Lisa cook mortgage fraud

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You cannot seriously have an institution in charge of financial supervision with a person apparently involved in a mortgage fraud, the same way you cannot have a person accused of tax evasion at the IRS. In any case. I am not
longer surprised. The US used to be a different country.

[Anonymous]

The irony here is rich: Trump loyalists trying to smear Lisa Cook for “fraud” are inadvertently making the case that Trump himself committed it and that Tish James was absolutely right to prosecute him.

Trump’s own accountants kept two sets of books:

One to inflate property values and secure bigger loans

Another to deflate values and dodge taxes

This isn’t speculation: Allen Weisselberg, Trump’s longtime CFO, turned state's evidence and testified to the scheme.

So yes, in Trump's case it’s not some baseless "politically motivated lawfare" nor was it just mortgage fraud. It’s tax fraud too. And the only thing more fraudulent than the books might be the outrage aimed at Lisa Cook.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She declared a second home. Then collected rental income on it over the next year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Who knows the situation. Maybe she bought the house and her life situation changed and she bought the second house as primary. Maybe it was primary for a family member.

It can go to trial, and when all the evidence is presented, it can be adjudicated and THEN she can be fired for cause.

She is under no legal obligation to declare why she stated primary on both mortgages until it goes to trial. She is not an elected official. I’m sure these mortgage documents were available before her confirmation, and yet it was never brought up by a senator — likely because they have all done similar arrangements in their own portfolio of homes; one week DC is primary, the next week Alabama…

I don’t imagine we will have a trial and judgment before Powell term is up, so it really won’t buy Trump anything unless he can ramrod it through the court AND get the verdict he wants. I’m sure Judge Cobb will block the dismissal and say it will depend upon the cases in Georgia and Michigan US district courts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She declared a second home. Then collected rental income on it over the next year.

I’ll bet she is renting it out to a family member. That is a pretty useless investment, a CONDO in Atlanta.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Who knows the situation. Maybe she bought the house and her life situation changed and she bought the second house as primary. Maybe it was primary for a family member.

It can go to trial, and when all the evidence is presented, it can be adjudicated and THEN she can be fired for cause.

She is under no legal obligation to declare why she stated primary on both mortgages until it goes to trial. She is not an elected official. I’m sure these mortgage documents were available before her confirmation, and yet it was never brought up by a senator — likely because they have all done similar arrangements in their own portfolio of homes; one week DC is primary, the next week Alabama…

I don’t imagine we will have a trial and judgment before Powell term is up, so it really won’t buy Trump anything unless he can ramrod it through the court AND get the verdict he wants. I’m sure Judge Cobb will block the dismissal and say it will depend upon the cases in Georgia and Michigan US district courts.

If that were the case, she could declare that and then that’s the end of the story. She didn’t . Moreover she is quiet. Why she didn’t respond that the allegations are incorrect. Agree with you that needs a due process and then she can be fire for fraud. The question is. If you were the employer and the employee had this situation venting in the media, and that affects the reputation of your company. Would you keep that enployee. An employee was even fired for hugging a woman in a concert. So yes, mortgage fraud is a justification for firing a person.

[Anonymous]

When you submit 2 mortgage applications within 2 weeks stating that both properties are your primary residence, you know what you're doing. If something by chance did change in life circumstance, then there was plenty of time to correct the other application to indicate it was an investment property.

Otherwise it's 100% fraud. That Cook immediately went to the race card tells you all you need to know. She needs to be ousted, someone else can do her job just as well, she's not some Hall of Fame talent.

[Anonymous]

Anyone who’s a fan of the HBO series “The Wire” is familiar with this. The series was based in Baltimore and is still considered a most authentic portrayal of inner city politics and policing.

Anyways, there was I believe either a district attorney or some other politician they sought to oust. Got her on mortgage fraud, with one of the main characters calling mortgage fraud a “kill shot,” i.e. career killer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who’s a fan of the HBO series “The Wire” is familiar with this. The series was based in Baltimore and is still considered a most authentic portrayal of inner city politics and policing.

Anyways, there was I believe either a district attorney or some other politician they sought to oust. Got her on mortgage fraud, with one of the main characters calling mortgage fraud a “kill shot,” i.e. career killer.

Correction, it was called a “headshot” in the series. And the character accused of mortgage fraud was state senator Clay Davis.

This was included in the series because in real life Baltimore police commissioner Ed Norris was indicted for mortgage fraud by the US DOJ, see his wiki:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Norris

[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.

The house value claim is mostly a non-issue, but I think you are also confusing issues.

Criminal guilt is a matter of innocence until proven guilty. But in the position of Fed governor, the mere appearance of impropriety is sufficient to warrant a resignation. There have been similar recent instances of senior Fed officials resigning over conduct that was very legal and permissible, but had the appearance of impropriety.

[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.

The house value claim is mostly a non-issue, but I think you are also confusing issues.

Criminal guilt is a matter of innocence until proven guilty. But in the position of Fed governor, the mere appearance of impropriety is sufficient to warrant a resignation. There have been similar recent instances of senior Fed officials resigning over conduct that was very legal and permissible, but had the appearance of impropriety.

I didn't say anything about the house value so I am not sure why you are bringing that up. I don't know anything about the value of the properties. Where is this "appearance of impropriety" standard documented? Is that a law, regulation, or norm? If a norm, too bad. As Trump has shown, they don't matter anymore. There has been absolutely no due process provided to Cook. Are you really supporting the U.S. becoming a country in which unsubstantiated politically-motivated accusations are enough to force a resignation that could disrupt only on the U.S. but the world's economy? Surely, you are smarter than that?

Again, this issue is now before the courts. Why are so many unwilling to allow the legal process to continue?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

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.

The house value claim is mostly a non-issue, but I think you are also confusing issues.

Criminal guilt is a matter of innocence until proven guilty. But in the position of Fed governor, the mere appearance of impropriety is sufficient to warrant a resignation. There have been similar recent instances of senior Fed officials resigning over conduct that was very legal and permissible, but had the appearance of impropriety.

I didn't say anything about the house value so I am not sure why you are bringing that up. I don't know anything about the value of the properties. Where is this "appearance of impropriety" standard documented? Is that a law, regulation, or norm? If a norm, too bad. As Trump has shown, they don't matter anymore. There has been absolutely no due process provided to Cook. Are you really supporting the U.S. becoming a country in which unsubstantiated politically-motivated accusations are enough to force a resignation that could disrupt only on the U.S. but the world's economy? Surely, you are smarter than that?

Again, this issue is now before the courts. Why are so many unwilling to allow the legal process to continue?

The impropriety standard is a norm for Fed officials. Kaplan and Rosengren stepped down over the norm in 2021.

We used to hold the office of the presidency to the same types of norms, but in the 1990s one POTUS and his political party decided perjury was insufficient of a reason to resign/convict of impeachment.

Let the legal process run. But we’re all going to be unhappy with the outcome of that process. Part of the reason why government officials resign when these things happen is to avoid the courts firming up the legal issue in controversy.

[Anonymous]

She lacks integrity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Who knows the situation. Maybe she bought the house and her life situation changed and she bought the second house as primary. Maybe it was primary for a family member.

It can go to trial, and when all the evidence is presented, it can be adjudicated and THEN she can be fired for cause.

She is under no legal obligation to declare why she stated primary on both mortgages until it goes to trial. She is not an elected official. I’m sure these mortgage documents were available before her confirmation, and yet it was never brought up by a senator — likely because they have all done similar arrangements in their own portfolio of homes; one week DC is primary, the next week Alabama…

I don’t imagine we will have a trial and judgment before Powell term is up, so it really won’t buy Trump anything unless he can ramrod it through the court AND get the verdict he wants. I’m sure Judge Cobb will block the dismissal and say it will depend upon the cases in Georgia and Michigan US district courts.

If that were the case, she could declare that and then that’s the end of the story. She didn’t . Moreover she is quiet. Why she didn’t respond that the allegations are incorrect. Agree with you that needs a due process and then she can be fire for fraud. The question is. If you were the employer and the employee had this situation venting in the media, and that affects the reputation of your company. Would you keep that enployee. An employee was even fired for hugging a woman in a concert. So yes, mortgage fraud is a justification for firing a person.

The Fed is not just some employer. The law says fired only for cause. Allegations but the FHFA head, especially with political undertones, will not standup in court as cause.

She has likely been advised to stay silent until actually in court. There is no upside for “explanation” in public opinion, she is not an elected official.

You are worried about the reputation of the “company” when the whole goal of this exercise is to install patsys? I admire your gall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

The house value claim is mostly a non-issue, but I think you are also confusing issues.

Criminal guilt is a matter of innocence until proven guilty. But in the position of Fed governor, the mere appearance of impropriety is sufficient to warrant a resignation. There have been similar recent instances of senior Fed officials resigning over conduct that was very legal and permissible, but had the appearance of impropriety.

I didn't say anything about the house value so I am not sure why you are bringing that up. I don't know anything about the value of the properties. Where is this "appearance of impropriety" standard documented? Is that a law, regulation, or norm? If a norm, too bad. As Trump has shown, they don't matter anymore. There has been absolutely no due process provided to Cook. Are you really supporting the U.S. becoming a country in which unsubstantiated politically-motivated accusations are enough to force a resignation that could disrupt only on the U.S. but the world's economy? Surely, you are smarter than that?

Again, this issue is now before the courts. Why are so many unwilling to allow the legal process to continue?

The impropriety standard is a norm for Fed officials. Kaplan and Rosengren stepped down over the norm in 2021.

We used to hold the office of the presidency to the same types of norms, but in the 1990s one POTUS and his political party decided perjury was insufficient of a reason to resign/convict of impeachment.

Let the legal process run. But we’re all going to be unhappy with the outcome of that process. Part of the reason why government officials resign when these things happen is to avoid the courts firming up the legal issue in controversy.

But Reagan and Ollie North were in 1980s, not 90s.