The criminal fraud investigation into New York’s attorney general, Letitia James, may be approaching a pivotal moment — whether the Department of Justice will charge her or instead retreat from securing an indictment. 

Ms. James stands accused by the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, William Pulte, of lying on multiple mortgage documents. ABC News, though, claims in a report that the DOJ has “so far uncovered no clear evidence” that Ms. James “knowingly made false statements to a financial institution to secure favorable terms on a mortgage for her Virginia home.” The article also claims, without quoting anyone by name, that “top Trump administration officials are pressuring federal prosecutors” to indict.

Also leading the charge against Ms. James is the special attorney for mortgage fraud, Ed Martin. Mr. Martin, who served as acting United States attorney for the District of Columbia, has been tasked by Attorney General Pam Bondi with spearheading the cases against Ms. James and Senator Adam Schiff, who is also accused of making misrepresentations on mortgage documents. A conviction for mortgage fraud requires a showing of intent to deceive.

The decision whether to prosecute Ms. James appears to rest, at least for now, with the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Erik Siebert. He was nominated to the top prosecutorial post by President Trump, but garnered the support — and the votes — of Virginia’s two Democratic senators, Mark Warner and Tim Kaine. Mr. Siebert was previously a police officer with the Metropolitan Police Department.  

Mr. Siebert’s responsibility for the case stems from the allegation that Ms. James represented that a modest Norfolk home was her primary residence even as she was required by Empire State law to be based in New York. She is also accused of listing her father as her husband on another mortgage document, also for better loan terms. The same motivation apparently led her to list a five-unit Brooklyn brownstone as possessing only four units.

Mr. Martin has personally inspected that Clinton Hill property, and was accosted by neighbors of Ms. James who inquired why he was loitering in the tree-lined neighborhood. Ms. James is also facing a $500 fine for exceeding the ordinance that fences in the neighborhood not reach past four feet. Her lawyer, Abbe Lowell, characterizes the allegations against his client as “threadbare” and “cherry-picked.” Mr. Trump, he reckons, is on a “revenge tour.”

Ms. James’s criminal jeopardy amounts to a stunning reversal for a prosecutor more accustomed to filing charges than fending them off. She has sued the Trump administration more than 100 times, but her signature legal victory against the 47th president was her $500 million civil fraud verdict against him, his two adult sons, and their family business. The case rested on, in an ironic twist, the overvaluation of real estate properties for better loan terms.

That verdict, handed down by Judge Arthur Engoron, also included onerous restrictions on the Trump Organization’s ability to operate in New York, its traditional base of operations. New York’s intermediate appellate court, though, struck down the verdict secured by Ms. James as “excessive” and a violation of the Eighth Amendment. The court kept the underlying verdicts and the other penalties intact. 

Both Ms. James and Mr. Trump have appealed that ruling to New York’s highest court, and that appeal will unfold against the backdrop of the investigation of Ms. James for not only mortgage fraud, but also for violating Mr. Trump’s civil rights in bringing the fraud case. An upstate grand jury has already authorized a subpoena as part of that investigation. Also under scrutiny is Ms. James’s push to put the National Rifle Association out of business. 

The Department of Justice manual, which guides federal prosecutors like Mr. Siebert, mandates that a “prosecutor may commence or recommend federal prosecution only if he/she believes that the person will more likely than not be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by an unbiased trier of fact and that the conviction will be upheld on appeal.”