Lisa cook mortgage fraud

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look at the fraud Trump has committed! The only reason he is targeting Lisa Cook is because she is a black woman.

It's a yes and no response to your comment. Lisa Cook is being targeted, I agree. And she's being targeted because she is the epitome of the worst of DEI, the continual failing upwards by a mediocre talent in the name of identity politics and representation. I do think it's unfortunate, but it is also unfortunate she was nominated in the first place, a minor economic historian (not economist) whose department did not want to give her tenure (overruled by the university who said they needed more black professors) and whose research is so deeply flawed to effectively be made up (as the other well-written poster on this thread has already covered). She is not among the best and brightest, not by a long shot.

I don't have to be a Trump supporter or MAGA or Republican to know there is a growing problem among Democrats with identity politics and nominating unqualified or lesser qualified people for prominent roles in the name of diversity and representation. This is a particular problem with judicial appointees and I include KJB in this category too, although she's not as bad as Lisa Cook is but it's telling that even other liberal justices on SCOTUS have rebuked her in their rulings, not just the conservative ones.

Sure, KJB is the outlier:
Justice Undergraduate School Law School Clarence Thomas College of the Holy Cross Yale Law School John Roberts Harvard Harvard Law School Samuel Alito Princeton Yale Law School Sonia Sotomayor Princeton Yale Law School Elena Kagan Princeton, Oxford Harvard Law School Neil Gorsuch Columbia, Oxford Harvard Law School Brett Kavanaugh Yale Yale Law School Amy Coney Barrett Rhodes College Notre Dame Law School Ketanji Brown Jackson Harvard Harvard Law School

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pulte used this primary residence “fraud” because it’s like speeding, everyone does it

https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-cabinet-mortgage-fraud

Banks should just do due diligence and not depend on a checkbox. Pull their next years tax return, and if not the primary, the mortgage automatically adjusts.

The banks and nonbank lenders are not going to enforce this because (1) they want to close the loan and generate the fees and (2) all the legal liability is on the borrower.

There's zero incentives for lenders to police this, especially when most lenders sell the loan onward to securitization investors.

Banks do police this. That's how she got caught.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pulte used this primary residence “fraud” because it’s like speeding, everyone does it

https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-cabinet-mortgage-fraud

Banks should just do due diligence and not depend on a checkbox. Pull their next years tax return, and if not the primary, the mortgage automatically adjusts.

The banks and nonbank lenders are not going to enforce this because (1) they want to close the loan and generate the fees and (2) all the legal liability is on the borrower.

There's zero incentives for lenders to police this, especially when most lenders sell the loan onward to securitization investors.

Banks do police this. That's how she got caught.

No, it’s not. Trump’s appointee, Pulte, took his enemies list and went diving through confidential records to try to find something on them. There has been no bank involvement. Why are you telling obvious lies?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pulte used this primary residence “fraud” because it’s like speeding, everyone does it

https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-cabinet-mortgage-fraud

Banks should just do due diligence and not depend on a checkbox. Pull their next years tax return, and if not the primary, the mortgage automatically adjusts.

The banks and nonbank lenders are not going to enforce this because (1) they want to close the loan and generate the fees and (2) all the legal liability is on the borrower.

There's zero incentives for lenders to police this, especially when most lenders sell the loan onward to securitization investors.

Banks do police this. That's how she got caught.

No, it’s not. Trump’s appointee, Pulte, took his enemies list and went diving through confidential records to try to find something on them. There has been no bank involvement. Why are you telling obvious lies?

There hasn’t been any official indictment or anything, simply Pulte tweeting about her mortgage applications at the agency he heads. PII violation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pulte used this primary residence “fraud” because it’s like speeding, everyone does it

https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-cabinet-mortgage-fraud

Banks should just do due diligence and not depend on a checkbox. Pull their next years tax return, and if not the primary, the mortgage automatically adjusts.

The banks and nonbank lenders are not going to enforce this because (1) they want to close the loan and generate the fees and (2) all the legal liability is on the borrower.

There's zero incentives for lenders to police this, especially when most lenders sell the loan onward to securitization investors.

Banks do police this. That's how she got caught.

No, it’s not. Trump’s appointee, Pulte, took his enemies list and went diving through confidential records to try to find something on them. There has been no bank involvement. Why are you telling obvious lies?

There hasn’t been any official indictment or anything, simply Pulte tweeting about her mortgage applications at the agency he heads. PII violation?

Of course this is. She should probably sue Pulte as head of FHFA for violating the Privacy Act.

BTW, Pulte is actively breaking the law right now. It is illegal for the head of the FHFA to simultaneously be on the board of Fannie or Freddie. Pulte made himself the Chairman of the Board for both Fannie and Freddie! The lawlessness is breathtaking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pulte used this primary residence “fraud” because it’s like speeding, everyone does it

https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-cabinet-mortgage-fraud

Banks should just do due diligence and not depend on a checkbox. Pull their next years tax return, and if not the primary, the mortgage automatically adjusts.

The banks and nonbank lenders are not going to enforce this because (1) they want to close the loan and generate the fees and (2) all the legal liability is on the borrower.

There's zero incentives for lenders to police this, especially when most lenders sell the loan onward to securitization investors.

Banks do police this. That's how she got caught.

No, it’s not. Trump’s appointee, Pulte, took his enemies list and went diving through confidential records to try to find something on them. There has been no bank involvement. Why are you telling obvious lies?

There hasn’t been any official indictment or anything, simply Pulte tweeting about her mortgage applications at the agency he heads. PII violation?

Of course this is. She should probably sue Pulte as head of FHFA for violating the Privacy Act.

BTW, Pulte is actively breaking the law right now. It is illegal for the head of the FHFA to simultaneously be on the board of Fannie or Freddie. Pulte made himself the Chairman of the Board for both Fannie and Freddie! The lawlessness is breathtaking.

From Gemini:

Yes, William Pulte's appointment as chairman of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is illegal and violates federal law and FHFA (Federal Housing Finance Agency) regulations, specifically a law prohibiting the FHFA Director from holding office in these companies and FHFA regulations requiring the chairmen to be independent from the FHFA. Congressional leaders and the House Financial Services Committee Democrats have sent letters to Pulte, highlighting these violations and requesting information on his actions.

Violations
Prohibition on Holding a Position at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:
Federal law (12 U.S.C. 4512(g)(2)) explicitly prohibits the FHFA Director from holding any office, position, or employment within Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

FHFA Regulations on Board Independence:
FHFA regulations require that the chairmen of the boards for Fannie and Freddie must be independent of the FHFA. Pulte, as the FHFA Director, named himself chairman of both boards, which violates this regulation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look at the fraud Trump has committed! The only reason he is targeting Lisa Cook is because she is a black woman.

It's a yes and no response to your comment. Lisa Cook is being targeted, I agree. And she's being targeted because she is the epitome of the worst of DEI, the continual failing upwards by a mediocre talent in the name of identity politics and representation. I do think it's unfortunate, but it is also unfortunate she was nominated in the first place, a minor economic historian (not economist) whose department did not want to give her tenure (overruled by the university who said they needed more black professors) and whose research is so deeply flawed to effectively be made up (as the other well-written poster on this thread has already covered). She is not among the best and brightest, not by a long shot.

I don't have to be a Trump supporter or MAGA or Republican to know there is a growing problem among Democrats with identity politics and nominating unqualified or lesser qualified people for prominent roles in the name of diversity and representation. This is a particular problem with judicial appointees and I include KJB in this category too, although she's not as bad as Lisa Cook is but it's telling that even other liberal justices on SCOTUS have rebuked her in their rulings, not just the conservative ones.

In what way is she a “mediocre talent”?

Spelman, Oxford, Berkeley , a professor, and on the Fed Board in Chicago — among other accomplishments. Are you even qualified to assess her qualifications?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look at the fraud Trump has committed! The only reason he is targeting Lisa Cook is because she is a black woman.

It's a yes and no response to your comment. Lisa Cook is being targeted, I agree. And she's being targeted because she is the epitome of the worst of DEI, the continual failing upwards by a mediocre talent in the name of identity politics and representation. I do think it's unfortunate, but it is also unfortunate she was nominated in the first place, a minor economic historian (not economist) whose department did not want to give her tenure (overruled by the university who said they needed more black professors) and whose research is so deeply flawed to effectively be made up (as the other well-written poster on this thread has already covered). She is not among the best and brightest, not by a long shot.

I don't have to be a Trump supporter or MAGA or Republican to know there is a growing problem among Democrats with identity politics and nominating unqualified or lesser qualified people for prominent roles in the name of diversity and representation. This is a particular problem with judicial appointees and I include KJB in this category too, although she's not as bad as Lisa Cook is but it's telling that even other liberal justices on SCOTUS have rebuked her in their rulings, not just the conservative ones.

In what way is she a “mediocre talent”?

Spelman, Oxford, Berkeley , a professor, and on the Fed Board in Chicago — among other accomplishments. Are you even qualified to assess her qualifications?

Throw in Marshall Scholar as well. Now tell me with a straight face that a you would regard a white boy with even this abbreviated list of accomplishments as a “mediocre talent” — without having very specific first hand knowledge of their work. BTW, her Spelman degree was in Physics and Philosophy (magna cum laude) and she did PPE at Oxford.

[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.

DP

What about a married couple residing in separate residences across the country for job-related purposes?

[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.

Can you cite the law or regulation that says you cannot have two primary residences?

[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.

DP

What about a married couple residing in separate residences across the country for job-related purposes?

One of the many reasons that you can legitimately have two primary residences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cook is a crook

Yep another democrat elite.

Sean Duffy, SECDOT, Lori Chavez-DeRemer SEC DOL, Lee Zeldin SEC EPA, Mark Meadows former WH COS all have second and third mortgages listed as their primary addresses, but Pulte doughboy has not forwarded their names to DOJ for investigation. And how could I forget that Texas scoundrel running for US Senate. Add his name to the list.

[Anonymous]

Exclusive: Bill Pulte accused Fed Governor Lisa Cook of fraud. His relatives filed housing claims similar to hers

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/bill-pulte-accused-fed-governor-lisa-cook-fraud-his-relatives-filed-housing-2025-09-05/

Oh, you don’t say. Imagine that

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look at the fraud Trump has committed! The only reason he is targeting Lisa Cook is because she is a black woman.

It's a yes and no response to your comment. Lisa Cook is being targeted, I agree. And she's being targeted because she is the epitome of the worst of DEI, the continual failing upwards by a mediocre talent in the name of identity politics and representation. I do think it's unfortunate, but it is also unfortunate she was nominated in the first place, a minor economic historian (not economist) whose department did not want to give her tenure (overruled by the university who said they needed more black professors) and whose research is so deeply flawed to effectively be made up (as the other well-written poster on this thread has already covered). She is not among the best and brightest, not by a long shot.

I don't have to be a Trump supporter or MAGA or Republican to know there is a growing problem among Democrats with identity politics and nominating unqualified or lesser qualified people for prominent roles in the name of diversity and representation. This is a particular problem with judicial appointees and I include KJB in this category too, although she's not as bad as Lisa Cook is but it's telling that even other liberal justices on SCOTUS have rebuked her in their rulings, not just the conservative ones.

In what way is she a “mediocre talent”?

Spelman, Oxford, Berkeley , a professor, and on the Fed Board in Chicago — among other accomplishments. Are you even qualified to assess her qualifications?

Credentialism only impresses the gullible. Are you privy to her standardized SAT, GRE or GMAT test scores?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look at the fraud Trump has committed! The only reason he is targeting Lisa Cook is because she is a black woman.

It's a yes and no response to your comment. Lisa Cook is being targeted, I agree. And she's being targeted because she is the epitome of the worst of DEI, the continual failing upwards by a mediocre talent in the name of identity politics and representation. I do think it's unfortunate, but it is also unfortunate she was nominated in the first place, a minor economic historian (not economist) whose department did not want to give her tenure (overruled by the university who said they needed more black professors) and whose research is so deeply flawed to effectively be made up (as the other well-written poster on this thread has already covered). She is not among the best and brightest, not by a long shot.

I don't have to be a Trump supporter or MAGA or Republican to know there is a growing problem among Democrats with identity politics and nominating unqualified or lesser qualified people for prominent roles in the name of diversity and representation. This is a particular problem with judicial appointees and I include KJB in this category too, although she's not as bad as Lisa Cook is but it's telling that even other liberal justices on SCOTUS have rebuked her in their rulings, not just the conservative ones.

In what way is she a “mediocre talent”?

Spelman, Oxford, Berkeley , a professor, and on the Fed Board in Chicago — among other accomplishments. Are you even qualified to assess her qualifications?

Credentialism only impresses the gullible. Are you privy to her standardized SAT, GRE or GMAT test scores?

Interesting comment on a site full of people hustling for credentials for themselves and for their children.

Lol. I thought you people valued bootstraps.