The $46,000 Question: What Are the Terms of Chris Christie’s Loan to NJ’s First AUSA?

New Jersey’s PBS station, NJN, has just reported that Chris Christie, the former US Attorney with ties to Karl Rove, gave a loan of $46,000 to the First AUSA in the NJ office, Michele Brown, for a mortgage. She will continue to pay him $499 a month until 2017. When asked by NJN, Christie just explained that they were close friends and he helped her out of a financial pinch.

That’s mighty interesting, for two reasons. First, there have been a slew of questions over the way a huge bust of 44 politicians–and some rabbis selling kidneys–last month shortly preceded a bunch of Christie campaign events touting his anti-corruption plan. That remarkable coincidence would be a whole lot easier to pull off if you had a very close relationship with the number two person in the US Attorney’s office. 

In addition, there have already been questions asked about her attendance at events that included a bunch of top NJ Republicans. (h/t brendan)

First Assistant U.S. Attorney Michele Brown was among the guests at a small social gathering held last Sunday at the Mendham home of Republican gubernatorial candidate Christopher Christie, but her attendance at the event – which was not political event though many of the attendees were Republican County Chairmen, legislators and campaign staffers – did not violate any federal law or regulation. 

Brown was the Executive Assistant U.S. Attorney and Christie’s counsel before Acting U.S. Attorney Ralph Marra, Jr. elevated her to his old job as the number two in command of the federal prosecutor’s office.  A career prosecutor, she is a close personal friend of Christie and his wife, Mary Pat, and has been the U.S. Attorney’s office for seventeen years.

Amid all the questions of whether or not Christie violated the Hatch Act with his discussions with Karl Rove about his race, it seems rather, um, curious that the woman he has given a significant loan to also has had questions about Hatch Act violations raised.

Update: A link with some more hard data.

As U.S. Attorney, Republican gubernatorial nominee Chris Christie gave high ranking staffer Michele Brown a $46,000 mortgage loan that she continues to pay off, NJN reported in its news cast tonight.

The report by correspondent Zachary Fink, which is not yet available online, said that Brown has been paying Christie and his wife, Mary Pat, back in monthly increments of $499.22 since taking the loan in October, 2007.  She is scheduled to finish payments in 2017.

Christie told NJN that Brown, who was the office’s fourth ranking staffer at the time of the loan and is now First Assistant U.S. Attorney – the number two spot under Acting U.S. Attorney Ralph Marra – asked for financial help after her husband lost his job while facing credit card debt.

image_print
37 replies
  1. bmaz says:

    For the sake of argument, I’ll grant Christie that they are “close friends” and it was a loan as a favor. You and I, or me and my neighbor, can do that; Christie, in his position and the positions he aspires to, cannot.

    Appearance of impropriety fail.

    • JimWhite says:

      Appearance of impropriety fail.

      Isn’t it more than just appearance of impropriety if the loan occurred while Christie was her direct supervisor? I don’t see how that differs from them having an affair in the way that it complicates the work relationship.

  2. emptywheel says:

    You know, one thing that pisses me off is when Margaret Chiara tried to get her FAUSA more money because she had taken on a big second assignment with NAIC, they both got fired as lesbians. But here you’ve got Chris Christie giving big money to his FAUSA, and he’s not fired.

  3. Citizen92 says:

    Having borrowed mortgage money from family to close on a home, there are a few IRS rules that need to be kept in mind.

    1 – If money is lent at a lower % rate than prevailing interest rates, the lender or the borrower need to report it as a gift. (Since Federal employees are held to a higher legal standard for the disclosure as well as ethics, I sure hope they got the loan ‘blessed’ by all appropriate DOJ parties)

    2 – That ‘personal’ loan should be memorialized somewhere, most logically in the city/borough/state Recorder’s office.

    • Teddy Partridge says:

      Excellent points, both. Where is this loan memorialized or recorded? What are the terms? What was the timing? Was he her direct supervisor at the time, and is that even permitted in the USA handbook?

      Abu Gonzales would be a good person to ask these questions — I’m sure he recalls all the answers….

    • bmaz says:

      Check the county recorders office for the county where the USA office is. This is what I found, but there is only evidence of the bank mortgage so far as I can tell. I have seen your investigative skills before, you blow me away, so take a look.

      • fatster says:

        Eeeeeek! How’d she ever manage to borrow all that money? Lotsa money.

        Here’s a picture of her and Christie (bottom of page). U.S. Attorney Addresses Political Corruption, Terrorism Appropriate title, no?

  4. runfastandwin says:

    If Corzine can’t beat this goomba going away, there’s no hope for the NJ Democratic party. They might as well give up and let some new blood take over.

  5. JimWhite says:

    Christie’s resignation was effective December 1, 2008. If the loan took place after he resigned, then there is little or no interest: $499/month for all of 2009 through 2016 (until 2017?) comes to $47,904. Even with payments continuing through 2017, the interest would compute to well below market rates. If the loan goes back to Christie’s early tenure in early 2002, then the interest rate starts to make sense, but the conflict of interest for employment relations makes for a problem. Christie is in trouble no matter how this works out.

  6. marc says:

    This American Life had a hysterical/sad story of Chris Christie’s buffoonish prosecution of a 70 year old sad sack and not too bright Indian women’s clothing salesman for terrorism. Chris Christie was able to prove that the old man would, if a terrorist approached him, which they wouldn’t, so the government had to supply the terrorist. Provide weapons such as missiles and submarines, which he couldn’t, so after waiting almost 2 years the FBI got tired of his inability to actually supply weapons. The FBI arranged for Russian agents to contact him about a stinger missiles for sale,the very thing the government’s fake terrorist/informant was seeking to buy. So the government provided the fake missile from a phony arms dealers for for a not so bright Indian women’s clothing salesman to sale to the fake terrorist/informant. All of this only cost around a million or so dollars to accomplish.
    This keystone caper of an investigation and conviction is the number one resume item for Chris Christie’s run for governor. If he pads that resume a little further with a few more contrived cases I’m not surprised.

  7. ThingsComeUndone says:

    So how are we going to get some answers out of him on this question? And why is she still employed with this questionable loan when Monica Goodling handled hiring and firing being a Lesbian was enough to get you tanked.
    But taking a no interest loan from your boss who is thinking about running for governor?
    When you consider all the things the Dept of Justice can do to help win an election I’m sorry but either she transfers to another area away from Chris or she gets fired.

  8. prostratedragon says:

    [Um, as might somehow appear elsewhere on this blog,] I get a farthing under 5.5% p.a. using a standard 17B II. From the story, the loan sounds like a second mortgage which under the AUSA’s family circumstances especially, would be priced more like a subprime loan —higher.

    By 2007 sometime, both seconds and subprimes dried up abruptly and haven’t really recovered since, making the effective interest rate on one a very large number.

  9. Basharov says:

    My back of the envelope calculations show that she’s paying 3.2% per year for the loan. I’m assuming it’s a loan for 10 years, paid back at $499.22 per month, which means that she’ll have paid $59,906.40 at the end of the ten year term. She borrowed $46,000.00, so she’ll pay a total in interest of $13,906.40, which, divided by $46,000 equals .302313. Divide that total by 10 and you’ve got 0.032 which equals an interest rate of 3.2%.

    Not bad, especially when you consider that there don’t appear to be any collateral involved or a loan contract.

    I sure wish my boss would loan me (on just my signature — if even that was required) $46,000 for 10 years at 3.2% per annum (which, given the inflation that’s bound to occur by 2017, means she’s getting her money for almost free).

    It’s good to be the king.

Comments are closed.