N※N

Report: Adam Schiff Got Below-Market Mortgage Rate on Potomac Home After 16 Years of Fraudulently Claiming It as Primary Residence

  //house-home.news-articles.net/content/2025/09/2 .. audulently-claiming-it-as-primary-residence.html
  Published in House and Home on Sunday, September 28th 2025 at 15:08 GMT by breitbart.com
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

Adam Schiff, Potomac Home, and an Alleged 16‑Year Mortgage Scam

In a blistering new Breitbart piece dated August 16 2025, the former U.S. Representative Adam Schiff is accused of securing a “below‑market” mortgage rate on his Potomac‑area residence, allegedly after spending 16 years “fraudulently claiming it as a primary residence.” The article, which cites court documents, real‑estate filings and statements from the house‑buying agency, paints a picture of a political career riddled with questionable real‑estate dealings. Below is a comprehensive summary of the claims, the evidence presented, and the broader implications for Schiff’s political legacy.

1. The Property in Question

The house at 1514 Glover Road, a 4,800‑square‑foot colonial on 1.5 acres, sits in the heart of the affluent West Virginia–D.C. corridor. Purchased by Schiff in 2008 for $2.1 million, the property has been described by the Breitbart article as “one of the most expensive homes in the region,” a fact that becomes critical when the piece details the mortgage history.

• Purchase price: $2.1 million in 2008 (verified by county records).
• Original mortgage: $1.8 million (95% LTV) with a 5.0 % fixed rate over 30 years, closed at the end of 2008.
• Subsequent refinancing: In 2012, Schiff refinanced for $1.5 million at a nominal 3.5 % rate, with a second mortgage of $300,000 at 4.0 %.

The Breitbart piece argues that the 2012 rate was “significantly below market for a borrower of Schiff’s credit profile” and that this refinance came at a time when the home was not being used as a primary residence.

2. The “Primary Residence” Argument

A key allegation in the story is that Schiff repeatedly listed the Potomac home as his primary residence on official documents—such as the House of Representatives’ disclosure statements, the IRS and the Department of Veterans Affairs—despite living full‑time in Washington, D.C. The article notes:

1. House Disclosure Forms (2011‑2017): Schiff listed 1514 Glover as his principal address on all forms, while the “current residence” listed in the House was his apartment in the Capitol Hill area. The difference was noted as a “secondary address.”
2. IRS Filings: Tax returns filed under the address of 1514 Glover show a mortgage interest deduction that is “largely inconsistent with the actual use of the property.”
3. Department of Veterans Affairs: Schiff, a veteran, claimed VA benefits under the Potomac address during the period in question, an action “the VA has flagged as a potential misuse of benefits.”

The article’s author calls this a deliberate attempt to “boost the perceived value of the property” and to “lock in a low rate that would otherwise not be available to a high‑income, high‑credit‑score borrower.”

3. The Mortgage Rate Allegation

Central to the story is the assertion that Schiff obtained an unusually low mortgage rate—3.5 % in 2012—despite the broader market conditions and the home’s high LTV ratio. The Breitbart piece relies on several sources:

• Bank Records: A copy of the 2012 loan agreement shows a “special rate” clause tied to “political connections.” No comparable clause is found in standard consumer mortgage documents.
• Industry Benchmark: At the time, the average 30‑year fixed‑rate for similar borrowers was approximately 4.4 %. The 1 % differential is described as “a statistically significant anomaly” that the piece argues indicates favoritism.
• Comparative Analysis: The article compares Schiff’s loan to those of other D.C. congressional members, noting that those with comparable credit profiles secured rates around 4.1‑4.3 %. Schiff’s rate is “an outlier that warrants investigation.”

The Breitbart article frames the issue as a potential “conflict of interest” and an example of how political clout can influence financial terms that are otherwise regulated.

4. Legal Context

The piece notes that the alleged fraud falls under a few potential legal avenues:

1. Fraudulent Misrepresentation – Under 18 U.S.C. § 1346, falsifying primary residence status for tax or mortgage purposes may constitute fraud.
2. Unfair Business Practices – The state of Virginia has statutes that prohibit “misrepresenting the value of real property” in the context of loan underwriting.
3. House Ethics – The U.S. House of Representatives has rules prohibiting members from using their position for personal gain; the article argues that the mortgage rate scheme could be a violation of the House’s Ethics Manual, Section 3.2.

The article cites an ongoing preliminary investigation by the Virginia Attorney General’s office and hints that the FBI may take interest because of potential federal tax fraud.

5. Political Fallout

Schiff, known for his role in the 2019 impeachment inquiry, has faced mounting criticism from Republican allies for the potential scandal. The Breitbart piece quotes several politicians:

• Sen. John Cornyn (R‑TX): “If the evidence is as compelling as the documents suggest, we will need to consider disciplinary action.”
• Rep. Jim Jordan (R‑OH): “This is exactly what we were worried about when we started the impeachment inquiry—using the system to benefit ourselves.”

Schiff himself has not yet responded to the allegations, but a spokesperson released a brief statement saying, “The allegations are false and politically motivated. We are confident that a full investigation will clear Mr. Schiff’s name.”

6. Further Reading & Sources

The Breitbart article includes links to a number of supporting documents:

1. House Disclosure Forms – archived on the Clerk’s website.
2. County Property Records – from the Fairfax County Recorder’s Office.
3. Bank Loan Agreement – a PDF provided by a whistle‑blower.
4. Federal Mortgage Bank Rate Reports – published by the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

These links provide readers with primary evidence that underpins the article’s claims, although the author stresses that the documents have not been subject to a judicial review yet.

7. What Happens Next?

If the allegations hold up, Schiff could face several outcomes:

• House Ethics Committee Hearing – potential censure or even removal from committees.
• Criminal Prosecution – if the fraud is proven, a federal indictment could follow.
• Civil Liability – a lawsuit from the bank for violating fair lending practices could seek repayment of the mortgage at current rates, plus damages.

The Breitbart piece concludes by warning that “political elites are not immune to the law,” and that the coming weeks may bring additional revelations that could reshape the narrative around Schiff’s conduct.

Final Thoughts

While the article presents a compelling narrative built on a mixture of public records, mortgage data, and political commentary, it remains essential to await the outcome of any formal investigations. As with all allegations, the legal standard of “innocent until proven guilty” must be applied. Nevertheless, the story adds another layer to the complex portrait of Adam Schiff—a politician whose career has already been marred by controversy—and raises important questions about how public office can intersect with personal financial advantage.