For years, Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) has made a career out of preaching about “the rule of law,” often aiming a pointed finger at his political opponents. But now the question is whether that same rule of law will apply to him.
In May, Federal Housing Finance Agency Director William Pulte referred Schiff to Attorney General Pam Bondi, alleging that the California Democrat repeatedly falsified mortgage documents and property records to score better loan terms on his Maryland home between 2003 and 2019. Schiff, who has never hesitated to amplify even the flimsiest accusations against his rivals, now finds himself in the spotlight, facing serious allegations and a far less friendly standard. Will accountability come for Schiff, or will this be yet another case of Washington’s elites skating by untouched?
As PJ Media previously reported, while representing a California district in Congress, Schiff reportedly listed his expensive Maryland residence as his “primary” home to secure better mortgage terms. Meanwhile, he told California tax authorities that his Burbank condo was his primary residence, allowing him to claim a homeowner’s tax exemption.
Solomon Wisenberg writes at Fox News that “according to the referral, Schiff claimed his Burbank condo as his primary/principal residence in California tax filings during the same years he listed his Maryland home as his primary/principal residence on loan applications to finance that home.”
If this isn’t a classic case of wanting to have your cake and eat it, too, what is?
Schiff’s response, predictably, is the sort of lawyered-up smoke screen Americans have come to expect from political elites who get caught red-handed. His office insisted, “the lenders who provided the mortgages for both homes were well aware of then-Representative Schiff’s Congressional service and of his intended year-round use of both homes, neither of which were vacation homes.”
This is not a denial. It’s an answer that dodges the central issue: Did Schiff lie on forms for financial gain? Were his answers accurate or not, and if not, was it carelessness or fraud?
And more importantly, will Schiff be held accountable for what he did?
According to Wisenberg, former Deputy Independent Counsel in the Whitewater/Lewinsky Investigation who conducted the federal grand jury questioning of President Clinton, “the devil is always in the details in white-collar cases like this.” Perhaps. But if a regular American tried to game the system by lying about his primary residence for a better mortgage rate or a tax exemption, he’d face prosecution or, at a minimum, steep penalties. Are we really supposed to believe that someone with Schiff’s legal training and political stature simply got confused about where he actually lived?
Related: Is This the Smoking Gun That Will Send Adam Schiff to Prison?
Wisenberg explains: “The issue is whether Schiff intentionally lied on federal or state forms to gain a financial advantage. If he falsely listed his Maryland home as his primary residence in order to get a lower interest rate, that matters too. (After all, similar alleged falsehoods by Donald Trump were used by New York Attorney General Letitia James to go after Trump in her massive New York state civil action.)”
So will authorities frog-march Schiff out of the Capitol? Wisenberg doesn’t see a federal criminal charge as likely: “Based on what we do know, how likely is it that Schiff will be indicted for violating one of several federal bank fraud statutes that potentially cover his conduct? Not very likely.”
“It is not at all clear to me that Schiff wrote anything false at all by listing the Maryland house as his primary residence on a bank loan form,” Wisenberg added. “After all, it is where he and his family resided most of the time. We would need to closely examine all pertinent loan documents, including instructions and definitions for how to fill out the forms. Barring an explicit written instruction on the loan documents directing Schiff to designate his primary residence as any house where he was claiming a homestead exemption, he is probably in the clear on a federal bank fraud charge.”
That doesn’t sit right with me. In Trump’s case, James built her entire fraud narrative on claims that he exaggerated property values, something that’s not only common in real estate but entirely subjective. He didn't mislead anyone. The banks conducted their own assessments, approved the loans, received their money back with interest, and never once alleged that he'd defrauded them. Yet Trump endured a political show trial that targeted him not because of actual harm, but because of who he is. James campaigned on “getting Trump,” and she did exactly that by criminalizing normal business practices.
In the end, unfortunately, Wisenberg is probably right, not because Schiff is innocent, but because the two-tiered justice system we’ve been railing against for years still exists.
