sleepy5136
Well-known member
I’m very confused on why this needs to go to court. I think it should be quite easy to pull up the documents to vet whether there was mortgage fraud or not from Cook.
I'm refinancing my 5.875% 7/6 ARM to 5.375% 7/6 ARM, using the $1M relationship program, which knocked off 0.5%, same as what I did when I closed escrow last July.I just refinanced my 5.875 ARM to 5.625 ARM. But I was also paying down principle aggressively so the monthly payment dropped 45%.
I’m very confused on why this needs to go to court. I think it should be quite easy to pull up the documents to vet whether there was mortgage fraud or not from Cook.
I would be shocked if they do not have evidence of Cook committing mortgage fraud and publicly calling her out for doing so. It sounds like Cook is trying to save face at this point by "suing" the government which I think is a joke and a waste of tax paying dollars.We live in the age of blame shifting. It's not me. It's "a paperwork error" or "an innocent mistake". An honorable person would have taken the hit and quietly moved out of the spotlight. Lisa Cook is not that person.
Remember dear reader that in our world today... Personal responsibility, just like taxes, are only for little people.....
![]()
Leona Helmsley - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
I would be shocked if they do not have evidence of Cook committing mortgage fraud and publicly calling her out for doing so. It sounds like Cook is trying to save face at this point by "suing" the government which I think is a joke and a waste of tax paying dollars.
That's getting into some glass housing.She could be arrested, tried, and convicted however for prior criminal acts.
Not at all..Trump has already been “charged” and “convicted”. But the voters don’t care and elected him anyway. Cook hasn’t even been charged yet but it’s not up to the voters if she keeps her job, convicted or not. It’s up to Trump. That gives him the opening to terminate with “cause”. Voters have no say.Wait... you are contradicting yourself. You are saying both should be scrutinized the same but only one should be kicked out of their position?