Grand Jury returns a no bill in indicting Letitia James

[citygator]

Well. I guess she is even more innocent than a ham sandwich since anyone can indict a ham sandwich.

Power of the people shining through so far but we are only 1 year into the dismantling of democracy.

 

[22lcidw]

I think it's possible that they've been told things about this case -- in their world -- that just weren't true. Just like the "rigged election", the Insurrection, supposed crimes by Democrats, and everything else.

Then when the bullshit hits the light of day in court, where you really have to prove things, their "cases" fall apart.

Then they claim, of course, that THAT was rigged. That's the isolated, insulated world they inhabit. Always the righteous victim.

The only thing that you have done is make people less safe. And more and more laws are created to make people less free. And if the laws are used does not mean they are not there. not there waiting for the ruling class to use. James has a bias like many Progs.

 

[Edgetho]

Grand jury declines to re-indict Letitia James in Virginia

The Department of Justice was unable to secure a grand jury indictment against New York Attorney General Letitia James in Norfolk, Virginia, a source said.

www.foxnews.com

So, let me ask this for all those who claim James committed crimes.

To DOJ tried to re-indict her. In order to succeed they need to get 12 out of 23 to agree that there MIGHT have been a crime committed. They couldn't do that.

So how strong of a case do you think the DOJ has when the standard in a court case is a unanimous decision that a crime was committed beyond a reasonable doubt?

This was in a State that elected an Attorney General who wanted to murder his opponent's Children.

What the **** else would you expect??

And if you think we're done with that fat, ugly piece of shit, you're sadly mistaken. The ***** is going to prison. Guar-an-teed

From the article -- "I’d say don’t celebrate just yet," one source said.

 

[SweetTea]

Who did she supposedly rent it out to? Did you see a lease? How long was the lease? What were the terms?

She let her niece live there. She said she didn't collect rent but she did report some rental income for the property. Regardless, to qualify as a second home, it should be occupied at least part of the year by the owner, even if for vacation. Even if she didn't collect rent, the bank could say this sure looks like housing for someone else, not you.

 

[Marener]

She let her niece live there. She said she didn't collect rent but she did report some rental income for the property. Regardless, to qualify as a second home, it should be occupied at least part of the year by the owner, even if for vacation. Even if she didn't collect rent, the bank could say this sure looks like housing for someone else, not you.

There is no requirement that it be occupied by the owner.

A secondary home can be rented out for short term.

The fact that she collected so little rent should be an indication they you’re not being told the whole story.

 

[SweetTea]

Let’s be clear: grand jurors are not trained in law. I doubt you are either.

Unlike you, they at least have the benefit of people who are explaining the law to them. More precisely the same people whose job it is to secure an indictment. That’s one of the many structural advantages a prosecutor enjoys in the grand jury process.

And yet… this grand jury still didn’t indict.

Again, if this was held in another state and if she wasn't an antagonist to Donald Trump, she wouldn't be so lucky. I can all but guarantee you that these jurors knew the politics involved in this situation, just as the jury that found Trump guilty knew of Trump and the politics. It is ALL politics in BOTH cases.

 

[SweetTea]

There is no requirement that it be occupied by the owner.

A secondary home can be rented out for short term.

The fact that she collected so little rent should be an indication they you’re not being told the whole story.

For tax purposes yes, not for mortgage purposes. Sorry.

 

[Marener]

For tax purposes yes, not for mortgage purposes. Sorry.

Not sure exactly what you mean here. For the purposes of the mortgage, there is no stipulation she spend any time there. Where did you hear otherwise?

 

[SweetTea]

Not sure exactly what you mean here. For the purposes of the mortgage, there is no stipulation she spend any time there. Where did you hear otherwise?

For conventional loans there is an occupancy requirement for homes classified as secondary.

"Second home: The subject property will be occupied
by the borrower(s) for some portion of the year, such
as a summer or vacation home. This occupancy type
represents a higher risk than a principal residence."

https://singlefamily.fanniemae.com/media/26241/display

 

[Marener]

For conventional loans there is an occupancy requirement for homes classified as secondary.

"Second home: The subject property will be occupied
by the borrower(s) for some portion of the year, such
as a summer or vacation home. This occupancy type
represents a higher risk than a principal residence."

https://singlefamily.fanniemae.com/media/26241/display

Irrelevant to the prosecution. You have to show what she actually signed.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Because you say so?

Because that how it is

 

[ChrisMarsei14]

One of us isn’t getting it, and I’m pretty sure it’s not me.

The entire point of a grand jury is to secure an indictment. If a prosecutor doesn’t want an indictment, they don’t present the case at all, they don’t walk in, “frame the questions,” and then pray the jury shuts them down.

Your argument has now done a full circle: first you said prosecutors can steer a grand jury toward indictment of different fish, and now you’re saying they steered this one away from indictment.

So which is it?

Because whichever version you choose, it doesn’t change the fact that the DOJ couldn’t get 12 out of 23 citizens to agree a crime even might have been committed.

That's not how the real world works. DAs are often reluctant to pursue marginal cases because they are up for re-election. They can also be assigned to a case they do not like. They might be overworked and blow off a case. They might even be sympathetic to the accused. Many other reasons.

 

[dudmuck]

This was in a State that elected an Attorney General who wanted to murder his opponent's Children.

What the **** else would you expect??

And if you think we're done with that fat, ugly piece of shit, you're sadly mistaken. The ***** is going to prison. Guar-an-teed

From the article -- "I’d say don’t celebrate just yet," one source said.

the AG wanted to murder children?

 

[SweetTea]

Irrelevant to the prosecution. You have to show what she actually signed.

We know this loan was for a second home . Are you saying she didn't get a conventional Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac loan? Her loan was subject to different regulations?

For your information, she did sign a convention loan backed by Fannie Mae.

She signed a rider called a 3890 for a second home mortgage. Guess what that rider includes? You guessed it, the information I posted above regarding occupancy.

You lose again.

 

[Marener]

We know this loan was for a second home . Are you saying she didn't get a conventional Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac loan? Her loan was subject to different regulations?

For your information, she did sign a convention loan backed by Fannie Mae.

She signed a rider called a 3890 for a second home mortgage. Guess what that rider includes? You guessed it, the information I posted above regarding occupancy.

You lose again.

How much time does it say they have to spend at the home?

 

[berg80]

If the DoJ tries to indict James for a third time it greatly bolsters her claim for dismissing the case on the grounds of selective, vindictive prosecution.

It also opens up the likelihood the judge will grant a request by her attorneys to have the grand jury testimony turned over to them. So they can examine the testimony for lies and or inconsistencies from DoJ witnesses.

 

[SweetTea]

How much time does it say they have to spend at the home?

There are no specified number of days for the first year of ownership, however, it is explicitly stated that during that first year that the owner must occupy the home for a portion of that year.

I know you are desperately trying to find a loophole for her because she is a Democrat. If Trump had done exactly this, but on a large level, you and your cult would be all over it. In fact, they convicted Trump of similar, rather benign and equally questionable loan fraud. For example, that fact that a judge actually stated the tax appraisal value of Mar-A-Largo in his ruling as if that had any bearing whatsoever was a HUGE red flag as to the bias of the court. Again, you don’t care, because “orange man bad”.

 

[JoeB131]

She let her niece live there. She said she didn't collect rent but she did report some rental income for the property. Regardless, to qualify as a second home, it should be occupied at least part of the year by the owner, even if for vacation. Even if she didn't collect rent, the bank could say this sure looks like housing for someone else, not you.

Except the bank didn't care, just like it doesn't care when most of us buy properties and let relatives live there.

Now, if she bought it claiming that it was a residence for her, and rented it for money to total strangers, then they MIGHT have had a point.

 

[Marener]

There are no specified number of days for the first year of ownership, however, it is explicitly stated that during that first year that the owner must occupy the home for a portion of that year.

I know you are desperately trying to find a loophole for her because she is a Democrat. If Trump had done exactly this, but on a large level, you and your cult would be all over it. In fact, they convicted Trump of similar, rather benign and equally questionable loan fraud. For example, that fact that a judge actually stated the tax appraisal value of Mar-A-Largo in his ruling as if that had any bearing whatsoever was a HUGE red flag as to the bias of the court. Again, you don’t care, because “orange man bad”.

So as long as she spent any time in the home, that’s adequate. Right?

Even a minute?

You’ll have to remind me how much you wanted Trump prosecuted for lying on his financial statements. I don’t seem to remember you saying that he should be prosecuted for fraud.

 

[SweetTea]

Except the bank didn't care, just like it doesn't care when most of us buy properties and let relatives live there.

Now, if she bought it claiming that it was a residence for her, and rented it for money to total strangers, then they MIGHT have had a point.

The banks didn’t care about Donald Trump’s evaluations of his properties either, but that didn’t matter. In fact, Trump claimed Mar-A-Largo as a private club rather than a personal residence in order to get a lower tax appraisal. Also, Florida has restrictions on how much tax appraisals can increase per year so it stands to reason that Mar-A-Largo would have a low tax appraisal. The estimate Trump provided was a fair market value appraisal, which makes perfect sense because if the property was sold, the zoning could be changed to a private residence and the tax value would skyrocket. This is exactly what the banks would have done had they been forced to foreclose on the property. This is one of the reason they didn’t have a problem giving Trump the loans, which he paid back on time.

Trump’s case was a total sham. James case is nitpicking, but not more than Trump’s. That is kind of the point. Democrats have a different rule of law for fellow high profile leftwingers.