Elizabeth Yusi, who oversees major criminal prosecutions in the Norfolk office of Virginia’s Eastern District, has told colleagues she sees no probable cause to charge New York Attorney General Letitia James with mortgage fraud. She plans to present that conclusion to the president’s hand-picked interim U.S. attorney in coming weeks, knowing it will likely cost her job.
Yusi is the latest career prosecutor facing a choice between legal ethics and employment security. Her predecessor resisted charging James and was forced out. Federal prosecutors throughout the Eastern District are now bracing for Yusi to be fired for refusing to bring charges that many lawyers say lack sufficient evidence.
The pattern is unmistakable: career prosecutors who follow evidence and law instead of presidential demands get replaced by political appointees willing to indict Trump’s perceived enemies regardless of legal merit.
The U.S. Attorney Trump Fired for Refusing Weak Cases
Erik Siebert was the first acting U.S. attorney Trump appointed to Virginia’s Eastern District. He resisted seeking fraud charges against James and other charges against former FBI Director James Comey. Trump announced two weeks ago he would fire Siebert, who resigned September 19 after learning he’d lose his job.
Trump replaced him with Lindsey Halligan – a White House aide and insurance lawyer with no prosecutorial experience who previously served as Trump’s personal defense lawyer. Within days of taking over, Halligan sought and won indictment of Comey on charges of lying to Congress and obstructing a congressional proceeding.
Career prosecutors in the office considered the Comey case too weak to charge, according to sources familiar with internal discussions. Siebert and his colleagues concluded the evidence didn’t support criminal prosecution. Halligan – with zero prosecutorial experience but complete loyalty to Trump – obtained the indictment anyway.
That sequence demonstrates the new standard: evidence and legal merit matter less than willingness to prosecute people Trump wants prosecuted. Experienced prosecutors who say cases are too weak get fired. Political appointees with no criminal law experience get installed and immediately bring the charges career prosecutors rejected.
Yusi watched this happen to her former boss. Now she’s preparing to deliver the same answer Siebert gave – that evidence doesn’t support charges against Letitia James – and expecting the same result.
What the Mortgage Fraud Allegation Actually Involves
The allegation against James stems from a May “criminal referral” made by Bill Pulte, a Trump ally whom the president appointed as director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Pulte cited “media reports” suggesting James falsely claimed a Norfolk, Virginia home where her niece resides as her primary residence to secure a lower mortgage rate.
James’s attorney, Abbe Lowell, provided evidence to Attorney General Pam Bondi showing James made no such claim. A power-of-attorney form mistakenly listed the house as a primary residence, but James herself checked “no” on the loan application when asked if the house was her primary home. She also emailed her mortgage broker stating the house “WILL NOT be my primary residence.”
Career prosecutors examining these facts concluded they cannot prove James lied or intended to lie on the mortgage application. The documentary evidence shows James correctly identified the property as not her primary residence despite a clerical error on a different form.
That’s why Yusi plans to tell Halligan there’s no probable cause for charges. The evidence doesn’t support the allegation. A mistaken form contradicted by the actual loan application and contemporaneous email isn’t proof of intentional fraud.
But Trump doesn’t care about evidence. He wants James prosecuted because she successfully sued him and the Trump Organization for fraudulent business practices, securing a 2024 civil fraud verdict and nearly $500 million penalty. Though the monetary penalty was thrown out on appeal in August, the fraud verdict was upheld.
Trump calls James “SCUM” and demands she face consequences for what he characterizes as spurious attacks. In a September 20 social media post, he told Bondi to prosecute James, Comey, and Senator Adam Schiff, claiming they’re “all guilty as hell” and that “JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!”
The Career Prosecutor Protecting Her Staff From Political Pressure
Charging decisions are normally recommended by line prosecutors who examine facts and report to supervisors like Yusi. But in the politically charged James case, Yusi has taken measures to protect staff handling the investigation, according to sources familiar with internal discussions.
Halligan has been closely monitoring progress on the case. Career prosecutors fear colleagues will be pressured to seek indictment or risk being fired. Yusi is apparently trying to shield line prosecutors from that pressure by taking personal responsibility for the charging decision.
“This supervisor clearly is doing the right and ethical thing by refusing to bend her legal conclusions to fit the president’s desire for political retribution,” former top public corruption prosecutor Randall Eliason told MSNBC.
But Eliason called it “tragic” that career prosecutors are “forced to choose between honoring their oaths and risking their livelihood” and being “forced out by the president’s politicization of the Justice Department.”
Yusi’s approach demonstrates leadership under impossible circumstances. She knows declining charges will likely end her career, but she’s preventing Trump and Halligan from pressuring junior prosecutors into bringing charges those prosecutors know lack merit. By taking personal responsibility for the decision, she protects subordinates from facing the same choice between ethics and employment.
That protection may be temporary – once Yusi is fired, Halligan can simply order the next supervisor or the line prosecutors themselves to seek indictment. But it demonstrates that some career prosecutors still prioritize legal ethics over self-preservation even when the consequences are predictable.
The National Security Prosecutor Who Was Just Fired
On Friday, the top national security prosecutor in Virginia’s Eastern District was fired after a Trump ally questioned his loyalty on social media. Michael Ben’Ary wrote in a departure letter that “In recent months, the political leadership of the Department have violated these principles, jeopardizing our national security and making American citizens less safe.”
Ben’Ary described his firing as retaliation for following oath requirements to “follow the facts and the law wherever they lead, free from fear or favor, and unhindered by political interference.” Political appointees are instead carrying out Trump’s directives regardless of legal merit or national security consequences.
The Eastern District of Virginia has become what MSNBC’s reporting describes as “a flash point in the Trump administration’s persecution of officials whom the president has deemed to be his foes.” Career prosecutors are being systematically removed and replaced with political loyalists willing to bring cases that experienced prosecutors conclude lack evidence.
Ben’Ary’s firing, Siebert’s forced resignation, and Yusi’s anticipated termination follow the same pattern: prosecutors who prioritize legal standards over political demands get eliminated, while appointees without prosecutorial experience get installed to execute Trump’s retribution agenda.
The Eastern District of Virginia handles major national security prosecutions, public corruption cases, and complex criminal matters requiring specialized expertise. Replacing experienced prosecutors with political loyalists damages the office’s capacity to effectively investigate and prosecute legitimate crimes.
But institutional effectiveness matters less than political loyalty when the Justice Department’s primary function becomes prosecuting perceived enemies rather than enforcing law impartially.
Why This Matters Beyond One Prosecutor’s Job
Yusi’s anticipated firing represents more than one career prosecutor losing employment for ethical decision-making. It demonstrates complete transformation of Justice Department culture from law enforcement agency to presidential retribution instrument.
Federal prosecutors are supposed to be insulated from political pressure. They make charging decisions based on evidence and legal standards, not presidential preferences. Career prosecutors provide institutional knowledge and professional expertise that prevents Justice Department from becoming weaponized for partisan purposes.
That institutional independence is being systematically destroyed. Prosecutors who follow evidence get fired. Political appointees without criminal law experience get installed. Cases that career prosecutors reject as too weak get brought anyway because Trump demands prosecution.
The message to every federal prosecutor is unmistakable: bring the cases Trump wants regardless of evidence, or lose your job to someone who will.
Some prosecutors will cave to that pressure rather than sacrifice careers and financial security. Others will quietly resign rather than participate in what they view as corruption. A few like Yusi will stand firm, make the ethical decision, and accept professional consequences.
But the cumulative effect is Justice Department transformation into political weapon. The expertise, ethical standards, and institutional independence that make federal prosecution credible are being replaced by loyalty tests and willingness to ignore legal requirements when convenient.
That transformation doesn’t happen through one dramatic break with constitutional norms. It happens through accumulated terminations of prosecutors like Siebert, Ben’Ary, and soon Yusi – career professionals who believed evidence and law still matter more than presidential demands.
What Letitia James Actually Did to Earn Trump’s Hatred
James successfully sued Trump and the Trump Organization for what she characterized as fraudulent business practices including inflating property values to obtain favorable loan terms and insurance rates while deflating values to reduce tax obligations.
A New York judge issued a 2024 civil fraud verdict against Trump and imposed nearly $500 million in penalties. The verdict was upheld on appeal, though the monetary penalty was thrown out in August as excessive. Trump proclaimed “total victory” while James vowed to appeal the penalty reduction.
James didn’t prosecute Trump criminally – she brought civil enforcement action within her authority as state attorney general. The case was decided by a judge based on evidence presented through normal legal processes. Trump wasn’t convicted of crimes or imprisoned – he faced civil penalties for business practices the court found fraudulent.
But Trump views any legal accountability as persecution requiring retribution. James successfully held him accountable through legitimate legal processes, so now Trump demands federal prosecutors manufacture criminal charges against her based on mortgage application allegations that evidence doesn’t support.
The irony is almost too perfect: Trump wants James prosecuted for alleged mortgage fraud while the civil fraud verdict against him – upheld on appeal – found he systematically misrepresented property values for financial advantage. He’s demanding prosecution for what career prosecutors say isn’t a crime while facing upheld findings that his own business practices constituted fraud.
The Constitutional Crisis That Nobody Can Stop
When presidents order Justice Department to prosecute political opponents, and when prosecutors who refuse get fired and replaced with loyalists who comply, constitutional separation of powers collapses. The Justice Department exists to enforce law impartially, not to serve as presidential revenge instrument.
Career prosecutors like Yusi understand their oath requires prioritizing evidence over political demands. They make charging decisions based on whether cases can be proven beyond reasonable doubt using admissible evidence and applicable law.
When those decisions conflict with presidential demands, prosecutors are supposed to be protected by institutional independence and ethical obligations that supersede political pressure. Attorney General is supposed to insulate prosecutors from White House interference and ensure cases get decided on legal merit rather than political preference.
But Pam Bondi isn’t providing that protection. Trump publicly demands prosecution of James, Comey, and Schiff. Bondi installs political appointees like Halligan who bring cases career prosecutors rejected. And when career prosecutors maintain ethical standards, they get fired.
The constitutional design assumes that institutional structures, ethical obligations, and professional standards will constrain presidential abuse of prosecutorial power. That assumption is being tested and failing. Trump can fire prosecutors who won’t bring politically motivated cases and replace them with loyalists who will, and apparently nobody can stop him.
Congress could hold oversight hearings and demand accountability. Judges could scrutinize prosecutions for evidence of political motivation. The legal profession could condemn Justice Department politicization. Media could expose the systematic purging of ethical prosecutors.
All of that is happening. None of it is preventing the transformation of Justice Department into retribution instrument.
The Prosecutor Who Knows What’s Coming
Elizabeth Yusi has watched Erik Siebert get forced out for refusing weak cases. She’s seen Michael Ben’Ary fired for prioritizing national security over loyalty tests. She knows Lindsey Halligan was installed specifically because she’ll bring cases that experienced prosecutors reject.
And she’s preparing to tell Halligan that evidence doesn’t support charging Letitia James with mortgage fraud, knowing that answer will likely end her career.
Yusi could avoid that outcome by finding some creative theory for charges, claiming the evidence is ambiguous enough to let a grand jury decide, or simply deferring to Halligan’s judgment as the presidentially-appointed U.S. attorney. Any of those approaches would preserve her job while shifting responsibility for the charging decision.
Instead, she’s apparently preparing to state plainly that probable cause doesn’t exist, protecting her staff from pressure to bring charges they know lack merit, and accepting that principled refusal will cost her position.
That decision matters beyond Yusi’s individual career. It demonstrates that some prosecutors still believe their oath to follow facts and law supersedes employment security. It shows that Trump’s Justice Department transformation isn’t complete – career prosecutors are still resisting even when resistance guarantees termination.
But it also reveals the mechanism through which transformation occurs. One prosecutor refuses and gets fired. The replacement is someone willing to bring the charges the first prosecutor rejected. Eventually, every position is filled by someone who prioritizes loyalty over legal ethics.
Yusi will likely be fired within weeks of presenting her charging recommendation to Halligan. Her replacement will either bring charges against James or face the same choice Yusi faced – ethics or employment.
Randall Eliason called it tragic that prosecutors are forced to choose between honoring oaths and risking livelihoods. It’s worse than tragic. It’s the systematic destruction of institutional independence designed to prevent exactly this outcome – Justice Department weaponized for presidential retribution against political opponents.
Elizabeth Yusi is doing the right thing. She’s following evidence, applying legal standards, protecting subordinates, and maintaining professional ethics despite knowing it will cost her career.
And she’ll be fired for it, probably soon, because doing the right thing is now grounds for termination when the right thing conflicts with what the president demands.
That’s not how constitutional government is supposed to work. But it’s how this Justice Department operates. And prosecutors watching Yusi’s anticipated firing are learning the same lesson every other federal official is learning: legal obligations won’t protect you when political loyalty is all that matters.