‘The One Retribution’: Trump’s Top Aide Admits His Attack on a Black Political Figure Is Personal – Then She Says the Quiet Part Out Loud
President Donald Trump's White House Chief of Staff unreservedly admitted that the criminal charges the president tried to pursue against New York Attorney General Letitia James were his attempt at political payback. In an interview with Vanity Fair, Susie Wiles said that the mortgage fraud charges the president tried to saddle James with were a form of retribution for the successful civil case brought by the New York attorney general against him, his family, and The Trump Organization in 2022. U.S. President Donald Trump departs with White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles following a roundtable discussion in the State Dining Room of the White House on Oct. 8. (Photo: Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images) The Justice Department failed three times to indict James on mortgage-related charges as part of a concerted effort from the Trump administration to see her criminally charged. James was accused of fraudulently filling out forms to declare a property she owned in Virginia as her primary residence to secure a discounted mortgage rate. Trump had tried to pressure U.S. Attorney Erik Siebert, a federal prosecutor he appointed, to indict James, but when Siebert declared the case too weak to pursue, Trump forced him out. ‘Who’s Going to Tell Her?’: Karoline Leavitt Mocked for Congratulating Dead President on Teaming Up with Trump The president replaced Siebert with Lindsey Halligan, his former personal attorney with no prosecutorial experience, who charged James at his behest. However, the indictment fell apart after a judge declared that Halligan was unlawfully appointed. In the aftermath, two more grand juries also declined to indict James, which set the effort back even further. During his second presidential campaign, Trump peppered his speeches with threats of retaliation against his political enemies who either criminally or civilly indicted him. In the Vanity Fair piece, Wiles stated that she doesn't think the president is on a "retribution tour," but admitted that accusing Letitia James of mortgage fraud "might be the one retribution." "She had a half a billion dollars of his money!” Wiles exclaimed to Vanity Fair's Chris Whipple, citing the $454 million penalty that Trump was ordered to pay after being found civilly liable for fraudulently inflating the net worth of his assets to secure better business deals. Whipple: “Remember when you said to me months ago that Trump promised to end the revenge and retribution tour after 90 days?” Wiles: “I don’t think he’s on a retribution tour. A governing principle for him is, ‘I don’t want what happened to me to happen to somebody else.’ And so people that have done bad things need to get out of the government. In some cases, it may look like retribution. And there may be an element of that from time to time. Who would blame him? Not me.” Whipple: “So all of this talk,” I said, “about accusing Letitia James of mortgage fraud….” Wiles: "Well, that might be the one retribution." Whipple: “So you haven’t called him on that, or said, ‘Hey, wait a minute.’” Wiles: “No, no, not on her. Not on her. She had a half a billion dollars of his money!” An appeals court dismissed the multi-million dollar judgment in August, but upheld the ruling. Still, the president sought to accuse James of the financial crime that a civil court ruled he committed. Wiles has since walked back her interview statements, calling the article a "framed hit piece" that paints "an overwhelmingly chaotic and negative narrative about the President and our team." In a statement about the third failed attempt made by the Justice Department to indict James, her lawyer, Abbe Lowell, said: “For the second time in seven days, the Department of Justice has failed in its clear attempt to fulfill President Trump’s political vendetta against Attorney General James. This unprecedented rejection makes even clearer that this case should never have seen the light of day." He continued: "This case already has been a stain on this Department’s reputation and raises troubling questions about its integrity. Any further attempt to revive these discredited charges would be a mockery of our system of justice.”
