Lisa cook mortgage fraud

[Anonymous]

In a very provocative article the washington post clearly lays out the moral dilemma of Lisa cook. On the one hand the mortgage fraud finding is politically motivated so trump can appoint a loyalist at the federal. On the other hand the fact that trump has bad intentions doesn’t mean that we have to accept that someone did fraud in their mortgage application, specially since this behavior is not acceptable in public office. So which one is the least bad outcome. Keeping a a bad apple at the fed or potentially replacing her with a worse apple. What do you think? Below is the article from the washington post. From the ethics perspective, I think it’s no so straightforward.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/08/30/lisa-cook-fed-mortgage-fraud-trump/

[Anonymous]

She's accused of misrepresenting property value in securing a mortgage.

What's wild about this is that this is similar to, but on a far less egregious scale as some of what Letitia James went after Trump for.

Trump claimed his was fake and politically motivated even though there was far more slam-dunk evidence of his fraud than Cook's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In a very provocative article the washington post clearly lays out the moral dilemma of Lisa cook. On the one hand the mortgage fraud finding is politically motivated so trump can appoint a loyalist at the federal. On the other hand the fact that trump has bad intentions doesn’t mean that we have to accept that someone did fraud in their mortgage application, specially since this behavior is not acceptable in public office. So which one is the least bad outcome. Keeping a a bad apple at the fed or potentially replacing her with a worse apple. What do you think? Below is the article from the washington post. From the ethics perspective, I think it’s no so straightforward.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/08/30/lisa-cook-fed-mortgage-fraud-trump/

Considering Fed Reserve board members public office positions is stretch but in any event, Cook, along with any Trump or Biden, should absolutely be fired.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She's accused of misrepresenting property value in securing a mortgage.

What's wild about this is that this is similar to, but on a far less egregious scale as some of what Letitia James went after Trump for.

Trump claimed his was fake and politically motivated even though there was far more slam-dunk evidence of his fraud than Cook's.

Accused of claiming two properties as principal residence with two weeks of each other on applications.

[jsteele]

I haven't read the article but there are a couple of points that you have confused and/or ignored. First, what Trump and Pulte have been talking about is her mortgage agreements, not her applications. We don't know what was actually on her applications. Second, Cook has not yet responded to the allegations. She may well have a valid explanation. In the U.S., you are innocent until proven guilty. Trump and Pulte have appointed themselves both judge and jury. But, they do not have that authority. You seem to be assuming her guilt as well. That may not be a valid assumption.

Next, let's assume that she is guilty. It is not clear that would constitute "cause". The Federal Reserve Act does not define "cause", but other laws define it as activities involving her official duties. Her mortgages were concluded before she was confirmed by the Senate, therefore, before she began her official duties. It's like saying that if she had a speeding ticket while in college it would constitute cause for being fired today. That is not normally how such laws have been applied.

There are also arguments that can be made regarding her being targeted for political reasons and whether Pulte abused his authority. Ultimately, Courts will have to decide whether Cook can be removed or not.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:I haven't read the article but there are a couple of points that you have confused and/or ignored. First, what Trump and Pulte have been talking about is her mortgage agreements, not her applications. We don't know what was actually on her applications. Second, Cook has not yet responded to the allegations. She may well have a valid explanation. In the U.S., you are innocent until proven guilty. Trump and Pulte have appointed themselves both judge and jury. But, they do not have that authority. You seem to be assuming her guilt as well. That may not be a valid assumption.

Next, let's assume that she is guilty. It is not clear that would constitute "cause". The Federal Reserve Act does not define "cause", but other laws define it as activities involving her official duties. Her mortgages were concluded before she was confirmed by the Senate, therefore, before she began her official duties. It's like saying that if she had a speeding ticket while in college it would constitute cause for being fired today. That is not normally how such laws have been applied.

There are also arguments that can be made regarding her being targeted for political reasons and whether Pulte abused his authority. Ultimately, Courts will have to decide whether Cook can be removed or not.

This is so dumb. If someone is credibly accused of murder or rape, they can’t be removed for cause because it doesn’t relate to their official duties?

She has been credibly accused of a federal crime and has made no attempt to even justify the underlying behavior. If there were any reasonable explanation, it would be very easy for her to provide it and end this mess.

Other Fed officials have resigned in the past for much less (e.g., trading stocks), where no crime was found or even investigated by the DOJ. It has always been the standard that certain public officials, like members of the Fed, must be held to a very high ethical standard given their the nature of their role.

Lastly, your comparison of her commission of a federal crime at the age of 57 to someone getting a speeding ticket in college is a perfect summary of the disingenuousness of those defending Lisa Crook.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:I haven't read the article but there are a couple of points that you have confused and/or ignored. First, what Trump and Pulte have been talking about is her mortgage agreements, not her applications. We don't know what was actually on her applications. Second, Cook has not yet responded to the allegations. She may well have a valid explanation. In the U.S., you are innocent until proven guilty. Trump and Pulte have appointed themselves both judge and jury. But, they do not have that authority. You seem to be assuming her guilt as well. That may not be a valid assumption.

Next, let's assume that she is guilty. It is not clear that would constitute "cause". The Federal Reserve Act does not define "cause", but other laws define it as activities involving her official duties. Her mortgages were concluded before she was confirmed by the Senate, therefore, before she began her official duties. It's like saying that if she had a speeding ticket while in college it would constitute cause for being fired today. That is not normally how such laws have been applied.

There are also arguments that can be made regarding her being targeted for political reasons and whether Pulte abused his authority. Ultimately, Courts will have to decide whether Cook can be removed or not.

Misrepresenting your property for obtaining a lower mortgage rate is fraud, and according to the rules you cannot have two main residences, only one.

The question is if this was known at the time of the senate confirmation, the senate would have accepted her nomination or not. If something we can see from the current administration, is that it is important to have high ethical standards for civil servants.

Now the article in the washington post accurately compares the mortgage fraud with shoplifting. Maybe it’s a minor offense, but still not sure she would have been appointed if this information was public at the time.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:I haven't read the article but there are a couple of points that you have confused and/or ignored. First, what Trump and Pulte have been talking about is her mortgage agreements, not her applications. We don't know what was actually on her applications. Second, Cook has not yet responded to the allegations. She may well have a valid explanation. In the U.S., you are innocent until proven guilty. Trump and Pulte have appointed themselves both judge and jury. But, they do not have that authority. You seem to be assuming her guilt as well. That may not be a valid assumption.

Next, let's assume that she is guilty. It is not clear that would constitute "cause". The Federal Reserve Act does not define "cause", but other laws define it as activities involving her official duties. Her mortgages were concluded before she was confirmed by the Senate, therefore, before she began her official duties. It's like saying that if she had a speeding ticket while in college it would constitute cause for being fired today. That is not normally how such laws have been applied.

There are also arguments that can be made regarding her being targeted for political reasons and whether Pulte abused his authority. Ultimately, Courts will have to decide whether Cook can be removed or not.

This is so dumb. If someone is credibly accused of murder or rape, they can’t be removed for cause because it doesn’t relate to their official duties?

She has been credibly accused of a federal crime and has made no attempt to even justify the underlying behavior. If there were any reasonable explanation, it would be very easy for her to provide it and end this mess.


Other Fed officials have resigned in the past for much less (e.g., trading stocks), where no crime was found or even investigated by the DOJ. It has always been the standard that certain public officials, like members of the Fed, must be held to a very high ethical standard given their the nature of their role.

Lastly, your comparison of her commission of a federal crime at the age of 57 to someone getting a speeding ticket in college is a perfect summary of the disingenuousness of those defending Lisa Crook.

You should be careful about calling others dumb when you are making considerably more stupid statements. It is not Cook's job to explain or justify her behavior. It is the job of the accuser to prove their charges. That hasn't been done yet.

You are hung up on accusations while Trump has 34 felony convictions. Hegseth is credibly accused of rape. Most of Trump's cabinet has ethics problems. If the standard is that officials should resign merely due to credible accusations, we are going to have a lot of open positions to fill.

Why are you unwilling to let the legal process proceed?

[Anonymous]

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man (or lady) is king (or queen).

I think the legal process should start as soon as possible and if the fed wants to preserve its reputation as a serious financial supervisor, she should resign.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She's accused of misrepresenting property value in securing a mortgage.

What's wild about this is that this is similar to, but on a far less egregious scale as some of what Letitia James went after Trump for.

Trump claimed his was fake and politically motivated even though there was far more slam-dunk evidence of his fraud than Cook's.

How do you misrepresent property value for a mortgage? Don't you have to have an appraisal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's accused of misrepresenting property value in securing a mortgage.

What's wild about this is that this is similar to, but on a far less egregious scale as some of what Letitia James went after Trump for.

Trump claimed his was fake and politically motivated even though there was far more slam-dunk evidence of his fraud than Cook's.

How do you misrepresent property value for a mortgage? Don't you have to have an appraisal?

If you have an investment property (rental) and you claim is your residence you get lower mortgage rates and that’s the fraud. Alternatively, if you really declare it as an investment property you have to pay slightly higher rates for the mortgage (since investment properties tend to default more than residences)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's accused of misrepresenting property value in securing a mortgage.

What's wild about this is that this is similar to, but on a far less egregious scale as some of what Letitia James went after Trump for.

Trump claimed his was fake and politically motivated even though there was far more slam-dunk evidence of his fraud than Cook's.

How do you misrepresent property value for a mortgage? Don't you have to have an appraisal?

If you have an investment property (rental) and you claim is your residence you get lower mortgage rates and that’s the fraud. Alternatively, if you really declare it as an investment property you have to pay slightly higher rates for the mortgage (since investment properties tend to default more than residences)

PP here. Ahhh! Got it. Thank you for taking the time to explain.

[Anonymous]

If you look at the arguments Abbe Lowell put forth in court, they make a lot of sense. He is addressing the inappropriateness of Trump using the fraud allegations as a means of asserting back-door control over the the Federal Reserve -- in this case, getting governors who wil give Trump the lower interest rates that he wishes for.

He is right to make this argument -- it needs to be made! This defense is in all our interests for the good of the system.

Meanwhile, there are reasons why someone can have two primary residences -- like if they buy a house for their parent. I have no idea if this is the situation for Lisa Cook. It does seem sketchy that she has made such data available if it exists. But Abbe Lowell is right that the most important issue here is the malicious nature of the allegations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The question is if this was known at the time of the senate confirmation, the senate would have accepted her nomination or not. If something we can see from the current administration, is that it is important to have high ethical standards for civil servants.

It would not have made a difference. The vote at the time had all Republicans opposed because she was not qualified.
We saw with Obama's Secretary of the Treasury that Democrats still would have supported her nomination.
That guy had cheated on his taxes and still got confirmed.
The main difference is then, many Republicans weren't willing to oppose and supported the tax cheat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you look at the arguments Abbe Lowell put forth in court, they make a lot of sense. He is addressing the inappropriateness of Trump using the fraud allegations as a means of asserting back-door control over the the Federal Reserve -- in this case, getting governors who wil give Trump the lower interest rates that he wishes for.

He is right to make this argument -- it needs to be made! This defense is in all our interests for the good of the system.

Meanwhile, there are reasons why someone can have two primary residences -- like if they buy a house for their parent. I have no idea if this is the situation for Lisa Cook. It does seem sketchy that she has made such data available if it exists. But Abbe Lowell is right that the most important issue here is the malicious nature of the allegations.

Then you can declare it as a second home (not main residence) and pay a higher mortgage rate. She didn’t. You cannot have two main residences. Only one.