Trump

[wufan]

. Plenty of people knew they were scamming. Mortgage brokers were intentionally putting customers in bad mortgages, whatever paid the most fees. Plenty of blame to go around.

Not necessarily. Many of these people relied on the underwriters to determine the credit worthiness of the lender. That's their job. They were offering average Joes the opportunity to live in the house of their dreams, and if it didn't work out for whatever reason, they were putting them in a situation to sell out for a profit. Lenders had the legitimate opportunity to help people realize their dreams. Perhaps the buyer paid more in fees than was absolutely necessary, but that was based on the type of mortgage they needed in order to realize those dreams. The lender SHOULD have realized the risk in his site, but the underwriters and gov didn't recognize. Why is the lender held to a different standard?

Also, just to clarify, I'm not naive enough to believe that everyone was on the level. Certainly where there is money to be made, people with low moral value will be there to make money. It wasn't these people, IMO, that caused the failure however; rather it was the belief that the regulations had a layer of safety built in to the lending that would prevent massive failure. The "predatory lenders" were a byproduct of a bad situation.

[Kung Wu]

I blame Doug Elgin.

[jdshock]

Am I naive for thinking something juicy could actually come out of the Comey stuff?

[atlwsu]

Aargh is pretty close. My wife is still in the mortgage industry. During those years it was very difficult for the lenders to legally turn down a loan. "Non Doc" loans were very very common. Her's was one of those banks caught with toxic debt and was taken over by the FDIC. They were a bunch of good old country boys trying to ride the wave. Really nice guys. Several local investers lost a lot of money and the business they had built up over the decades. One thing that is missing in these discussions is the responsibility of the borrower. No one "forced" them to buy a house they could not afford, while at the same time acknowledging the almost irresistible draw of strong enticements.

She supported several Loan Officers, most were greedy and would loan money to any warm body. It is sad that they would tell a hairdresser and a landscape worker newly wed couple in their latest twenties that they could buy a $300k house with a $50k annual income. She did however have at least a couple of Loan Officers who would council potential buyers to walk, sometimes successfully sometimes not. They may have just gone somewhere else.

Anyway, sad times.

[Eric]

Best case scenario for our nation is just bad optics.

Worse case scenario for our nation is a constitutional crisis.

The investigations will continue but a new one, possibly two, will likely be added.

I have no respect for someone who won't fire a man face to face, reports have even indicated the press knew of the firing before Comey did. As for indepent investigations, Mr. "Make America Great Again" should have nothing to fear from an independent investigation, no?

[shocka khan]

I believe the "greater wallet" was taking precedence over the "greater good". Not that there's anything wrong with that. I think anyone who would have been in position to take advantage of that situation would have hit it for every penny they could put in their pockets.

The ability to make loans based on projected future earnings instead of current or demonstrated earnings was probably not a good policy. Mortgage lenders were allowed to be incredibly optimistic with projected future earnings, even though many businesses had pretty much switched to token raises that didn't cover COLA prior to 2007.

Sitting down with a mortgage lender in 2006 was the best news you were ever going to hear. In a few years you were going to be making lots and lots of money and you could live in the house that money would buy today, instead of waiting.

The scenario you have described here is fraud, pure and simple. And if the lenders flat-out stated you could inflate your income to qualify, they were complicit in that fraud (which many were).

Which brings up the question I've asked a number of times as to why Obama and his AG felt like it was a priority to chase voting rights lawsuits instead of prosecuting the fraud. It was there, it would have been an easy case, at least from my perspective.

Jdshock (or any other lawyer out here who cares to respond), why doesn't this fit the elements of fraud - knowingly misstating a material fact in an attempt to induce someone to rely on false information? Did the AG feel the burden for those cases would be more difficult because the borrower was being encouraged to falsify information by the lender? That's the only angle I see here which might present an obstacle.

[shocka khan]

Am I naive for thinking something juicy could actually come out of the Comey stuff?

No, but since I'm a 'fair and balanced' kind of guy, I'm going to wait to see what happens today. There are a few republicans (like Richard Burr) who are saying this 'complicates' the investigation (imo, that comment could mean he is open to a special prosecutor).

If we get even a few republicans in the Senate who believe a special prosecutor needs to be appointed, then I will fully buy into that set of facts. At this point, I can't tell if Trump's timing and clumsily-worded statement is sheer incompetence or an attempt at a cover-up. I would like to hear what people like Lindsey Graham and John McCain think about this. If they start calling for a special prosecutor, then you know the building is on fire.

[shocka khan]

She supported several Loan Officers, most were greedy and would loan money to any warm body. It is sad that they would tell a hairdresser and a landscape worker newly wed couple in their latest twenties that they could buy a $300k house with a $50k annual income. She did however have at least a couple of Loan Officers who would council potential buyers to walk, sometimes successfully sometimes not. They may have just gone somewhere else.

Financial gain is a reason to commit fraud. Loan officers could have been on commission or had their compensation pegged to producing these mortgages, which also points to financial gain, which is fraud.

When I worked for the Texas Department of Insurance, we chased an agent, Billy Armstrong, who was a mega producer of individual Accident and Health insurance. Billy had a whole bunch of non-cancellable guaranteed-renewable policies. He would either, through marketing sleight of hand or flat out using straw buyers, acquire or gain control of small life insurers. He parked the business in those companies and when they collapsed, pulled the business and went down the street to the next company.

The Department was on to him. I followed him in at least three companies which were either put into conservatorship or liquidation. I either assisted the actuaries or analyzed (on my own) the loss reserves and performed projections which reflected the company's negative net worth.

Interestingly enough, he tried, but failed, to commit bankruptcy fraud. Billy had a 29,000 square foot home in Glen Rose which featured a 1500 square foot Italian marble dance floor with crystal chandeliers valued at several million dollars. When the game was up, and he declared bankruptcy, he attempted to claim this home as his homestead (to shield it from the bankruptcy) instead of the small condominium in Dallas, which was his actual homestead.

The judge did not let him do it. Big win for the little guy.

[jdshock]

Jdshock (or any other lawyer out here who cares to respond), why doesn't this fit the elements of fraud - knowingly misstating a material fact in an attempt to induce someone to rely on false information? Did the AG feel the burden for those cases would be more difficult because the borrower was being encouraged to falsify information by the lender? That's the only angle I see here which might present an obstacle.

I don't know anything about white collar crimes, but are you asking why they didn't prosecute borrowers? If so, I imagine it has a lot to do with prosecutors' resources. Why put hundreds of hours into prosecuting relatively small cases? If someone says they have a 100k income but they really only had 30k, and they default, what are you going to do? Throw a million lower middle class Americans in jail for tiny periods of time?

[CBB_Fan]

Fired Comey today. I am sure a more compliant director focusing more on leaks and less on Russia and corruotion is in the offing.

I will note that the obviously "direct from Trump" second paragraph of Trump's letter firing Comey is a pretty direct lie.

For those that don't want to open links, here is the paragraph in question:

"While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation, I nevertheless concur with the judgement of the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively lead the Bureau."

Comey's statement before the House Intelligence Community:

“I’ve been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election"

“That includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government, and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts.”

Comey's firing will give Donald Trump a hat-trick on investigators. Interim Attory General Sally Yates started a probe into Flynn's connection with Russian, fired. Preet Bhahara, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York (Trump Tower's district), fired after investigating whether Tom Price improperly traded healthcare stocks. And now Comey.

I don't see any reason why we should good Trump enough good faith to assume that this could even possibly be bad optics. He explicitly lied about the firing, and he's done this before. The man absolutely should never have been given power.

[shocka khan]

I don't know anything about white collar crimes, but are you asking why they didn't prosecute borrowers? If so, I imagine it has a lot to do with prosecutors' resources. Why put hundreds of hours into prosecuting relatively small cases? If someone says they have a 100k income but they really only had 30k, and they default, what are you going to do? Throw a million lower middle class Americans in jail for tiny periods of time?

No, I'm talking about the company CEO's and business unit executives responsible for the intake and processing of mortgage applications, someone exactly like Angelo Mozilo.

[im4wsu]

The Dems reaction is simply deflection of the focus from restarting investigations into Clinton(s), Abedin, and Obama action to focus on scurrilous timing issues. Like previously deflecting the focus from unlawful acts committed to somebody finding out about it and leaking the information, focusing on the leak rather than the bad deeds. Of course, the media lemmings will line up in a straight line.

[DUShock]

Am I naive for thinking something juicy could actually come out of the Comey stuff?

I think his (POTUS) goose is cooked. He will be fortunate to only be a one term POTUS, I could see this spinning into an impeachment. Too many Republicans are better qualified than Trump to be POTUS and many of them have the ability to convene hearings to investigate all of the smoke surrounding this man.

In short, the Republican party is best served by offering Trump up on a platter to the American people. Congressional Republicans can do so, while claiming the moral high ground, and individually positioning themselves for a primary challenge.

[jdshock]

I think his (POTUS) goose is cooked. He will be fortunate to only be a one term POTUS, I could see this spinning into an impeachment. Too many Republicans are better qualified that Trump to be POTUS and many of them have the ability to convene hearings to investigate all of the smoke surrounding this man.

In short, the Republican party is best served by offering Trump up on a platter to the American people. Congressional Republicans can do so, while claiming the moral high ground, and individually positioning themselves for a primary challenge.

I tend to agree, albeit from a perspective of hoping for a different outcome than you. Frankly, I think there is some possibility that the best strategic option is dump Trump now, take your lumps in the 2018 midterms and hope for the best in 2020. No matter what happens, Dems probably aren't getting the senate in 2018. Alternatively, the Republicans screw this up for 4 years and there's a chance 2020 is monumentally bad for them.

[Aargh]

The way I understood the news this morning (from ABC) was that the Assistant Attorney General, a Trump appointee, now pretty much had total control over the direction DoJ would take in any investigations. The Assistant Attorney General reports directly to Jeff Sessions, who already recused himself.

Appearances can be deceiving, but the appearance is that anyone in DoJ attempting to investigate any Russian involvement in the elections will not be allowed to pursue that investigation.

The stated reasons for firing Comey (he heard it on the news before anyone told him he was fired) don't stand up to even minor scrutiny. If it was because of his handling of Hillary's investigation, then it would have happened on day one of Trump's presidency, when he had promised to hire a Special Prosecutor and lock her up. He didn't hire the prosecutor, didn't pursue anything pertaining to Hillary, and didn't fire Comey, who led the investigation. The "why now" question doesn't have an apparent answer. Actually, it does have an apparent answer, but not from the Trump camp.