In this author’s last post, we promised to talk a bit about the charges against Adam Schiff, because our own Larry O'Connor found some pretty damning video that might really hurt Schiff in the days ahead. But first we need a little background so you understand the significance of Mr. O’Connor has found.
The other day, Trump came out with the revelation that Schiff was being investigated for mortgage fraud. This post on Twitter/X accurately quotes what Trump wrote on TruthSocial:
The cut off text:
Adam Schiff said that his primary residence was in MARYLAND to get a cheaper mortgage and rip off America, when he must LIVE in CALIFORNIA because he was a Congressman from CALIFORNIA. I always knew Adam Schiff was a Crook. The FRAUD began with the refinance of his Maryland property on February 6, 2009, and continued through multiple transactions until the Maryland property was correctly designated as a second home on October 13, 2020. Mortgage Fraud is very serious, and CROOKED Adam Schiff (now a Senator) needs to be brought to justice.
So Trump is alleging these hard facts to be true:
- Starting with the refinance of his Maryland property on February 6, 2009, Schiff claimed that his primary residence was in Maryland.
- He repeated that claim on multiple transactions until October 13, 2020.
- On October 13, 2020, he changed his primary residence to California in the relevant documents.
- Claiming to have a primary residence in Maryland would get him a better deal on his mortgage.
Trump concludes from the fact that he was a Californian representative during this period that Schiff's primary residence had to be in California. From that he concludes that when Schiff claimed to have a primary residence in Maryland, he was lying.
And let’s also bring in some law. In this case, that law is the Constitution itself. While today, Schiff is a senator, in the period from 2009 to 2020, he was a representative. Article I, Section 2, paragraph 2, it lays out the following qualifications to be a representative:
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
It can be a little confusing with the double negative, but in law (much like in math), a double negative becomes a positive. So, on election day, Adam Schiff has to have been an ‘inhabitant’ of California, or else he couldn’t serve as a Representative of a California district. The Constitution doesn’t put too many qualifications to serve in office, but that is one of them and it is non-negotiable.
But according to Trump, Schiff claimed on mortgage documents to have a primary residence in Maryland for over a decade.
Meanwhile, Schiff has only put out a limited defense on video. In the video he says that all of the criminal allegations Trump had ever made was ‘baseless.’ That presumably includes the allegations we are discussing right now. But he doesn’t address the current charges with any specificity until about the 3:40 mark:
Seriously, folks, that was tedious. We really took one for the team, listening to all of it. So it takes him over three and a half minutes to finally talk in detail about the charges and even then, he misrepresents what Trump is saying, claiming that Trump is going after him merely for having two houses—one in California and one in Maryland (really, in the greater Washington, D.C. area). Except that is not what Trump is saying in that TruthSocial post. He is saying that Schiff claimed he primarily lived in Maryland, when his primary residence is supposed to be in California because of this constitutional requirement.
But again, using our hypothetical facts, it gets worse for Schiff. Townhall’s Larry O’Connor caught Schiff telling a different story when he ran for Senate:
The cut off text says:
"That smoking gun moment right there is EVIDENCE that he lied to the state of Maryland, maybe even to the IRS, depending on how he filled out those forms, and to the mortgage company where he took out a second mortgage on his home in Maryland!"
However, we are focusing on the video within the video, just after the thirty second mark, when O’Connor runs video from an interview where Schiff says:
our principal residence, our primary residence is California. It always has been and it always will be.
The video is not dated but to jump ahead a little, a longer version of that video says that this interview took place in 2024. That makes sense because you can see by the signs behind him he was running for Senate, and Schiff didn’t announce he was running until early 2023.
But all that matters is that he said it sometime after October 13, 2020. And according to Trump, from February 6, 2009 and up to but not including October 13, 2020, Schiff repeatedly claimed his primary residence was in Maryland, only changing it to California on the 13th. But in that interview, Schiff very clearly said his primary residence was in California and ‘it always has been.’ So, from his birth in 1960 to that date sometime in 2024 his primary residence was in California, according to Schiff in that interview.
So there is a hopeless contradiction between what Trump says is on Schiff’s mortgage papers for over a decade, and Schiff’s claim that his primary residence has always been in California.
But the problem for any prosecution is proving which one is the truth. Yes, one of Schiff’s statements is a lie—if we assume the mortgage papers are as Trump described—but which one? The claim his primary residence was in Maryland? Or the claim that his primary residence was in California? If the jury isn’t sure beyond a reasonable doubt, they would have to assume the answer is whatever sets Schiff free.
Except Schiff reportedly has more problems. That clip from Mr. O’Connor comes from a longer video he was kind enough to point us toward:
At about the 5:30 mark, O’Connor gives us a clip from Laura Ingraham where Jonathan Fahey alleges that Schiff was listing his primary residence in California in order to get a deduction on his state taxes.
But if we were a cynical and somewhat unethical attorney, we could give Schiff this advice: ‘Say that up until October 13, 2020, your primary residence was in Maryland, and then when it changed to California, you updated your paperwork, and therefore you weren't truthful on your state tax forms.’ Again, what you have here is an alleged contradiction, without having independent proof of what the truth actually is. Pretending to be this ethically challenged lawyer, we might say ‘of course, that means that you will be confessing to tax evasion with respect to California state taxes, but not very much will happen to you, because the enforcement of California’s tax code is in the hands of Democrat-run California. Maybe they would require you to pay back taxes but that beats being at the mercy of Trump’s Department of Justice.’
Cynical, yes, but it might work.
So, we need to get at the truth. If the Trump administration can prove affirmatively (and beyond a reasonable doubt) that Schiff’s primary residence was in California, and the mortgage documents are as Trump described, then he can prove mortgage fraud. In this author’s last post, we talked about the concept being a ‘citizen’ of a particular state which is an odd concept in modern American law, but it comes straight from the Constitution. Article III, Section 2 says that:
The [federal] judicial Power shall extend … to Controversies … between Citizens of different States[.]
Mind you, we are cutting out a lot of text that talks about other things that the (federal) judicial power extends to, but we are focusing on the concept of diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. A federal court can hear cases that normally would be governed entirely by state law if the two sides are from different states:
The idea is that a Marylander might feel he can’t get a fair trial in a Virginia state court, so if there is a suit between a Virginian and a Marylander, he can bring it in federal court, with the belief that federal courts would be more neutral between the two states.
In order to be seen as a citizen of a particular state the court asks if you are ‘domiciled’ there. And that is a more complicated concept than just ‘where do you plop your head down at night?’ For instance, this author has been domiciled in Virginia since 2002. But that doesn’t mean that we has never left Virginia. We have occasionally worked outside of Virginia (particularly in Washington, D.C. itself), and we have occasionally vacationed or visited relatives who live out of state. We didn’t suddenly stop being domiciled in Virginia in the eyes of the Constitution when we left Virginia each of those times. Domicile requires an intention to permanently live in the relevant jurisdiction—and you can retain your domicile in a state even if you spend years away from it. For instance, if you live in Texas and go to college out of state, with the intention to return to Texas, you are still domiciled in Texas even if you spend four or five years away from it.
And guess what? The same concept applies to inhabitation mentioned in the Constitution. And very often when dealing with taxes and mortgage applications, the terms ‘residence’ or ‘primary residence’ is defined the same way.
This is why, for instance, George H.W. Bush was able to claim to be a Texan for tax purposes for the many years he worked as Vice President and eventually President: Because even though he laid his head down in Washington, D.C. and other places that weren’t Texas for twelve years, he stated that he intended to return to Texas when he was done in Washington. And since Texas has no income taxes, he probably saved a great deal of money doing so—but there is little doubt that he was telling the truth since he actually did return to Texas.
So one way to indicate your true state of domicile is to claim that state for tax purposes.
And you know what also tends to indicate your true state of domicile? Where you vote…
And we think simply purporting to represent Californians in Congress tends to show that he is domiciled in California. He is claiming to be not only of that state, but a political leader in that state.
All of that doesn’t absolutely prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his domicile was in California back when he was claiming to be a Marylander, but that if we assume Trump was basically right in his TruthSocial post, we are well on our way to reaching that point. And who knows what other evidence might be developed?
But, of course, the truth is that we are not supposed to assume Trump is right as we have throughout this piece. In a criminal trial, Schiff would be entitled to be presumed innocent until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But we wouldn’t be surprised if they already have enough to indict.
Finally, in that video Schiff posted to his Twitter/X account, he claimed that this was basically a politically-driven prosecution by Trump. Now, first, does he hear himself talk? If threatening your opponent with prison is tyranny as Schiff claims, what did Democrats do for the last couple years to Trump?
Second, Mr. O’Connor rebuts to a degree that this is driven by Trump by digging up this post:
The cut off text:
I authored the complaint, compiled the evidence, and firmly believe your actions amount to violations of mortgage law, insurance fraud, tax infractions, and misrepresentation under state and federal election statutes.
You continue to frame this as partisan theatrics, but the facts speak for themselves. This is about accountability under the law—no one, not even a sitting U.S. Senator, is above it.
Despite President Trump’s repeated calls to ‘bring you to justice,’ I won’t be deterred. The accusations are serious, the evidence is credible, and I will ensure this moves forward—not because of who you are, but because of what the facts reveal.
— Christine Bish
Candidate for Congress, CA‑6
Whistleblower & Complainant
But that being said, the Trump administration would be the one to decide to bring charges. Still, would it surprise you to find out that Adam Schiff previously said that ‘no one is above the law?’
Apparently, no one is above the law but Trump’s opponents or something.
RELATED: BREAKING: Trump Sues the Wall Street Journal Over Alleged Epstein Letter (LAWSPLAINING)
BREAKING: Tulsi Gabbard Blows Open Russiagate With Document Dump
WSJ Releases Alleged ‘Letter’ From Trump to Epstein. Trump, Vance Respond
BREAKING: An NYT Interview With Biden Just Undermined Thousands of His Late Pardons (A Deep Dive)
LAWSPLAINING: Margot Cleveland Suggests That the FBI Has Systematically Violated Defendants’ Rights
‘First Do No Harm:’ Fisking John Oliver on the Transgender/Sports Issue
The Question Isn’t Whether Trump Can Revoke Biden’s Pardons. It’s Whether They Were Issued at all
Editor’s Note: The mainstream media continues to deflect, gaslight, spin, and lie about President Trump, his administration, and conservatives.
Help us continue to expose their left-wing bias by reading news you can trust. Join Twitchy VIP today and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.