Trump, Cohen, And Dead, Red Meat
The Market Ticker - Commentary on The Capital Markets
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
Display list of topics
Sarah's Resources You Should See
Sarah's Blog Buy Sarah's Pictures
Full-Text Search & Archives
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2018-04-13 11:05 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 186 references Ignore this thread
Trump, Cohen, And Dead, Red Meat
[Comments enabled]

I often do not agree with "The Judge" but this time he's spot-on....

Did the FBI lawfully break in to the headquarters of the president’s family business and cart away files and equipment from his lawyer, as well as legal and financial files of the president himself? The short answer is: yes.

As the Judge points out there are basically two exceptions to the "subpoena, don't raid" rule when it comes to lawyers with the most important being potential independent criminal activity.

There is a potential issue here and, as Judge Nap points out, Cohen may have implicated himself in that regard with his own public statements.

Specifically, Cohen said that he independently paid off Daniels and that he borrowed the money through a mortgage to do it.

Well, that's a problem -- exactly as it's a problem if you borrow money through student loans and then buy Bitcoin with it.

That's bank fraud; you borrowed the money under false pretense.  Then you get the add-ons when you start moving the money around; if you use the mails, it's mail fraud and if you use the wires, it's wire fraud.

I think Nap may well be right and if so, well, there's the problem with opening your mouth to the press -- especially if you wind up appearing to admit to a federal criminal act when you do it.

Go to responses (registration required to post)
 



 
Comments.......
User: Not logged on
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
User Info Trump, Cohen, And Dead, Red Meat in forum [Market-Ticker]
Ckaminski
Posts: 4562
Incept: 2011-04-08

Mass-Hole!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
You'd think a lawyer would know to keep his mouth shut...

Must not be a very good lawyer.
Tickerguy
Posts: 152426
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
The problem with keeping his mouth shut was that it wouldn't have helped him; there were FEC complaints filed about the Daniels' payoff being a potential "like kind" contribution which, if true, would be illegal.

He was ****ed once he lied to get the money because if the fact of the payment ever came out, and especially after Trump won, the source of funds would EVENTUALLY have to be disclosed.

I don't know how he thought he would get away with that; paying her off wasn't illegal but lying about the use of the money to get a mortgage is. What surprises me is that he didn't have the cash on-hand -- $130 large is a quite a lot of money but for a private attorney that probably bills out $1M+ to Trump a year it's surprising to me that he didn't have it laying around.

----------
Winding it down.
Stonedog
Posts: 2198
Incept: 2008-05-29
A True American Patriot!
New Jersey
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Karl, I hope this doesn't get me in trouble - reposting from what I posted earlier today on the Cohen raid story -

I had a lunch meeting with an attorney here in NYC a couple of days ago and this individual did not even care about the potential violation of the attorney-client privilege (Karl, I'm talking about in the context of my conversation, not your article), he just was glad that they were about to "get" Trump. He was utterly unconcerned with anything else.

I really had to work not to say something and keep my expression calm.

For my $.02, if there was a crime committed under FCPA, and the *.gov followed all of the legal formalities, I have little problem with it as no man should be above the law.

But as some have said, it seems that many out there will tolerate any breach of our traditional civil liberties and Constitutional Rights if they can just get Trump.

And while I have lost a great deal of faith in Trump since the election, I know that I would never a similar sort of argument while Obama was in office.

----------
"I would characterize my professional disdain as more of a professional contempt for their [Central Banker, Banker and politician] economic and financial policies, priorities, presumptions and prescriptions." - Lauren Lyster on Capital Account for Friday June 16, 2012

"All the stimulus, the bailouts, the quantitativ
Rollformer
Posts: 265
Incept: 2013-02-13

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Not sure I buy this view. Most of what I have seen states he paid her of with a home equity line of credit. I don't know if there are restrictive covenants on HELOCs, but lots of boats were bought with them a little over a decade ago.

Not that I think it is a good idea to pay off the village bicycle using your home as security.
Tickerguy
Posts: 152426
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
@Rollformer -- It is illegal to lie about the intended use of funds when you apply for ANY loan and if it's a federally chartered bank you make the application to it's a federal offense.

If they didn't ask, they didn't ask. But most places DO ask, in writing, and if he knew about the intended use at the time of the application, was asked and didn't disclose it....

----------
Winding it down.
Vtmegrad98
Posts: 7
Incept: 2016-06-27

Chesapeake, VA
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
When taking out a mortgage, is it a condition on that mortgage that you're buying a house with it, or just that a house will be the collateral?

I've had a hard time finding clear details about this, so it's not clear to me if he somehow managed to secure a loan while lying about the collateral, or if it was a loan on a house he owned, but didn't state the loan was to pay someone off. I've taken out a loan before, long ago, on a vehicle I already owned, with that vehicle for collateral. But there was no stipulation on the loan that I was buying a vehicle with the vehicle loan, nor do I recall telling them what the loan was for
.

I'm just not understanding how the mortgage itself is bank fraud, from what information is there, and my own personal experience is with a *significantly* smaller loan, and too long ago to be certain of what they did and did not ask me regarding the purpose of the money.
Vtmegrad98
Posts: 7
Incept: 2016-06-27

Chesapeake, VA
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
"If they didn't ask, they didn't ask. But most places DO ask, in writing, and if he knew about the intended use at the time of the application, was asked and didn't disclose it...."

and then this comment shows up as the page updates after making my last comment
Geckogm
Posts: 4438
Incept: 2007-06-26

Canyon Lake
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
If it was a HELOC that he obtained, disclosure as to use of funds is not required to my knowledge. Simply a HELOC can remain at a zero balance. Now if a new first was written then yes you are asked to state intentions for use of funds. However the application choices are cash-out debt consolidation, Cash-out home improvements and other.

In my opinion although lying to obtain a mortgage is very common, whatever was stored on his computer is what is keeping him up at night.
Flyanddive
Posts: 2626
Incept: 2008-10-10

Detroit
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Looks like all his other client files are now leaking to the press.

Edit: Feds say they are investigating criminal charges for loan fraud, against Cohen.

----------
"I've seen people go into real poverty trying to pretend to be rich."

Themortgagedude
Posts: 10590
Incept: 2007-12-17

saint louis
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Some banks ask for what the funds will be used for. Others do not. Sometimes it depends on the level of loan to value ratio on whether they ask for it or not.

Mortgages and Helocs are recorded at the courthouse. The prosecutor knew which bank it was with. He then picked up the phone and called the bank to find out if the use of funds would have been filled out. It was in this case.

Or if I want to put my tinfoil hat on they didn't know if it would have been filled out or not. And they didn't want to know because they wanted to raid his office one way or another.

----------
I think its time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that our founding fathers intended for us. Ronald Reagan 1964
Geckogm
Posts: 4438
Incept: 2007-06-26

Canyon Lake
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
A side discussion with do_the_math brought up a bunch of variables regarding disclosure of use of funds. At the end of the day government monitoring would require disclosure of use of funds by someone. (Not always borrower).

Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ