Fraud in the inducement n. the use of deceit or trick to cause someone to act to his/her disadvantage, such as signing an agreement or deeding away real property. The heart of this type of fraud is misleading the other party as to the facts upon which he/she will base his/her decision to act. Example: "there will be tax advantages to you if you let me take title to your property," or "you don't have to read the rest of the contract--it is just routine legal language" but actually includes a balloon payment.
Common sense says it is fraud.
I would like to see an impeachment based on fraud.
However, the law does not always follow the rules of common sense logic.
You would find a thousand (lib) lawyers that would argue in court that fraud requires a payment in return for the fraudulent claim.
That since no payment was made at the time of the promise, since one can opt out and pay the penalty, etc., the statement is a simple lie and not fraud.
Maybe an example would be that if I told you that you can go down to your local Ford dealer, he will give you a new truck on my tab. You go and find out it is a lie. Is it fraud? Only if you gave me a dollar on the spot for my information.
Otherwise, the joke is on you for being dumb.
I think impeachment over Bengazi or financial deals done for his pals might be better grounds.
I like Bengazi best because I am convinced that there is some very very nasty secret there, otherwise there would be no reason for the lies as to the cause, the hiding and restrictions on those who were there, the firing of generals who wanted to send aid, etc.
Bengazi is probably the most rotten of all the events of recent years.
You make the point for my post #24.
In your example, something of value was/is transferred as a direct result of the misrepresentation.
I am not a lawyer, but I believe I am correct.
But as I said, lawyers will argue both sides of any subject you can name, so long as you can pay their fees.