Letitia James Escapes a Second Indictment—but the Political Damage May Be Just Beginning

By Michael Phillips | NYBayNews

New York Attorney General Letitia James will not face criminal charges, after prosecutors confirmed this week that they are declining to seek a second indictment before a Manhattan grand jury. The decision effectively ends the corruption probe tied to her former chief of staff, Ibrahim Khan—but it does not end the political fallout.

James was already cleared once when a grand jury declined prosecutors’ first attempt to bring charges earlier this year. The latest development—prosecutors choosing not to pursue a second presentation of evidence—closes the legal chapter, but opens a larger question:

Why did a sitting attorney general come so close to indictment twice? And what does this reveal about New York’s political culture?

The Case That Nearly Took Down a Statewide Powerhouse

The probe centered on allegations that James and senior leaders in her office mishandled or concealed details surrounding the 2022 sexual misconduct allegations against Khan. While prosecutors never publicly detailed the prospective charges, sources indicated they involved potential official misconduct, false statements, and obstruction.

The first grand jury declined to indict, signaling either weak evidence or a perception that prosecutors were stretching to build a case against a powerful elected official.

The second attempt never materialized. Prosecutors reviewed new testimony and material but ultimately determined they would not present the case again.

Legally, James walks away unscathed.
Politically, the cloud lingers.

No Charges—But No Vindication

Supporters of James will portray the decision as vindication. But that narrative oversimplifies the reality.

Twice now, prosecutors came close enough to consider charging the state’s top law enforcement officer with corruption-related crimes. In both instances, they backed away—not because James was proven innocent, but because the evidence was not strong enough to secure a conviction.

For a state that has seen:

• Gov. Eliot Spitzer resign
• AG Eric Schneiderman resign
• Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver convicted
• Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos convicted

…the bar for public trust is already low.

James’ near-indictment only deepens that skepticism.

Progressives Close Ranks While the Public Asks Tougher Questions

Progressive lawmakers are predictably circling the wagons. James remains a national figure due to her high-profile civil suits against Donald Trump and several Fortune 500 companies.

But outside Albany, the reaction is different.

Many ordinary New Yorkers want to know:

Why was the attorney general investigated twice for wrongdoing?
Why was the first indictment declined?
What exactly was in the evidence prosecutors considered?
Why was the public never given transparency?

Declining to indict is not the same as clearing her name.

A Political Bullet Dodged—For Now

Legally, James survives. Politically:

• Her statewide ambitions are damaged.
• Opponents will weaponize the investigation for years.
• Her integrity—central to her brand—is now questioned across the spectrum.

In a state where voter trust in institutions is already eroding, the episode reinforces the perception that powerful insiders operate under a different standard of accountability.

The Larger Lesson: New York’s Ethics System Is Broken

The Khan scandal and near-indictment of James highlight a structural issue:

New York’s oversight system is reactive, secretive, and consistently unable to prevent misconduct before it harms the public.

When even the attorney general’s office cannot manage internal accountability, it raises doubts about how faithfully it enforces the law against others.

For New Yorkers, that is the real scandal—one that no grand jury can resolve.

---

For national investigative coverage, visit The Thunder Report.

For family court coverage, visit Father & Co.