this. I mean, granted, they want to do this and they want to do this right. But I don't think this looks good. One of you guys was making the point, and it was a good one. Justin, I think it was you.

In fact, that she should be held to a higher standard because she's an attorney herself. It's a very, very good point. And also, I think I would question this. Like, what was the history of stuff going on? This is the one in Virginia, right? Where she's saying, with the power of attorney, that she intended to live there full time.

Then you had that brownstone in Brooklyn where it was disputed about how many, like, levels there were because apparently you got government money if it was four instead of five. So even though she had five levels, she was out there saying it was four. So how many years did she get government money for that? And then there's this one.

I mean, I don't know how she explains this one away. She got a mortgage with her dad, this house with her father, where she labeled herself his wife. I mean, I know it's going back to 1983, but you see, this kind of seems like there's a history of problems, if you would, this is the house that they were buying,

and she seems to have no problem manipulating, I don't know, the law, when it's going to serve her purposes. These are allegations, I need to be clear to say, but it certainly seems a little fishy, does it? not. So I think she's going to be in more and more trouble. Again, the history of problems here is one of the big, big issues is Stephen Miller, policy advisor to the president so accurately pointed out. My response is that Leticia James is one of the most corrupt, shameless individuals

ever to hold public office. She's guilty not only of those crimes, but of countless more crimes by using and abusing your public office to try to persecute an innocent man, depriving him of his rights, engaging in a conspiracy to obstruct our election and to overthrow our democratic processes and procedures, she is guilty of multiple significant serial criminal violations. So this is the document that was in question where she did say that it was her principal residence. I mean, her point is, oh, you know, it was just a mistake,

just a clerical thing. I think she's going to have to explain more. I really do. And I think that things are going to start to get very, very difficult for one Letitia James.