"LOCK HER UP!" New York AG Letitia James Makes Outrageous Move Against ICE Agents - She's Not Going To Get Away With...
Attorney General Letitia James on Thursday issued an open call asking for photos and videos of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers to upload to a new “portal to review federal immigration enforcement in New York” following a raid on Canal Street in New York City that netted the arrest of nine illegal aliens with criminal histories.
“We’re launching a portal to review federal immigration enforcement in New York after yesterday’s ICE raid on Canal Street,” James wrote on the X platform.
“New Yorkers who were present should submit videos or photos, and we will review and investigate any violations of the law,” she added.
James’s announcement came just two days after Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA) revealed that Democrats on the House Oversight Committee plan to launch what he described as a “master ICE tracker” to monitor the movements of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents — a move critics have characterized as a potential “hit list.”
“I shared this with the mayor (LA Mayor Karen Bass),” Garcia began. “Over the course of the next couple of weeks, the Oversight Committee will be launching on their website a ‘master ICE tracker.'”
“We will be essentially tracking every single instance that we can verify (location of ICE agents),” he added.
James added in a statement: “Every New Yorker has the right to live without fear or intimidation. If you witnessed and documented ICE activity yesterday, I urge you to share that footage with my office. We are committed to reviewing these reports and assessing any violations of law. No one should be subject to unlawful questioning, detention, or intimidation.”
She didn’t note that people in the country illegally are not “New Yorkers” in any legal sense.
Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) said during a press conference Wednesday that Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents wrongly detained four U.S. citizens during the Canal Street raid, holding them for “nearly 24 hours” without charges — an action he claimed was “lawless terror.”
“In other cities where the federal government has escalated immigration enforcement, local authorities have complained that federal agents have bent the law and abused civilians,” The New York Times said.
In San Francisco, which is bracing for an influx of ICE officers, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) suggested Wednesday that “state and local authorities may arrest federal agents if they break California law.”
That said, the “ability of states to arrest federal officers is murky,” the Times reported. U.C. Berkeley School of Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky said if “ICE agents are acting legally, the state can’t prosecute them and hold them liable, even if it dislikes what they’re doing,” but if they “act beyond their legal authority, and violate state law in doing so, they can be prosecuted.”
Meanwhile, James was set to appear in a federal courtroom in Virginia on Friday to face allegations of mortgage fraud.
James was indicted earlier this month after prosecutors alleged she lied on a mortgage application to obtain favorable loan terms on a Virginia property she later rented out.
The indictment, returned by a federal grand jury, centers on a single-family home in Norfolk, Virginia, that James co-purchased in August 2020 for roughly $137,000. Most of the purchase was financed with a $109,600 loan that prohibited the home from being used as a rental or investment property, according to prosecutors.
By misrepresenting the property as a second home, James received a lower interest rate and saved “approximately $18,933 over the life of the loan,” prosecutors said in a five-page filing.
Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director William Pulte referred the case to the Department of Justice earlier this year, prompting a criminal probe that led to the indictment.
Nearly 150,000 California Mail Ballots Rejected In Primary
California election officials are examining why nearly 150,000 mail-in ballots were rejected during the state’s June primary, with late-arriving ballots accounting for most of the increase.
The higher rejection rate comes despite years of election law changes designed to make voting more accessible and ensure more ballots are ultimately counted.
According to data compiled by the California Secretary of State’s office, 148,241 mail-in ballots were rejected during the June primary, representing 1.73% of all mail ballots returned.
That marks an increase from the 2024 primary, when 108,982 ballots were rejected, or 1.56% of all mail ballots cast.
The largest reason for rejection was ballots arriving too late to qualify under California law.
State data shows that 93,479 ballots were rejected because they failed to meet the state’s deadline requirements.
California allows mail ballots to arrive up to seven days after Election Day, provided they are postmarked on or before Election Day.
Voting experts believe many of the rejected ballots received postmarks dated after Election Day, making them ineligible to be counted even if they arrived within the seven-day grace period.
Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, said the timing of postal processing appears to be a significant concern.
“Ballots rejected due to lateness are caused primarily to being postmarked too late to count, not because they arrived too late to count,” Alexander said.
Election experts have questioned whether recent operational changes within the U.S. Postal Service may be contributing to delayed postmarks.
Earlier this year, a group of mostly Democratic U.S. senators wrote to the Postal Service expressing concern that mail-processing changes could affect ballot handling during federal elections.
Updated Postal Service procedures mean postmarks may reflect when mail is processed at regional facilities rather than when it first enters the mail system.
Because processing centers have been consolidated in some areas, election officials have warned that postmark timing could be affected.
Before the June primary, California election officials encouraged voters to mail ballots as early as possible because of potential postal delays.
The June election also featured a highly competitive race for governor, which some experts believe encouraged many voters to wait until the final days before casting ballots.
In addition to late-arriving ballots, approximately 44,000 ballots were rejected because election officials determined the voter’s signature did not match the signature on file.
Another 8,300 ballots were rejected because the return envelope did not contain a signature.
State records also show that 743 ballots were rejected because those voters had already cast another ballot.
Other rejected ballots involved missing ballots inside return envelopes or multiple ballots submitted in a single envelope.
The highest rejection rate in the state occurred in Tulare County, where 3.52% of returned mail ballots were rejected.
Alpine County and Merced County followed closely, each recording rejection rates of 3.36%.
California has frequently faced criticism for taking weeks to complete vote counting after major elections, largely because state law permits ballots meeting certain requirements to continue arriving after Election Day.
Following the June primary, President Donald Trump again criticized California’s election system, while the Department of Justice opened an investigation into election administration in Los Angeles County.
Election experts emphasize that the increase in rejected ballots should not be interpreted as evidence of widespread voter fraud.
A 2025 report by the Brookings Institution found documented cases of mail ballot fraud remained extremely rare, estimating roughly four cases for every 10 million mail ballots cast, The Associated Press reported.
State officials have not identified evidence of widespread fraud connected to the June primary, but the increase in rejected ballots is expected to receive additional scrutiny as election administrators evaluate whether changes in postal operations, voter behavior or election procedures contributed to the higher rejection rate.
