Legal AF by MeidasTouch

Episode: "Wow: Trump Accidentally Accuses Himself of Crimes?!"

Date: December 13, 2025

Hosts: Ben Meiselas, Michael Popok, Karen Friedman Agnifilo

Overview

This episode delves into the ongoing controversies around mortgage fraud accusations—including those leveraged by Donald Trump against his political adversaries—and the revelation that Trump himself may have engaged in the very conduct he decries. The hosts break down new ProPublica reporting implicating Trump, examine the political and legal double standards at play, and analyze why many of these accusations aren’t crimes in the first place.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Trump’s Mortgage Fraud Accusations: The Pot Calling the Kettle Black

• Trump’s Public Accusations:
  Trump and his allies have leveled “mortgage fraud” allegations at his rivals, including Lisa Cook (Federal Reserve) and Letitia James (New York Attorney General), seeking to undermine or even get them removed from their positions.

  • Trump accused Cook of fraud for taking out two loans and allegedly listing both as “primary residences”.
  • He similarly accused Letitia James of fraud for allegedly saving $50/month on a mortgage by declaring a residence wasn’t going to be rented, even though she let family stay over.

• The Irony Revealed:
  ProPublica’s new reporting shows that Trump himself did the very thing he accuses others of—taking out two “primary residence” mortgages for Florida properties during the 1990s (05:11).

• Notable Quote:

  “Donald Trump and mortgage fraud just seem to go together like peanut butter and jelly. Especially when you live in a glass house like Donald Trump, and you accuse your political rivals ... of committing mortgage fraud.”
  — Michael Popok (01:36)

2. ProPublica Investigation and Its Findings

• Deep Dive into the Report:

  • ProPublica found that at least 20% of Trump's cabinet engaged in similar “double primary residence” mortgage applications (04:05).
  • These applications sometimes secured preferable mortgage rates, but often with the knowledge or encouragement of the banks involved.

• Trump’s Florida Properties:

  • In 1993/1994, while under financial strain in New York, Trump obtained two mortgages in Palm Beach, both labeled as “primary residences”—despite never actually living in them (05:26).
  • Instead, he rented them out as investment properties.

• Bank’s Awareness and The Reality of “Fraud”:

  • Banks likely knew about the real status of these properties due to due diligence and title searches.
  • Such activity is generally considered a “commercially acceptable practice” if there’s no actual deception or loss to the bank (10:17).

3. Political Weaponization and Legal Double Standards

• Trump Allies’ Prosecution Referrals:

  • Bill Pulte, whose family also engaged in similar conduct, formally referred Lisa Cook and others for prosecution based on “fraud.”

  • Notable Quote:

    “Bill Pulte ... even his parents have committed what he refers to as mortgage fraud because they claimed a property in Michigan as their primary residence when they really lived in Palm Beach County, Florida.”
    — Michael Popok (06:24)

• Hypocritical Defenses:

  • When Trump was challenged, the defense from his White House was that a bank who issues both loans cannot defraud itself (08:13).

  • This mirrors the defense available to Lisa Cook—highlighting the hypocrisy.

  • Notable Quote:

    “Since the same lender for Donald Trump was being used for both loans, there could be no defraudation ... and it would be illogical for the same lender to have approved the loans and defrauded themselves.”
    — Michael Popok (08:18)

4. Legal Realities: Is It Mortgage Fraud?

• Host Analysis:
  • The hosts clarify that, in most of these cases, there is no actionable fraud since banks are aware or complicit, and there is no loss or intent to deceive beyond standard banking practices.
  • Michael Popok: “There’s plenty of ways and due diligence a bank to determine ... whether there's fraud, because there's no fraud here. I don’t even think Donald Trump did [commit mortgage fraud] ... but we'll continue to follow it.” (10:44)

5. Supreme Court Implications and Next Steps

• SCOTUS Case on Lisa Cook:

  • The Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether Trump can fire Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve over these unproven mortgage fraud allegations—expected in January (09:37).

  • Strategic Tip:
    Popok suggests Lisa Cook’s lawyers use the Trump defense as evidence in her favor.

Notable Quotes & Moments

• Michael Popok, on Trump’s Hypocrisy:

  “All of this double talk, all of this, don’t do as I say, do as I do … that Donald Trump and his minions are using to defend his own, apparently his own mortgage fraud.”
  (09:55)

• Michael Popok, on Uniform Practice:

  “The reality is none of this is mortgage fraud. This is all commercially acceptable practices within banks to reward or benefit clients.”
  (10:19)

Timestamps for Important Segments

• 01:36 – Introduction to Trump’s use of “mortgage fraud” accusations as a political attack
• 05:11 – ProPublica finds Trump did the same double mortgage primary filings he accuses others of
• 06:24 – Bill Pulte’s parents’ similar conduct and weaponization of mortgage fraud claims
• 08:18 – White House defense: banks cannot defraud themselves when issuing both loans
• 09:37 – SCOTUS to hear Lisa Cook case; potential defense strategies
• 10:17-10:44 – Analysis: Why none of this is typically prosecuted as fraud

Tone

The episode maintains the hosts’ signature incisive legal analysis and biting wit, especially as they highlight the hypocrisy and political motivations behind these so-called “mortgage fraud” accusations. The language remains direct, occasionally sarcastic, yet always rooted in legal nuance and evidence.

Summary

This episode exposes the circular logic and hypocrisy in Trump’s recent attacks on political rivals over “mortgage fraud”—attacks that are undercut by his own past conduct. Leveraging new investigative reporting, the hosts unravel the legal realities of mortgage paperwork and emphasize how common (and non-criminal) these practices typically are. They preview how these issues may soon land before the Supreme Court and offer strategic advice to those wrongly accused, all while maintaining a sharp, engaging tone.