Prosecutors must prove intent, meaning you need to have evidence where she did this on purpose.
the indictment focused on I'll add her lawyer's potential arguments, these are not my positions:
The mortgage documents w/2nd home rider
The alleged rental to a family
The $18,933 benefit from better loan terms
her lawyer will argue to a jury that loan applications are complex and not explained well, she had good intentions and a loving aunt trying to help family, 19k in harm is about what she makes in a month, you think it makes sense she's trying to game the system to get an extra month of pay over the span of 15/30 years of the mortgage?
They will pound the table and say, this was a mistake but not intentional fraud. The burden of proof is on the prosecutors, not my client. Without dead to rights evidence, i.e. recording of her gloating she is scamming the banks or tax records that reflects she's abusing the 2nd home status, both not introduced in the indictment, shows this is just the DOJ grasping at straws and wasting my clients time with a politically motivated attack.
it's muddy enough where I'm sure they'll sway one or two left of center jury. and all it takes is one TDS that even if you have her filmed dancing on a table in a bar hollering "WOOT! FUCK THE BANKS! 19k in my pockets bitches!" she'll still walk.
her lawyer will argue to a jury that loan applications are complex and not explained well, she had good intentions and a loving aunt trying to help family, 19k in harm is about what she makes in a month, you think it makes sense she's trying to game the system to get an extra month of pay over the span of 15/30 years of the mortgage?
Counterargument:
She occupies a public office and she makes it her job to prosecute those that make the same financial mistakes. A higher standard is applicable.
She deals with these type of things on a professional basis, making it less likely that it was a mistake.
She could have modified the mortgage terms in order to allow for a rental to family.
Fraud is fraud, no matter how small the amount is. They usually convict politicians and those occupying public offices on small amounts and infractions, because higher standards apply.
I'm not the devil's advocate, this is my understanding of how the law works, it applies to everyone even people I dislike:
higher ethical and professional standard yes, but not criminal standard. Don't get mad at me, I didn't make the rules.
the legal standard doesn't change just because she prosecute the very crime she is accused of. I can't think of a good example, but imagine a financial lawyer who breaks a law as a crooked lawyer, that's professional/ethical plus criminal. If she leaves work for the day and commits mortgage fraud, that's criminal and she's treated the same as everyone else.
What does happen in the latter situation is that the judge can hammer her ass after she is found guilty. Basically saying "you of all people should know better, so I'm gonna throw the book at you." But before she is found guilty her profession has no bearing to the eyes of the court.
they can argue she goes after people when she can prove intent, and cite cases she wins where intent was provable and then argue DOJ cannot and have not provided adequate proof intent.
she could but didn't, but that does not prove intent, it would be more damning if she rented to strangers, but being sloppy with family is human, again being sloppy and making "mistakes" no matter how damning doesn't prove intent, it only proved it happened.
18 U.S. Code § 1014 - Loan and credit applications generally; renewals and discounts; crop insurance
Whoever knowingly makes any false statement or report, or willfully overvalues any land, property or security, for the purpose of influencing...
You have to knowingly make false statement, that means mistakes, the classic oopsie daisies, are usually resolved civilly not criminally.
Again, like everyone else, she's innocent until proven guilty, it's the DOJ's job to prove to the jury she knew she lied when she applied for the mortgage. If they can't, even if she had the intent to deceive the bank, then she walks. Unless you have God powers and can read minds, or she outright confesses, you don't know.
And that's why I said the case is weak, nothing I've read smacks me in the face saying oh shit this is a slam dunk. And it's a low bar to get an indictment from the grand jury, this isn't phoenix wright, if DOJ has something good they're not saving it for later, they would've introduced it to the grand jury as evidence.
I don't even think she'll settle. My guess? DOJ with fuck with her and drag this out and make it painful. Offer her a plea so Trump can say you see! an innocent person wouldn't take a plea! (obviously, that's not the case but people do make that stupid statement all the time, right up there with the 5th)
Leftist money will cover her lawyer fees and she will reject the plea and win the case in 18-30 months. Left will cry victory, we'll cry the jury was retarded. No one would give a shit after a week.
pop
Both her and Comey's case pop pop seems super weak.
pop But don't let me stop you from putting them through the process.
ding!
ah, popcorns done.
How does her case seem weak?
Prosecutors must prove intent, meaning you need to have evidence where she did this on purpose.
the indictment focused on I'll add her lawyer's potential arguments, these are not my positions:
The mortgage documents w/2nd home rider
The alleged rental to a family
The $18,933 benefit from better loan terms
her lawyer will argue to a jury that loan applications are complex and not explained well, she had good intentions and a loving aunt trying to help family, 19k in harm is about what she makes in a month, you think it makes sense she's trying to game the system to get an extra month of pay over the span of 15/30 years of the mortgage?
They will pound the table and say, this was a mistake but not intentional fraud. The burden of proof is on the prosecutors, not my client. Without dead to rights evidence, i.e. recording of her gloating she is scamming the banks or tax records that reflects she's abusing the 2nd home status, both not introduced in the indictment, shows this is just the DOJ grasping at straws and wasting my clients time with a politically motivated attack.
it's muddy enough where I'm sure they'll sway one or two left of center jury. and all it takes is one TDS that even if you have her filmed dancing on a table in a bar hollering "WOOT! FUCK THE BANKS! 19k in my pockets bitches!" she'll still walk.
Counterargument:
She occupies a public office and she makes it her job to prosecute those that make the same financial mistakes. A higher standard is applicable.
She deals with these type of things on a professional basis, making it less likely that it was a mistake.
She could have modified the mortgage terms in order to allow for a rental to family.
Fraud is fraud, no matter how small the amount is. They usually convict politicians and those occupying public offices on small amounts and infractions, because higher standards apply.
I'm not the devil's advocate, this is my understanding of how the law works, it applies to everyone even people I dislike:
the legal standard doesn't change just because she prosecute the very crime she is accused of. I can't think of a good example, but imagine a financial lawyer who breaks a law as a crooked lawyer, that's professional/ethical plus criminal. If she leaves work for the day and commits mortgage fraud, that's criminal and she's treated the same as everyone else.
What does happen in the latter situation is that the judge can hammer her ass after she is found guilty. Basically saying "you of all people should know better, so I'm gonna throw the book at you." But before she is found guilty her profession has no bearing to the eyes of the court.
they can argue she goes after people when she can prove intent, and cite cases she wins where intent was provable and then argue DOJ cannot and have not provided adequate proof intent.
she could but didn't, but that does not prove intent, it would be more damning if she rented to strangers, but being sloppy with family is human, again being sloppy and making "mistakes" no matter how damning doesn't prove intent, it only proved it happened.
18 U.S. Code § 1014 - Loan and credit applications generally; renewals and discounts; crop insurance
You have to knowingly make false statement, that means mistakes, the classic oopsie daisies, are usually resolved civilly not criminally.
Again, like everyone else, she's innocent until proven guilty, it's the DOJ's job to prove to the jury she knew she lied when she applied for the mortgage. If they can't, even if she had the intent to deceive the bank, then she walks. Unless you have God powers and can read minds, or she outright confesses, you don't know.
And that's why I said the case is weak, nothing I've read smacks me in the face saying oh shit this is a slam dunk. And it's a low bar to get an indictment from the grand jury, this isn't phoenix wright, if DOJ has something good they're not saving it for later, they would've introduced it to the grand jury as evidence.
I don't even think she'll settle. My guess? DOJ with fuck with her and drag this out and make it painful. Offer her a plea so Trump can say you see! an innocent person wouldn't take a plea! (obviously, that's not the case but people do make that stupid statement all the time, right up there with the 5th)
Leftist money will cover her lawyer fees and she will reject the plea and win the case in 18-30 months. Left will cry victory, we'll cry the jury was retarded. No one would give a shit after a week.