Within weeks.

It's not like she was on year 25 of a mortgage on the home she now lives in part time and put primary on the recent one.

If I understand, within a matter of weeks she entered into two mortgages identifying both as primary. As Trump indicates, that's intentional and thus fraud.

She then rented out her second "permanent residence" home. This is clearly fraud as she didn't want to pay a higher interest rate nor put more money down for a rental property.

Is it murder? Of course not, but she lied and committed fraud and it's a perfect reason to get rid of her. Good day madam.

Whenever leftists bring out the "the courts will decide" card, it's because it's the only hope they have left.

What I want to know is, why do our resident leftists support crime and fraud?

And for all these mortgage related issues, it's not simply whether the mortgages were federally backed or in a federal program, in general providing false information to a bank can get the feds involved as the banking system is rightfully considered covered by interstate commerce.

And if they used a computer they bring in more federal charges.

She's toast. Send her on a mission trip to Uganda.

Señor Chang said:

---

Gigem314 said:

---

FlyRod said:

---

Oh my. Y'all enjoy the inflation and high borrowing costs that will result from this. Good luck to you.

---

Oh so after 4 years you finally care about inflation. How convenient.

---

When Biden was President:

Quote:

---

FlyRod
8:26p, 4/2/24


Grow a garden, learn to cook. If McDonalds prices get you down, try a little self-reliance.

---

When Trump is President:

---

They're so predictable. But it's what makes this place so entertaining.

redseven94 said:

---

Firing someone he has no authority to fire on charges that have not been adjudicated in any manner sounds suspect.

Tell me how I am wrong...:

---

We will see if the legal case proves authority or leads to her discharge. But that does not take away the crime that is clear. She just needs to be held accountable for her actions.

Quote:

---

"President Trump purported to fire me 'for cause' when no cause exists under the law, and he has no authority to do so," she said in a statement. "I will not resign

---

Oh no he din't

Oh looky! Abbe Lowell...

Well, if SCOTUS is consistent, then the Executive will have authority to remove her.

The good news is that we will get soon an official ruling on whether the Fed is Constitutional and under the executive branch or … not. https://t.co/J3V7JbNLnB

— Mollie (@MZHemingway) August 26, 2025

Apparently mortgage fraud is the new Resistance.

Pro-Tip:

A "for cause" firing does not need to be based on criminal conduct.

While criminal conduct would certainly qualify, any justifiable basis for termination will suffice without waiting for some possible future criminal proceeding.

When litigated, It is typically a…

— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) August 26, 2025

LMCane said:

---

Max Stonetrail said:

---

Krombopulos Michael said:

---

Facts don't matter.....Narrative only.

---

Along those lines, I find it interesting that all the reporting (especially on the left) is around "Can Trump do this" and "does Trump have the authority".

But, I haven't heard her or any of her surrogates deny she did it.

She should resign in disgrace.

---

she claims it was a mistake

so let's put the economic future of 330 million Americans into the hands of a woman

who can't remember she signed two mortgages stating BOTH were her primary residence!

---

Yeah and every person arrested for DUI last night would probably say it was a mistake. Mistakes have consequences.

A "mistake" (don't believe it for a second) like that should disqualify you from being a freaking governor of the Fed. Isn't the left always screaming about unqualified people being put in positions? I give you Exhibit A with an actual credible example of not being qualified.

of course DEI Fed Reserve pick is going to sue the US government.

her lawyer by coincidence happens to be Hunter Biden's lawyer.

so are we the US taxpayer now paying for Abbe Lowell's 6th mansion?!

Popcorn gif

DEI hire too stupid to remember where she lives -or- just trying to save money while she collects rental fees. Hmmmmm

redseven94 said:

---

Firing someone he has no authority to fire on charges that have not been adjudicated in any manner sounds suspect.

Tell me how I am wrong...:

---

Uhhh, try reading the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

"and thereafter each member shall hold office for a term of fourteen years from the expiration of the term of his predecessor, unless sooner removed for cause by the President."

There is absolutely nothing in the act that requires adjudication by a court of law to determine cause. It is up to the President. Yes, it may be gray, but I submit that if direct evidence of mortgage fraud indicated by two signed documents in two states within two weeks of each other doesn't constitute cause, NOTHING does.

So, he does have the authority, and there is where you are wrong.

KerrAg76 said:

---

DEI hire too stupid to remember where she lives -or- just trying to save money while she collects rental fees. Hmmmmm

---

Nope, she's OWED the better interest rate in her mind as part of reparations.

jwhaby said:

---

94chem said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Signing two different mortgage notes within 30 days of eachother, both attesting that they will be your primary residence, is way, way, way worse than any statement that might have inflated the opinion of value of a property you held.

---

Is it? I mean, I don't know how to rank these things. I mean, I can't claim real estate depreciation on my taxes because I make $150K, but he can lie about his real estate value to get better terms. Rules for thee... Is it worse than calling hush money to your side piece a business expense?

---

Real estate valuations are subjective if they're not part of a transaction between a willing seller and a willing buyer. That's why the lender on a mortgage will order an appraisal to estimate the value of the underlying collateral. It doesn't matter what the borrower thinks his asset is worth, only the lender's opinion counts. Also, Trump can't claim depreciation on an estimated value that he made up, so you can rest assured.

---

First, you don't seriously believe that Trump went through the same appraisal process that you or I would go through, do you? The court documents explain this clearly.

Second, I'm not saying thar Trump claimed depreciation on exaggerated base values. I'm merely saying that the Trump tax code punishes middle class real estate owners with small portfolios by making it difficult to deal with negative cash flow early in their ownership phase. It's very difficult to justify an otherwise good investment if you can't monetize increased equity or deduct operating losses.

Third, all of this is moot. We all know that POTUS is firing people so he can control interest rates. Is that really what you want?

It is not remotely gray. Even a dumbass can understand that lying on a mortgage application, violating the law, is a great reason someone should not be on a powerful board overseen by the POTUS. This woman is a clown, and a great representation of the marxist democrat party.

94chem said:

---

First, you don't seriously believe that Trump went through the same appraisal process that you or I would go through, do you? The court documents explain this clearly.

---

I do. And I know Trump literally had nothing to do with any of this personally.

The judge is a liar and a partisan hack who should be disbarred for using his position to trample all over the constitutional rights of a defendant for political reasons.

94chem said:

---

First, you don't seriously believe that Trump went through the same appraisal process that you or I would go through, do you? The court documents explain this clearly.

Second, I'm not saying thar Trump claimed depreciation on exaggerated base values. I'm merely saying that the Trump tax code punishes middle class real estate owners with small portfolios by making it difficult to deal with negative cash flow early in their ownership phase. It's very difficult to justify an otherwise good investment if you can't monetize increased equity or deduct operating losses.

Third, all of this is moot. We all know that POTUS is firing people so he can control interest rates. Is that really what you want?

---

First, Trump essentially goes through the same process where another party (here a bank and their appraiser) reviews the property and determines a market value - an appraisal if you will. When you take out a home loan or credit for a new pit bull, then lender evaluates your assets, the collateral and ability to repay. So it seriously is the same process.

Second, no idea what you are trying to say. How does the middle class get punished v Trump?

Third, no credibility when you go this route. This lady VIOLATED THE LAW by LYING / FALSIFYING financial documents to achieve a lower interest rate and undermine the lending process in the United States, doing so as she sits on the board of a select few who have an incredible amount of influence on the viability of our Country, its economy and on the fiscal lives of its citizens.

But yea, its just political. Her defiance and engagement of Abbe Lowell shows her true colors. She is the one making it political. Trump, as always, follows the law.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

It is not remotely gray. Even a dumbass can understand that lying on a mortgage application, violating the law, is a great reason someone should not be on a powerful board overseen by the POTUS. This woman is a clown, and a great representation of the marxist democrat party.

---

Totally agree. My use of the term "gray" was specifically in regard that there is no definition within the Act that defines "cause". Therefore, it becomes the basis of Lowell's defense of Cook.

No doubt he - and she - will ultimately lose - bigly. But we will likely have to suffer through a couple of rounds of partisan District Judge TRO's/injunctions before we get there.

Rest assured no matter how this comes out, the Dems and their marketing arm the MSM will find a way to tie it to struggling home buyers.

Be prepared for a litany of stories across all networks locally and nationally (using the same message but different words this time b/c they learned not to do that after covid) about how home buyers are struggling and this one single member of the board was going to fix all that.

flown-the-coop said:

---

TRM said:

---

He does have the authority to remove them, but the statute is vague as to what constitutes "for cause". So we can argue over just being charged or the case must be settled, but ultimately SCOTUS is going to determine her fate.

---

SCOTUS has no role. She is under the executive. He is in charge of the executive. He has acted in accordance with the law set forth by Congress.

The only legal issue for a court to determine was whether or not he needed a reason.

It's not up to a court to define the meaning of "for cause" when Congress failed to define it.

---

You basically said SCOTUS will get involved.

agracer said:

---

Rest assured no matter how this comes out, the Dems and their marketing arm the MSM will find a way to tie it to struggling home buyers.

Be prepared for a litany of stories across all networks locally and nationally (using the same message but different words this time b/c they learned not to do that after covid) about how home buyers are struggling and this one single member of the board was going to fix all that.

---

Oh no! A litany of stories across ALL networks THAT NOBODY WATCHES ANYMORE. This is why Dems continue to lose...they are playing by the old rules they think still apply.

They keep going back to their same legacy media contacts to plant stories and shape narratives that only reach those that are already indoctrinated.

Sims said:

---

Why juice the economy when inflation is still above the Fed target and unemployment is near full employment?

Do we just hate stable currency value that much?

(Yes, I fully admit that the measurements are flawed...but if they exist and are going to be a basis for the monetary policy we like...why not pay attention to them when they support the monetary policy we don't like)

---

I have worked in real estate for 40 years. I have seen the bad times, the good times, the so-so times, and the great times. Right now, I would say the real estate sector is lodged between so-so and bad times. You can't have basically free money for the better part of a decade and then jack the rates up so much that it almost shuts it down an entire sector. You basically have what amounts to the Fed picking winners and losers and the Fed pretty much said the for the last 3 years is "real estate sector - you lose. Credit card companies - you win."

Get the Fed fund rate to 2.5% to 3.0% and watch what happens. You take pressure off of consumers who have used their credit cards to finance their lives. You get lower auto interest rates and lower mortgage rates. People then can buy cars and housing.

Sgt. Schultz said:

---

Sims said:

---

Why juice the economy when inflation is still above the Fed target and unemployment is near full employment?

Do we just hate stable currency value that much?

(Yes, I fully admit that the measurements are flawed...but if they exist and are going to be a basis for the monetary policy we like...why not pay attention to them when they support the monetary policy we don't like)

---

I have worked in real estate for 40 years. I have seen the bad times, the good times, the so-so times, and the great times. Right now, I would say the real estate sector is lodged between so-so and bad times. You can't have basically free money for the better part of a decade and then jack the rates up so much that it almost shuts it down an entire sector. You basically have what amounts to the Fed picking winners and losers and the Fed pretty much said the for the last 3 years is "real estate sector - you lose. Credit card companies - you win."

Get the Fed fund rate to 2.5% to 3.0% and watch what happens. You take pressure off of consumers who have used their credit cards to finance their lives. You get lower auto interest rates and lower mortgage rates. People then can buy cars and housing.

---

FED lowering their short-term rate doesn't affect the 10-year and 30-year bond market. In fact, those would likely "revolt" should the FED lower rates by moving higher and punishing borrowers more.

Other than that, agree with you.

Good catch. Evidently left brain was not in agreement with right brain. They sorted it out now.

Do you think homes are currently overpriced? If yes, then should lower interest rates to accomodate the prices rather than letting prices correct?

ETA:

Quote:

---

You can't have basically free money for the better part of a decade

---

I'm going to take a wild guess and assume that you thought the decade of free money resulted in a great real estate market. So while we're discussing picking winners and losers...

Quote:

---

You take pressure off of consumers who have used their credit cards to finance their lives.

---

Sounds to me like consumers were making choices to live beyond their means and it caught up. Doesn't seem to be monetary policy's fault.

Quote:

---

You get lower auto interest rates and lower mortgage rates. People then can buy cars and housing.

---

Sometimes people buy cars and houses they can afford even at today's rates.

At the end of the day, low rates forgive bad behavior and higher rates require more prudent choices.

Quote:

---

Do you think homes are currently overpriced? If yes, then should lower interest rates to accomodate the prices rather than letting prices correct?

---

Even more unsustainable market manipulation by our government. What can go wrong?

YouBet said:

---

FlyRod said:

---

Oh my. Y'all enjoy the inflation and high borrowing costs that will result from this. Good luck to you.

---

Do you even what causes inflation?

---

Or high borrowing costs...

Shes been fired. They need to frog march her ass right out the door in cuffs for trespassing on federal property after deleting her online credentials.

flown-the-coop said:

---

It's not up to a court to define the meaning of "for cause" when Congress failed to define it.

---

Um. Are you sure about that? I thought that this was exactly the courts job.

BusterAg said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

It's not up to a court to define the meaning of "for cause" when Congress failed to define it.

---

Um. Are you sure about that? I thought that this was exactly the courts job.

---

Who gives the authority for that to the judiciary?

Judgment calls are the exclusive purview of the Executive.

People give way too much reverence to the courts. They have shown pretty readily they are not worthy of that respect.

Just like in declaring an emergency, deciding to use the military and firing federal executive employees for cause is up to POTUS.

flown-the-coop said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

It's not up to a court to define the meaning of "for cause" when Congress failed to define it.

---

Um. Are you sure about that? I thought that this was exactly the courts job.

---

Who gives the authority for that to the judiciary?

Judgment calls are the exclusive purview of the Executive.

People give way too much reverence to thediligence,

ey have shown pretty readily they are not worthy of that respect.

Just like in declaring an emergency, deciding to use the military and firing federal executive employees for cause is up to POTUS.

---

It is my understanding that it is the courts job to interprete the law. Interpreting what "for cause" means, to me, falls under interpreting the law, since the "for cause" term is part of a statute.

The courts used to have to give deference to executive agencies when interpreting statutes. Not anymore. I guess your AI forgot to read Loper Bright.

Tl;dr - Article III

I don't use AI.

Again, I don't see a role for the courts to define "for cause".

It's a pretty established concept both in plain language and legally what for cause means.

Lying on submission of information falling under federal law qualifies.

The courts should NOT be able to define the threshold. If it's vague, then it's up to POTUS.

Trump is not establishing some new law or procedure here that Congress did not intend. In fact, the courts if they looked at legislative intent should conclude Congress left that judgment to the Executive by not defining "for cause".

Courts do not have carte Blanche to dream up definitions and intents. They should refuse to hear any challenge. Again, for cause is defined and understood. No need for any judicial clarification.