Why are all these leading Democrats suddenly facing mortgage fraud charges? Trump's retribution guy at the Federal Housing Finance Agency

[rambot]

The buyer has no one to blame but himself if he ignores, "Buyer beware."

Surely these injuries were taken to Court and rectified. . .

What were the damages awarded to the injured?

Crickets. . .

Something else Trump didn't do in this special place.

 

[Clare73]

Something else Trump didn't do in this special place.

It's not Trump's job to take their complaints to Court.

 

[rambot]

It's not Trump's job to take their complaints to Court.

Was it Trump's job to act within the law before he was President?

 

[Clare73]

Was it Trump's job to act within the law before he was President?

That he did not act within the the law has not been established in Court.

 

[Clare73]

Was it Trump's job to act within the law before he was President?

Has that charge been determined in Court?

 

[rambot]

That he did not act within the the law has not been established in Court.

I didn't ask whether it has been proven in court.

I'm asking whether Trump was bound by law BEFORE he was president?

This should have been LITERALLY the simplest question to answer "Yes...he should obey the law".

 

[DaisyDay]

That he did not act within the the law has not been established in Court.

It certainly has, many times over.

 

[DaisyDay]

The buyer has no one to blame but himself if he ignores, "Buyer beware."

Don't blame the lying fraudster? It is the fault of the deceived, not the deceiver? Odd logic.

Surely these injuries were taken to Court and rectified. . .

What were the damages awarded to the injured?

This is criminal, not civil court.

Crickets. . .

Jiminy!

 

[Clare73]

I didn't ask whether it has been proven in court.

I'm asking whether Trump was bound by law BEFORE he was president?

This should have been LITERALLY the simplest question to answer "Yes...he should obey the law".

If you knew the answer, you didn't need to ask.

 

[rambot]

If you knew the answer, you didn't need to ask.

I asked you for a REASON.

I wanted to see if you felt that when he was a private citizen, Trump was beholden to the same rules as everyone else. I know THE (and my) answer) but I wondered if YOU knew the answer..

But Trump supporters don't always answer as clearly or directly....especially if it's something that might "incriminate" him or question their support of him.

Not sure what prevented you from saying "Of course. I know that Trump was beholden to all the same laws as everyone else" but the fact that you answered as you did, shows what your relationship with Trump looks like.
Was there a reason you couldn't just say "yes, he follows the same laws as everyone"?

 

[iluvatar5150]

Seems like Trump’s lackey, Pulte, is straight up lying:

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/fed-governor-cook-declared-her-atlanta-property-vacation-home-documents-show-2025-09-12/

Amusingly, his parents were guilty of the same thing he’s accusing Cook of.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Seems like Trump’s lackey, Pulte, is straight up lying:

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/fed-governor-cook-declared-her-atlanta-property-vacation-home-documents-show-2025-09-12/

Amusingly, his parents were guilty of the same thing he’s accusing Cook of.

What's that saying? Every accusation is a confession?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Seems like Trump’s lackey, Pulte, is straight up lying:

But documentation reviewed by Reuters for the Atlanta home, filed with a court in Georgia’s Fulton County, clearly says the stipulation exists “unless Lender otherwise agrees in writing.” The loan estimate, a document prepared by the credit union, states “Property Use: Vacation Home.”

In another point that could help Cook’s case, she never requested a tax exemption for the Georgia home as a primary residence, according to property records and a Fulton County tax official.

 

[Clare73]

I asked you for a REASON.

I wanted to see if you felt that when he was a private citizen, Trump was beholden to the same rules as everyone else.

Then in intellectual honesty, that's the question you should have asked.

I find that meaningless, useless and presumptive.

 

[rambot]

You ask if I believe a statement of fact.

It is not a statement of fact for some given some people have excused him of it.

I find that meaningless, useless and presumptive.

Maybe. But you also went straight into "defend Trump mode" instead of just answering, what SHOULD be a very simple question.

 

[Clare73]

It is not a statement of fact for some given some people have excused him of it.

That a statement is factual does not depend on anyone's reaction to it.

Maybe. But you also went straight into "defend Trump mode" instead of just answering, what SHOULD be a very simple question.

Demonstrating that the question was not for the purpose presented. . .somewhat lacking in intellectual honesty.

 

[Say it aint so]

But documentation reviewed by Reuters for the Atlanta home, filed with a court in Georgia’s Fulton County, clearly says the stipulation exists “unless Lender otherwise agrees in writing.” The loan estimate, a document prepared by the credit union, states “Property Use: Vacation Home.”

In another point that could help Cook’s case, she never requested a tax exemption for the Georgia home as a primary residence, according to property records and a Fulton County tax official.

So let me understand this. The Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency made what appears to be inaccurate claims regarding Cook.
And based on those claims alone, not any kind of investigation, Trump fires Cook.

 

[essentialsaltes]

And based on those claims alone, not any kind of investigation, Trump fires Cook.

 

[rambot]

That a statement is factual does not depend on anyone's reaction to it.

I agree. I'm pointing out that some people don't think it's factual. I was curious if you felt it was factual.

Have you not noticed how some folks ignore facts? Like how trump was found guilty in court of law?

Demonstrating that the question was not for the purpose presented. . .somewhat lacking in intellectual honesty.

You could just have the humility to say " oh yeah. I meant to say he should be beholden to thr law"

But you're just bent on trying to make the Trump critics look like a bad person.


This is rhe 2nd most pedantic conversation on cf ive had in a decade.

 

[Clare73]

It is not a statement of fact for some given some people have excused him of it.

Nor is a statement of fact changed by accusation.

Maybe. But you also went straight into "defend Trump mode" instead of just answering, what SHOULD be a very simple question.

Was it meant to be only a simple question?
Or was it meant to be an implied accusation?

You don' have to be a rocket scientist to know the difference.