Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Will be easy to prove

---

I won't bet that the judge doesn't throw the case out because leftists have jumped the shark, but this ***** is guilty.

---

I'm not holding my breath either for a conviction or maybe not even a trial on this one or Comey. Even though they both are guilty as hell. All the judges, juries, etc in NoVA and DC are in the Dem's pocket.

Our legal folks on here might know more but I read something by Turley that there may be process issues with the temp US Atty appointee that filed these cases not being approved (?) as well as the tweet Trump made urging Bondi to take action could be construed as vindictive prosecution.

https://jonathanturley.org/2025/10/09/comeys-hail-mary-play-the-former-fbi-director-will-reportedly-raise-three-threshold-challenges-to-his-criminal-charges/

I'm hoping they both land in the slammer because they deserve it (Comey has done far worse than he's even being indicted for). And the cries from the left about Trump going after his enemies is so hypocritical on its face that one should just point and laugh at those making this argument.

I’m a senior officer in banking. @kasie is completely wrong. She couldn’t possibly be more wrong. She should familiarize herself with the charges levied against Big Tish. The one where she claimed a 5-residence dwelling as having 4 residences is actually quite serious.

— Out of the Closet Conservative (@No_Closets_Here) October 10, 2025

This is the same basic form all lenders use. Don't let liars confuse you.

Something about glass houses....

Who lives in a glass house? You post all over the map.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Who lives in a glass house? You post all over the map.

---

You don't go after the head of a political party unless your record is spotless.

Also another:

If you go after the King, best not miss.

She financed $109,000 in August 2020 when 30 year mortgage rates were roughly 3%. The P&I on that note, if it were a primary residence, would be roughly $460 per month. The P&I on an investment property would be about $492 per month, assuming the interest rate was 1.25% higher.

It is alleged she committed fraud, which amounted to about $384 per year.

How can an individual be so cavalier, particularly when they are a public figure?

She and The Party believe beyond the shadow of a doubt that they are above the law.

She may be right. The Bidens are 100% above the law. Dem party officials are.

I'm sorry, but every time I hear the first name Tish, I think of Conker's Bad Fur day.

Dirty_Mike&the_boys said:

---

When powerful people cheat to get better loans, it comes at the expense of hardworking people.

Everyday Americans cannot lie to a bank to get a mortgage, and if they did, our government would throw the book at them.

There simply cannot be different rules for different people.

— NY AG James (@NewYorkStateAG) February 16, 2024

---

You used to be able to lie to banks to get a loan without repercussions.

Then, Bear Sterns went bankrupt in 2008.

We are not supposed to do that anymore.

Not trying to make a political point here.

I spent years as a mortgage banker at Quicken Loans (now Rocket Mortgage), the number one mortgage lender in the country, before I ever went to law school. So when I see stories like this, I look at them a little differently.

Here’s… https://t.co/pcZlCrFNTM

— SMB Attorney (@SMB_Attorney) October 10, 2025

Salient part of the rest:

Quote:

---

Here's the deal. How you classify a property as a primary, secondary, or investment home changes everything about the loan. The down payment, the interest rate, the underwriting, all of it.

Primary or secondary homes can get by with as little as 3 to 10 percent down.

Investment properties usually require 25 percent or more.

So if you're a brand new real estate investor with limited cash, there's a big incentive to call something a "second home" instead of an "investment property."

But that's why lenders make you sign a Second Home Rider, a separate document where you specifically promise you'll use it as a second residence, not rent it out.

You also assert like NINE times in the application process it will be owner occupied…

Could this kind of thing ever be an honest mistake? I doubt it.

The facts, at least as reported, look pretty bad.

You buy a house, say it's a second home, immediately rent it out, tell your insurer it's owner-occupied, and then report rental income on your taxes.

That's not a misunderstanding. That's a pattern.

By the way guys, taking home owners insurance under the misrepresentation that it's a primary for better rates is a great way to have a claim denied when your house burns down.

Very shortsighted mistake that many make...

Would a bank ever catch this on their own? Probably not.

Banks rarely dig that deep unless there's a default or an insurance claim.

They just don't have the infrastructure or frankly the desire to chase it down.

So yes, it's definitely selective prosecution.

The amount of money at issue is small, and most people would never be charged for something like this.

But still, if the facts are accurate, it's just a series of really bad moves.

And the wild part is that she's a lawyer.

She's the Attorney General of New York.

She's prosecuted the former president for similar financial misrepresentations.

You'd think someone with that background would fully understand what those documents say and what it means to misstate intent on a loan.

It's going to be a tough case for her to defend, unless she's able to present additional information that clarifies the situation.

---

Trump's loans were business loans, not home mortgages. Tish was applying for Fannie Mae loans. That's not a private bank, like in the Trump case. So yes, the victim is the government and the tax payer in Tish's case.

Okay, I must admit error. I thought the indictment was about the house she helped her niece buy in 2023, but it appears that the indictment is actually regarding a different house in Norfolk that she bought in 2020.

So I was wrong last night, mea culpa, etc

Everything was fine until

Quote:

---

So yes, it's definitely selective prosecution.

The amount of money at issue is small, and most people would never be charged for something like this.

---

1. "selective" true, but explain the full context including the misuse of her authority to focus the weight of the government on a political opponent who broke no laws while you, yourself, were breaking the law in question.

and

2. The amount of money is more than likely not small when you consider multiple % points on a note, insurance, and taxes. Even if it was just $1 dollar, wrong is wrong, and because your job is bringing justice to lawbreakers ... you are wrongererer (missing Tanya, hat-tip to heaven)

jacketman03 said:

---

Okay, I must admit error. I thought the indictment was about the house she helped her niece buy in 2023, but it appears that the indictment is actually regarding a different house in Norfolk that she bought in 2020.

So I was wrong last night, mea culpa, etc

---

You are excused for that because the reporting has been all over the place, in no small part due to the plethora of real estate deals she did.

And for the record, even though she was not indicted for the 2023 purchase, does not mean she couldn't have been. Signing the documents under penalty of perjury and then later on sending an email to a loan officer admitting she had not told the truth, does not make a get-out-of-jail free card.

Quote:

---

If convicted on both counts, James faces up to 60 years in prison and a fine of up to $2 million.

---

Here's the Second Home Rider form from FHFA. https://singlefamily.fanniemae.com/media/27361/display
Here's the paragraph on occupancy.

Quote:

---

6. Occupancy. Borrower must occupy and use the Property as Borrower's second home. Borrower will maintain exclusive control over the occupancy of the Property, including short-term rentals, and will not subject the Property to any timesharing or other shared ownership arrangement or to any rental pool or agreement that requires Borrower either to rent the Property or give a management firm or any other person or entity any control over the occupancy or use of the Property. Borrower will keep the Property available primarily as a residence for Borrower's personal use and enjoyment for at least one year after the date of this Security Instrument, unless Lender otherwise agrees in writing, which consent will not be unreasonably withheld, or unless extenuating circumstances exist that are beyond Borrower's control.

---

Tell me what that means, because it looks like to me that some short-term rentals are permitted in certain cases.

I suspect Tish figured she along with others would take down Trump. I would bet a large sum of money that these charges would have never been brought if she knew Trump would be her President in a matter of months. She was supposed to be a hero right now, not in the crosshairs of a Trump DOJ.

I agree with him except the part about prosecuting Trump for doing something similar. Trump didn't do something similar.

HTownAg98 said:

---

Here's the Second Home Rider form from FHFA. https://singlefamily.fanniemae.com/media/27361/display
Here's the paragraph on occupancy.

Quote:

---

6. Occupancy. Borrower must occupy and use the Property as Borrower's second home. Borrower will maintain exclusive control over the occupancy of the Property, including short-term rentals, and will not subject the Property to any timesharing or other shared ownership arrangement or to any rental pool or agreement that requires Borrower either to rent the Property or give a management firm or any other person or entity any control over the occupancy or use of the Property. Borrower will keep the Property available primarily as a residence for Borrower's personal use and enjoyment for at least one year after the date of this Security Instrument, unless Lender otherwise agrees in writing, which consent will not be unreasonably withheld, or unless extenuating circumstances exist that are beyond Borrower's control.

---

Tell me what that means, because it looks like to me that some short-term rentals are permitted in certain cases.

---

Operative words there.

It means you can use the property for short-term rentals if you also occupy it part time.

She did not. She had no intention of doing so. She intentionally lied, which is a felony.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

It means you can use the property for short-term rentals if you also occupy it part time.

She did not. She had no intention of doing so. She intentionally lied, which is a felony.

---

She literally closed one day and rented it out a week later. One week.

aggiehawg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Here's the Second Home Rider form from FHFA. https://singlefamily.fanniemae.com/media/27361/display
Here's the paragraph on occupancy.

Quote:

---

6. Occupancy. Borrower must occupy and use the Property as Borrower's second home. Borrower will maintain exclusive control over the occupancy of the Property, including short-term rentals, and will not subject the Property to any timesharing or other shared ownership arrangement or to any rental pool or agreement that requires Borrower either to rent the Property or give a management firm or any other person or entity any control over the occupancy or use of the Property. Borrower will keep the Property available primarily as a residence for Borrower's personal use and enjoyment for at least one year after the date of this Security Instrument, unless Lender otherwise agrees in writing, which consent will not be unreasonably withheld, or unless extenuating circumstances exist that are beyond Borrower's control.

---

Tell me what that means, because it looks like to me that some short-term rentals are permitted in certain cases.

---

Operative words there.

---

One big problem that Tish faces here is that she applied for the loan as an investment property first, got some quotes, then re-applied as a residential loan, got better rates, and closed the loan using the better rates.

That is a pretty damning fact pattern.

BusterAg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Here's the Second Home Rider form from FHFA. https://singlefamily.fanniemae.com/media/27361/display
Here's the paragraph on occupancy.

Quote:

---

6. Occupancy. Borrower must occupy and use the Property as Borrower's second home. Borrower will maintain exclusive control over the occupancy of the Property, including short-term rentals, and will not subject the Property to any timesharing or other shared ownership arrangement or to any rental pool or agreement that requires Borrower either to rent the Property or give a management firm or any other person or entity any control over the occupancy or use of the Property. Borrower will keep the Property available primarily as a residence for Borrower's personal use and enjoyment for at least one year after the date of this Security Instrument, unless Lender otherwise agrees in writing, which consent will not be unreasonably withheld, or unless extenuating circumstances exist that are beyond Borrower's control.

---

Tell me what that means, because it looks like to me that some short-term rentals are permitted in certain cases.

---

Operative words there.

---

One big problem that Tish faces here is that she applied for the loan as an investment property first, got some quotes, then re-applied as a residential loan, got better rates, and closed the loan using the better rates.

That is a pretty damning fact pattern.

---

Not sure if that applies to the Perrone property or not. Current indictment only applies to the Perrone property. There's been so much garbage thrown out there, hard to keep it all straight.

But I will say one thing, when Tish goes on TV and stresses that the DOJ must prove intent, she's already admitting it happened. Which is dumb for anyone but super dumb for a lawyer.

And the truth is that she believes she is above the law. She did it intentionally, got caught, and rather than admitting a moral failure, she is grandstanding to win in the court of public opinion.

She has no integrity, and she should be disbarred as well as imprisoned.

aggiehawg said:

---

Salient part of the rest:
Trump's loans were business loans, not home mortgages. Tish was applying for Fannie Mae loans. That's not a private bank, like in the Trump case. So yes, the victim is the government and the tax payer in Tish's case.

---

Ok, so the potential victim here is different between Jones and Trump. And, Jones' act is substantially worse for a number of reasons. But, Tish's prior prosecution of similar type claims against Trump makes her defense really, really difficult.

The house in question was direct collateral for the mortgage loan in James case. For Trump, the value of the real estate was only part of the statement of net worth that Trump gave.

For James, the difference between an investment property and a 2nd home is substantial because:
a) The lender assumes you will take care of your own home better than a renter will.
b) Statistically, investment property owners are much more likely to walk away from an investment property that is underwater than an owner occupied property, so the risk of default is higher for investment properties.
c) The costs to enter into a mortgage transaction are low, making it expensive for the lender to do deep due-diligence on each property. The only incentive to tell the truth in the application is the steep criminal and civil penalty for getting caught. It's kind of why penalties for lying on your taxes are so high. It's hard to get caught, so the people that do get caught are subject to getting nailed to the wall. Simple economic theory related to how effective of a disincentive a punishment is.
d) These types of misrepresentations were the primary cause of the 2008 financial crises. People lying about their income and the value of the home they were buying, and how they were going to use them, is the exact reason why we see this very strongly worded form that the borrower has to sign related to misrepresentations. We have been down the road before of "this is no big deal", and, in aggregate, it is in fact a very big deal (especially when it is magnified exponentially with credit default swaps and the like, but that gets really complicated).

For Trump, the misstatement of his R/E value was pretty negligible, because:
a) The misstatement was part of his statement of net worth, which the lender used to assess the value of any owner guarantee that Trump was providing. My understanding is that the real estate in question was not direct collateral to the business loan, just a source of wealth for a potential judgement in the case of a bankruptcy. Very different, as collecting on a guarantee is substantially harder than foreclosing on collateral.
b) The lenders here were sophisticated lenders who had the time and ability to research the actual value of Trump's properties had they needed to. This wasn't a small loan with limited funds available for due diligence. This was a large business loan that had substantial transaction fees associated with it.

So basically, the situation completely cuts the legs out from under any defense she has.
1) Selective prosecution: um, you are much more guilty of that than the DOJ prosecutor, Ms. James.
2) Ignorance: um, you should have been much more aware of the situation than the person you prosecuted for financial crimes, Ms. James. By the way, the facts in the case belie the claim that you didn't know.
3) No real harm: um, collectively, these types of lies are much more likely to create harm than the crimes you prosecuted Ms. James. You can't say that you shouldn't be prosecuted because no one was hurt, because no one was hurt in the Trump case, either.

Her only real defense is, that this situation is (D)ifferent.

You really nailed the differences between Tish's transactions and Trump's.

Well done.

aggiehawg said:

---

Not sure if that applies to the Perrone property or not. Current indictment only applies to the Perrone property. There's been so much garbage thrown out there, hard to keep it all straight.

---

Interesting. I didn't know that. I thought that fact pattern existed for the Perrone property too. Not sure it makes much difference in light of everything else.

Quote:

---

But I will say one thing, when Tish goes on TV and stresses that the DOJ must prove intent, she's already admitting it happened. Which is dumb for anyone but super dumb for a lawyer.

---

Super dumb. But, I'm not sure it really matters when it relates to her suitability to serve as a fed chair. I'm a CFA charterholder, and I can guarantee you I will lose my charter for something as stupid as this for an ethics violation, whether or not I broke the law and whether or not the CFA Institute can prove intent; they don't have to.

I'm not focused on other fallout for her such as potentially losing her law license, right now. Just the potential criminal repercussions.

I also kind of expect a superceding indictment with other charges. Some of which have very big teeth such as mail and wire fraud. There is also defrauding an FDIC insured bank that could be an additional charge.

aggiehawg said:

---

You really nailed the differences between Tish's transactions and Trump's.

Well done.

---

I wish we had a gold star for you Buster!

And if Mrs. Hawg approves it, you know it's right.

Well done.

Thanks guys.

I do try to contribute here on things I know a lot about.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

You really nailed the differences between Tish's transactions and Trump's.

Well done.

---

I wish we had a gold star for you Buster!

And if Mrs. Hawg approves it, you know it's right.

Well done.

---

Well, I typed until my fingers bled on the Trump loan fraud trial thread about how business loans, due diligence, loan committees, FDIC and other similar federal regulations for lending institutions and how all of that fully negated that case against Trump. (And don't get me started on the legal problems of the Judge Merchan trial.)

Yet, those who just believed OMB refused to even begin to try to understand those legal issues and the repercussions. So when I see a very appropriate and articulate post detailing those nuances, I respect that very much.

What's the benefit of the multi party property lie (was it 5 instead of 4 or vice versa)?

aggiehawg said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

You really nailed the differences between Tish's transactions and Trump's.

Well done.

---

I wish we had a gold star for you Buster!

And if Mrs. Hawg approves it, you know it's right.

Well done.

---

Well, I typed until my fingers bled on the Trump loan fraud trial thread about how business loans, due diligence, loan committees, FDIC and other similar federal regulations for lending institutions and how all of that fully negated that case against Trump. (And don't get me started on the legal problems of the Judge Merchan trial.)

Yet, those who just believed OMB refused to even begin to try to understand those legal issues and the repercussions. So when I see a very appropriate and articulate post detailing those nuances, I respect that very much.

---

You have put tremendous sweat and intellectual equity into informing us of the legal pros, cons, and likelihoods, and it's much appreciated. On a lot of the big stuff, I see the accurate opinion developing on this board long before you see it in the mainstream media, if it even surfaces there at all.

Quote:

---

You have put tremendous sweat and intellectual equity into informing us of the legal pros, cons, and likelihoods, and it's much appreciated. On a lot of the big stuff, I see the accurate opinion developing on this board long before you see it in the mainstream media, if it even surfaces there at all.

---

Thank you. I am not always correct but when I make a mistake, I own it. I don't just throw stuff out without having a more than educated guess. But law and legal proceedings have a lot of moving parts and not always that easy to predict. Not with our current federal judiciary ignoring the law or just being outrageously incompetent.

I mean I know what should happen under the law but that doesn't mean it will.