Even if what Trump's DOJ says is 100% true, the most that James could have benefited is around $50/month in reduced interest, which over the life of the loan would amount to approximately $19,000. How much is it going to cost the taxpayers to adjudicate this case, particularly if it goes to trial? And the DOJ is also demanding that if they prevail and get a conviction, that James would have to pay restitution and be sentenced to 30-years in prison. How does this punishment fit the 'crime'?
And this is all predicated on proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the James KNEW at the time that she purchased the home and applied for the mortgage that she was doing so as an investment. That being said, she specially stated on the loan application that the house was NOT going to be used as a her primary residence, but rather that she was buying it so that her niece would have a place to live.
OCU
This is not going to play well during the shutdown, not when government employees are going without pay and millions are on the verge of losing their healthcare coverage. Trump appears to be putting the welfare of Argentinians ahead of Americans, all in an attempt to keep Milei in office.
I'm sure that this issue will be revisited during the upcoming mid-term elections, and perhaps even sooner during the various off-year elections being held less than a month from now.
OCU
P.S. My wife and I have already voted (we deposited our ballots in a drop-box this past Sunday and we've already been notified that our ballots have been collected, verified and that they will be counted) in California's 'Prop 50' special election.