Trump to fire US attorney for not charging Letitia James

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It isn't about winning a conviction, it is about burdening them with the defense costs. And the biggest reason is to instill fear in anyone about criticizing the president. Run afoul of Trump and you too can incur staggering legal bills. This is why a weaponized DOJ is authoritarianism 101.

And no Trumpers---do NOT start bleating about how the orange toad at 1600 Penn was persecuted. If anything, Merrick Garland went too light on him. In the documents case, he was asked multiple times---nicely---to comply with the law and he simply middle-fingered the government. The Stormy Daniels prosecution was the same thing that was brought against Dem. senator and VP candidate John Edwards. The Bolton/Comey/James prosecutions are pure political revenge and intimidation tactics. The barbie insurance lawyer pretending to be an actual US attorney should be disbarred.

Thankfully, even the most conservative firms see what is happening. They will take these on Pro Bono. They will absolutely crush the Trump DoJ.

Are they allowed to? What does the settlement they stupidly agreed to with him say?

[Anonymous]

Letitia James may have broken the law. But we all know the only reason the Trump Admin is prosecuting her is because she stood up to him.

By contrast, the Border Czar can accept $50,000 in a paper bag in exchange for federal contracts and the investigation is dropped.

Trump is absolutely weaponizing government, and doing so selectively against his political enemies. I don't care if Democrats or Republicans do it, it is wrong and extremely dangerous.

[Anonymous]

Bondi trying to distance herself from this disaster of a prosecution

https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/10/politics/lindsey-halligan-no-coordinate-letitia-james-indictment-doj?cid=ios_app

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Letitia James may have broken the law. But we all know the only reason the Trump Admin is prosecuting her is because she stood up to him.

By contrast, the Border Czar can accept $50,000 in a paper bag in exchange for federal contracts and the investigation is dropped.

Trump is absolutely weaponizing government, and doing so selectively against his political enemies. I don't care if Democrats or Republicans do it, it is wrong and extremely dangerous.

It is actually pretty unclear she did, or intended to. For instance, for Norfolk home, she literally sent emails to the bank explicitly clarifying that it was not her primary residence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It isn't about winning a conviction, it is about burdening them with the defense costs. And the biggest reason is to instill fear in anyone about criticizing the president. Run afoul of Trump and you too can incur staggering legal bills. This is why a weaponized DOJ is authoritarianism 101.

And no Trumpers---do NOT start bleating about how the orange toad at 1600 Penn was persecuted. If anything, Merrick Garland went too light on him. In the documents case, he was asked multiple times---nicely---to comply with the law and he simply middle-fingered the government. The Stormy Daniels prosecution was the same thing that was brought against Dem. senator and VP candidate John Edwards. The Bolton/Comey/James prosecutions are pure political revenge and intimidation tactics. The barbie insurance lawyer pretending to be an actual US attorney should be disbarred.

Thankfully, even the most conservative firms see what is happening. They will take these on Pro Bono. They will absolutely crush the Trump DoJ.

Are they allowed to? What does the settlement they stupidly agreed to with him say?

They will be the special prosecutors investigating the judges that dismiss these cases.

[Anonymous]

Not trying to make a political point here.

I spent years as a mortgage banker at Quicken Loans (now Rocket Mortgage), the number one mortgage lender in the country, before I ever went to law school. So when I see stories like this, I look at them a little differently.

Here’s the deal. How you classify a property as a primary, secondary, or investment home changes everything about the loan. The down payment, the interest rate, the underwriting, all of it.

Primary or secondary homes can get by with as little as 3 to 10 percent down.

Investment properties usually require 25 percent or more.

So if you’re a brand new real estate investor with limited cash, there’s a big incentive to call something a “second home” instead of an “investment property.”

But that’s why lenders make you sign a Second Home Rider, a separate document where you specifically promise you’ll use it as a second residence, not rent it out.

You also assert like NINE times in the application process it will be owner occupied…

Could this kind of thing ever be an honest mistake? I doubt it.

The facts, at least as reported, look pretty bad.

You buy a house, say it’s a second home, immediately rent it out, tell your insurer it’s owner-occupied, and then report rental income on your taxes.

That’s not a misunderstanding. That’s a pattern.

By the way guys, taking home owners insurance under the misrepresentation that it’s a primary for better rates is a great way to have a claim denied when your house burns down.

Very shortsighted mistake that many make...

Would a bank ever catch this on their own? Probably not.

Banks rarely dig that deep unless there’s a default or an insurance claim.

They just don’t have the infrastructure or frankly the desire to chase it down.

So yes, it’s definitely selective prosecution.

The amount of money at issue is small, and most people would never be charged for something like this.

But still, if the facts are accurate, it’s just a series of really bad moves.

And the wild part is that she’s a lawyer.

She’s the Attorney General of New York.

She’s prosecuted the former president for similar financial misrepresentations.

You’d think someone with that background would fully understand what those documents say and what it means to misstate intent on a loan.

It’s going to be a tough case for her to defend, unless she’s able to present additional information that clarifies the situation.

It’s possible…

In the meantime, there are lots of financial and life lessons in this story for all of us.

[Anonymous]

Halligan needs a proofreader. Maybe all that eye hinders her ability to read.


https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-beauty-queen-prosecutor-humiliated-after-another-typo-in-retribution-campaign/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Not trying to make a political point here.

I spent years as a mortgage banker at Quicken Loans (now Rocket Mortgage), the number one mortgage lender in the country, before I ever went to law school. So when I see stories like this, I look at them a little differently.

Here’s the deal. How you classify a property as a primary, secondary, or investment home changes everything about the loan. The down payment, the interest rate, the underwriting, all of it.

Primary or secondary homes can get by with as little as 3 to 10 percent down.

Investment properties usually require 25 percent or more.

So if you’re a brand new real estate investor with limited cash, there’s a big incentive to call something a “second home” instead of an “investment property.”

But that’s why lenders make you sign a Second Home Rider, a separate document where you specifically promise you’ll use it as a second residence, not rent it out.

You also assert like NINE times in the application process it will be owner occupied…

Could this kind of thing ever be an honest mistake? I doubt it.

The facts, at least as reported, look pretty bad.

You buy a house, say it’s a second home, immediately rent it out, tell your insurer it’s owner-occupied, and then report rental income on your taxes.

That’s not a misunderstanding. That’s a pattern.

By the way guys, taking home owners insurance under the misrepresentation that it’s a primary for better rates is a great way to have a claim denied when your house burns down.

Very shortsighted mistake that many make...

Would a bank ever catch this on their own? Probably not.

Banks rarely dig that deep unless there’s a default or an insurance claim.

They just don’t have the infrastructure or frankly the desire to chase it down.

So yes, it’s definitely selective prosecution.

The amount of money at issue is small, and most people would never be charged for something like this.

But still, if the facts are accurate, it’s just a series of really bad moves.

And the wild part is that she’s a lawyer.

She’s the Attorney General of New York.

She’s prosecuted the former president for similar financial misrepresentations.

You’d think someone with that background would fully understand what those documents say and what it means to misstate intent on a loan.

It’s going to be a tough case for her to defend, unless she’s able to present additional information that clarifies the situation.

It’s possible…

In the meantime, there are lots of financial and life lessons in this story for all of us.

The rider specifically allows the property to be rented out. It was even re-written in 2019 to make that absolutely clear. Odd that this "mortgage banker" doesn't know this.

https://keeganmortgage.com/new-second-home-rental-rules/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Halligan needs a proofreader. Maybe all that eye hinders her ability to read.


https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-beauty-queen-prosecutor-humiliated-after-another-typo-in-retribution-campaign/

I got paywalled so had to google search.

But what confuses me is that the indictment refers to a 2020 mortgage and the mortgage for the niece is 2023. Was that another typo? The indictment had the address for the "Perrone property" but what I found related to the criminal referral had the address in Norfolk redacted. Lawfare article seemed to say there was a second Virginia property.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Halligan needs a proofreader. Maybe all that eye hinders her ability to read.


https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-beauty-queen-prosecutor-humiliated-after-another-typo-in-retribution-campaign/

I got paywalled so had to google search.

But what confuses me is that the indictment refers to a 2020 mortgage and the mortgage for the niece is 2023. Was that another typo? The indictment had the address for the "Perrone property" but what I found related to the criminal referral had the address in Norfolk redacted. Lawfare article seemed to say there was a second Virginia property.

This is a different property than the niece property. They've tried to make a case over at least three other properties before settling on this one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As an independent, I always thought the James lawsuit against Trump was terrible. It was an obvious political attack and pretty much meritless.

And now here we are.

Even though they did not uphold the fine, the appeals court upheld the civil charge.

Trump fraudulently misrepresented his properties to get better loan rates. He TRIPLED the size of his penthouse (besides other problem valuations). If accounting company refused to work with him any longer. How was it meritless?

[Anonymous]

Summary of the details behind the charges from a few pages back.

Does not seem like a winning case for the prosecution.

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/next-up--letitia-james

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not trying to make a political point here.

I spent years as a mortgage banker at Quicken Loans (now Rocket Mortgage), the number one mortgage lender in the country, before I ever went to law school. So when I see stories like this, I look at them a little differently.

Here’s the deal. How you classify a property as a primary, secondary, or investment home changes everything about the loan. The down payment, the interest rate, the underwriting, all of it.

Primary or secondary homes can get by with as little as 3 to 10 percent down.

Investment properties usually require 25 percent or more.

So if you’re a brand new real estate investor with limited cash, there’s a big incentive to call something a “second home” instead of an “investment property.”

But that’s why lenders make you sign a Second Home Rider, a separate document where you specifically promise you’ll use it as a second residence, not rent it out.

You also assert like NINE times in the application process it will be owner occupied…

Could this kind of thing ever be an honest mistake? I doubt it.

The facts, at least as reported, look pretty bad.

You buy a house, say it’s a second home, immediately rent it out, tell your insurer it’s owner-occupied, and then report rental income on your taxes.

That’s not a misunderstanding. That’s a pattern.

By the way guys, taking home owners insurance under the misrepresentation that it’s a primary for better rates is a great way to have a claim denied when your house burns down.

Very shortsighted mistake that many make...

Would a bank ever catch this on their own? Probably not.

Banks rarely dig that deep unless there’s a default or an insurance claim.

They just don’t have the infrastructure or frankly the desire to chase it down.

So yes, it’s definitely selective prosecution.

The amount of money at issue is small, and most people would never be charged for something like this.

But still, if the facts are accurate, it’s just a series of really bad moves.

And the wild part is that she’s a lawyer.

She’s the Attorney General of New York.

She’s prosecuted the former president for similar financial misrepresentations.

You’d think someone with that background would fully understand what those documents say and what it means to misstate intent on a loan.

It’s going to be a tough case for her to defend, unless she’s able to present additional information that clarifies the situation.

It’s possible…

In the meantime, there are lots of financial and life lessons in this story for all of us.

The rider specifically allows the property to be rented out. It was even re-written in 2019 to make that absolutely clear. Odd that this "mortgage banker" doesn't know this.

https://keeganmortgage.com/new-second-home-rental-rules/

Unless she was doing Airbnb it's still fraud because you sign that you will wait a year to rent it out

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not trying to make a political point here.

I spent years as a mortgage banker at Quicken Loans (now Rocket Mortgage), the number one mortgage lender in the country, before I ever went to law school. So when I see stories like this, I look at them a little differently.

Here’s the deal. How you classify a property as a primary, secondary, or investment home changes everything about the loan. The down payment, the interest rate, the underwriting, all of it.

Primary or secondary homes can get by with as little as 3 to 10 percent down.

Investment properties usually require 25 percent or more.

So if you’re a brand new real estate investor with limited cash, there’s a big incentive to call something a “second home” instead of an “investment property.”

But that’s why lenders make you sign a Second Home Rider, a separate document where you specifically promise you’ll use it as a second residence, not rent it out.

You also assert like NINE times in the application process it will be owner occupied…

Could this kind of thing ever be an honest mistake? I doubt it.

The facts, at least as reported, look pretty bad.

You buy a house, say it’s a second home, immediately rent it out, tell your insurer it’s owner-occupied, and then report rental income on your taxes.

That’s not a misunderstanding. That’s a pattern.

By the way guys, taking home owners insurance under the misrepresentation that it’s a primary for better rates is a great way to have a claim denied when your house burns down.

Very shortsighted mistake that many make...

Would a bank ever catch this on their own? Probably not.

Banks rarely dig that deep unless there’s a default or an insurance claim.

They just don’t have the infrastructure or frankly the desire to chase it down.

So yes, it’s definitely selective prosecution.

The amount of money at issue is small, and most people would never be charged for something like this.

But still, if the facts are accurate, it’s just a series of really bad moves.

And the wild part is that she’s a lawyer.

She’s the Attorney General of New York.

She’s prosecuted the former president for similar financial misrepresentations.

You’d think someone with that background would fully understand what those documents say and what it means to misstate intent on a loan.

It’s going to be a tough case for her to defend, unless she’s able to present additional information that clarifies the situation.

It’s possible…

In the meantime, there are lots of financial and life lessons in this story for all of us.

The rider specifically allows the property to be rented out. It was even re-written in 2019 to make that absolutely clear. Odd that this "mortgage banker" doesn't know this.

https://keeganmortgage.com/new-second-home-rental-rules/

Unless she was doing Airbnb it's still fraud because you sign that you will wait a year to rent it out

She bought the property in August 2020, and had less than $5k income in 2020 from the property. She had no income from it in 2021. Whatever rental she did was short term.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Letitia James may have broken the law. But we all know the only reason the Trump Admin is prosecuting her is because she stood up to him.

By contrast, the Border Czar can accept $50,000 in a paper bag in exchange for federal contracts and the investigation is dropped.

Trump is absolutely weaponizing government, and doing so selectively against his political enemies. I don't care if Democrats or Republicans do it, it is wrong and extremely dangerous.

It is actually pretty unclear she did, or intended to. For instance, for Norfolk home, she literally sent emails to the bank explicitly clarifying that it was not her primary residence.

Meanwhile, when it's someone Trump supports:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/10/opinion/tom-homan-bribery-investigation.html?unlocked_article_code=1.sU8.Z2YE.AAwjAO7-2n0H

The accusations are explosive: That in 2024, Tom Homan, now President Trump’s border czar, met with some businessmen who handed him $50,000 stuffed into a bag from Cava, the fast-casual restaurant chain; in exchange, Mr. Homan would help with government contracts if Mr. Trump were to win re-election. In reality, the “businessmen” were undercover F.B.I. agents who reportedly recorded the exchange.

The sting operation was part of an F.B.I. investigation into Mr. Homan that the Trump administration quietly shut down this year. Mr. Homan himself denies any illegal actions. In a hearing on Tuesday, Attorney General Pam Bondi declined to answer questions about the money and said there was no evidence of wrongdoing.