She has been terminated. Under whose authority is she still employed? Sounds like you also believe in a 4th branch of government.

Is SCOTUS really going to define "for cause" regarding employment matters? That should be awesome for litigation across the Country.

If your boss terms you for cause, you do not have the right to keep showing up to work (trespassing), use company property (theft), and you certainly do not have a right to compensation as if you had not been terminated.

Also, as mentioned, Biden admin canned 3 at Pocahontas smoke signal. But you think because Trump did it then the Fed will lose credibility?

If anything, Trump continues to show why the Fed is not needed as it serves as some clubhouse for political friends to collect a check and notoriety whilst undoubtedly benefiting themselves and their friends through their MANIPULATION of the monetary policy.

Sorry, but the Goose has been Cook-ed.

The Fed is most definitely not part of the Executive Branch. Congress could not have been more explicit on that. So much uniformed swill in social media.

Samuel Alito said as much in the recent CFPB decision and in the Gwynne Wilcox case.

If we want to shake up the Fed, the lazy, useless fatasses in Congress need to step up.

So they are like the Library of Congress, Capitol Police, GAO and CBO? It's weird, I don't see them listed as such.

Windy City Ag said:

---

The Fed is most definitely not part of the Executive Branch. Congress could not have been more explicit on that. So much uniformed swill in social media.

Samuel Alito said as much in the recent CFPB decision and in the Gwynne Wilcox case.

If we want to shake up the Fed, the lazy, useless fatasses in Congress need to step up.

---

Then which branch does this "independent governmental agency" fall under?

Per the constitution there are only 3 branches of government.

jwhaby said:

---

94chem said:

---

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?

---

Third, we all know that Powell is keeping interest rates high for political purposes. It's funny that he didn't have a problem cutting rates for his buddy Biden before the election when inflation was higher than it is now. Also, the Fed Funds Rate is sitting at 4.5%, while the ECB is at 2%, the Bank of Japan is at 0.5%, and China is at 1.4%. Why should we be paying interest rates that are 2.25x-9x higher than the rest of the world? Don't you think that's unfairly burdening the interest carry on our national debt and throttling our economy?

---

You've posted a bunch of rates with no context as justification for a rate reduction here. Right now, the euro zone YoY inflation rate is 2%. If we were at 2%, then it would be a no brainer to lower rates. We are at or headed back above 3%. PPI is 3.3%. CPI is 2.7%. PCE is 2.7%. The measure the fed favors is Core PCE which is 2.96%! Apples and oranges. The bank of Japan is willing to fund the government - buy bonds, etc - and economy for literally no return, always have been. Take Japan out of any comparison. China?! LOL. China is a not a free market economy. They are a centrally planned dictatorship. They also lie through their teeth. Using China as a guide for what we should do is foolish.

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

So…. Is she gone or not? Trump says she's fired. She says she's not going anywhere. The Fed says she's still there.

"A Federal Reserve spokesperson has indicated that from the central bank's perspective, Cook's status as a governor is unchanged. The Fed, which is designed to be independent from political influence, will wait for a court ruling to determine the outcome."

I guess there will be a court that will ultimately have to decide? Is she still there until that decision?

---

Not gone.

The Supreme Court will likely have to weigh in on this. What was put forth is pretty skimpy . . it is just a "criminal referral" citing two documents that have not been analyzed against anything else. There has been no actual mortgage fraud investigation and no real due process

---

Bosses fire people for cause all the time. Due process plays no role in this. The ***** is a criminal.

Quote:

---

Per the constitution there are only 3 branches of government.

---

Here is how I read it.

Those three branches of government by design created the concept of independent agencies, mostly in the wake of the Great Depression.

FDR did not like it at all and tried the original "for cause" termination of Republican FTC chair William Humphrey, who had been appointed to the role by President Calvin Coolidge. Humphrey said "Yeah, no" and stayed in office and sued for back pay, eventually dying before his case reached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court finally came down with the Humphrey's Executor decision in 1935. It said Congress had the ability to create independent an agency that is:

Quote:

---

an independent, nonpartisan body of experts, charged with duties neither political nor executive, but predominantly quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative, and by the legislative history of the Act.

When Congress provides for the appointment of officers whose functions, like those of the Federal Trade Commissioners, are of Legislative and judicial quality, rather than executive, and limits the grounds upon which they may be removed from office

---

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/295/602/

The Fed fits squarely in this mode and by Supreme Court history is really an extension of Congress and not the executive branch. This was reaffirmed in the recent Gwynne Wilcox case.

Logos Stick said:

---

jwhaby said:

---

94chem said:

---

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?

---

Third, we all know that Powell is keeping interest rates high for political purposes. It's funny that he didn't have a problem cutting rates for his buddy Biden before the election when inflation was higher than it is now. Also, the Fed Funds Rate is sitting at 4.5%, while the ECB is at 2%, the Bank of Japan is at 0.5%, and China is at 1.4%. Why should we be paying interest rates that are 2.25x-9x higher than the rest of the world? Don't you think that's unfairly burdening the interest carry on our national debt and throttling our economy?

---

You've posted a bunch of rates with no context as justification for a rate reduction here. Right now, the EU YoY inflation rate is 2%. If we were at 2%, then it would be a no brainer to lower rates. We are at or headed back above 3%. PPI is 3.3%. CPI is 2.7%. PCE is 2.7%. The measure the fed favors is Core PCE which is 2.96%! Apples and oranges. The bank of Japan is willing to fund the government - buy bonds, etc - and economy for literally no return, always have been. Take Japan out of any comparison. China?! LOL. China is a not a free market economy. They are a centrally planned dictatorship. They also lie through their teeth. Using China as a guide for what we should do is foolish.

---

The EU inflation rate for July was 2.4% while the US was 2.7%. Not enough difference to justify a Fed funds rate that is 2.25x higher. A few more data points. The UK has a central bank interest rate of 4% and Canada is at 2.75%. Just admit it. Our interest rate is higher than other industrialized nations and it doesn't have anything to do with inflation.

What quasi legislative and or quasi judicial functions does the Fed Reserve carry out? Who sets monetary policy for the United States?

Heck, the Fed thinks itself independent from Congress and has said so repeatedly over the years. Congress has some oversight but it's more in the form of being kept updated.

The FTC by contrast was determined to have some "quasi" functions regarding informing Congress of laws that may be needed or changed and some judiciary by referrals.

Do the Fed Reserve get into that?

jwhaby said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

jwhaby said:

---

94chem said:

---

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?

---

Third, we all know that Powell is keeping interest rates high for political purposes. It's funny that he didn't have a problem cutting rates for his buddy Biden before the election when inflation was higher than it is now. Also, the Fed Funds Rate is sitting at 4.5%, while the ECB is at 2%, the Bank of Japan is at 0.5%, and China is at 1.4%. Why should we be paying interest rates that are 2.25x-9x higher than the rest of the world? Don't you think that's unfairly burdening the interest carry on our national debt and throttling our economy?

---

You've posted a bunch of rates with no context as justification for a rate reduction here. Right now, the EU YoY inflation rate is 2%. If we were at 2%, then it would be a no brainer to lower rates. We are at or headed back above 3%. PPI is 3.3%. CPI is 2.7%. PCE is 2.7%. The measure the fed favors is Core PCE which is 2.96%! Apples and oranges. The bank of Japan is willing to fund the government - buy bonds, etc - and economy for literally no return, always have been. Take Japan out of any comparison. China?! LOL. China is a not a free market economy. They are a centrally planned dictatorship. They also lie through their teeth. Using China as a guide for what we should do is foolish.

---

The EU inflation rate for July was 2.4% while the US was 2.7%. Not enough difference to justify a Fed funds rate that is 2.25x higher. A few more data points. The UK has a central bank interest rate of 4% and Canada is at 2.75%. Just admit it. Our interest rate is higher than other industrialized nations and it doesn't have anything to do with inflation.

---

The euro zone yoy inflation rate is 2% which is what the ECB uses to set their rates. I typed eu, but meant euro zone since that is what the ECB uses. There are countries that use the euro that are not part of the EU. You have to include it all. Feel free to educate yourself:

https://www.ecb.europa.eu/stats/macroeconomic_and_sectoral/hicp/html/index.en.html

There is no reason to lower rates right now. They are historically "normal" and we are well above our 2% target.

Windy City Ag said:

---

The Fed is most definitely not part of the Executive Branch.

---

False. Or are you claiming they fall under the Judicial?

All the left's arguments are Trump this and Trump that and a bunch of procedural BS. Let's dial up some Pepperidge Farm remembering.

- Remember in 2021 when two Fed regional bank presidents, Rosengren and Kaplan, were accused of insider type trading? While it never was specifically proven that what they did was or was not a form of trading that was against the law, they resigned because it was a bad look and so as not to cast bad light on their position or the Fed Reserve Bank. What a novel concept.

- Remember when the Fed kept interest rates low for Obama for 8 years, then Trump first took office in January of 2017 they immediately began raising rates regularly up through the end of 2019? I will tell you the other thing you don't remember, you don't remember hearing Trump grouse about it or try to influence the Fed then, because he didn't and he believed it was the right thing to do in that case.

- Remember when this so-called "non-political" Fed lowered interest rates last fall when inflation was higher to try to help Biden/Kamala (really, just a D) get re-elected? If not, this is your reminder.

- Remember when Trump implemented tariffs in his first term (while interest rates were going up as well) and there was NO inflation? Yet someone how the current Fed bedwetters are worried that tariffs this time will cause inflation.

There seems to be a convenient forgetting of historical facts and precedents that happened prior to January 21, 2025. Pepperidge Farms is here to help.

You forgot to add Clarida. The Dems railroaded 3 Fed governors on flimsy inside trading allegations that were subsequently determined to comply with ethics rules.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Also, as mentioned, Biden admin canned 3 at Pocahontas smoke signal. But you think because Trump did it then the Fed will lose credibility?

If anything, Trump continues to show why the Fed is not needed as it serves as some clubhouse for political friends to collect a check and notoriety whilst undoubtedly benefiting themselves and their friends through their MANIPULATION of the monetary policy.

Sorry, but the Goose has been Cook-ed.

---

When did this happen?

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Also, as mentioned, Biden admin canned 3 at Pocahontas smoke signal. But you think because Trump did it then the Fed will lose credibility?

If anything, Trump continues to show why the Fed is not needed as it serves as some clubhouse for political friends to collect a check and notoriety whilst undoubtedly benefiting themselves and their friends through their MANIPULATION of the monetary policy.

Sorry, but the Goose has been Cook-ed.

---

When did this happen?

---

As posted in the two posts above, Rosengren and Kaplan in 2021 and Clarida in 2022. Pocahantas exerted pressure on them for perceived shady trading during the pandemic. However, my personal opinion is it didn't take a Fed governor or bank president to realize the pandemic shutdown was going to be bad for the economy and they were not prohibited from trading.

Max Stonetrail said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Also, as mentioned, Biden admin canned 3 at Pocahontas smoke signal. But you think because Trump did it then the Fed will lose credibility?

If anything, Trump continues to show why the Fed is not needed as it serves as some clubhouse for political friends to collect a check and notoriety whilst undoubtedly benefiting themselves and their friends through their MANIPULATION of the monetary policy.

Sorry, but the Goose has been Cook-ed.

---

When did this happen?

---

As posted in the two posts above, Rosengren and Kaplan in 2021 and Clarida in 2022. Pocahantas exerted pressure on them for perceived shady trading during the pandemic. However, my personal opinion is it didn't take a Fed governor or bank president to realize the pandemic shutdown was going to be bad for the economy and they were not prohibited from trading.

---

Ah, yes seeing these now. Looks like they all voluntarily resigned (one citing health reasons and another a couple weeks before his term was up) but who knows what else was going on behind the scenes.

Either way in this case mortgage fraud certainly seems more than enough to be fired from an organization that's in charge of monetary policy. Not sure what grounds she would even attempt to fight it on if it's as cut and dry as the allegations make it sound like it is.

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Max Stonetrail said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Also, as mentioned, Biden admin canned 3 at Pocahontas smoke signal. But you think because Trump did it then the Fed will lose credibility?

If anything, Trump continues to show why the Fed is not needed as it serves as some clubhouse for political friends to collect a check and notoriety whilst undoubtedly benefiting themselves and their friends through their MANIPULATION of the monetary policy.

Sorry, but the Goose has been Cook-ed.

---

When did this happen?

---

As posted in the two posts above, Rosengren and Kaplan in 2021 and Clarida in 2022. Pocahantas exerted pressure on them for perceived shady trading during the pandemic. However, my personal opinion is it didn't take a Fed governor or bank president to realize the pandemic shutdown was going to be bad for the economy and they were not prohibited from trading.

---

Ah, yes seeing these now. Looks like they all voluntarily resigned (one citing health reasons and another a couple weeks before his term was up) but who knows what else was going on behind the scenes.

Either way in this case mortgage fraud certainly seems more than enough to be fired from an organization that's in charge of monetary policy. Not sure what grounds she would even attempt to fight it on if it's as cut and dry as the allegations make it sound like it is.

---

Don't you realize that Trump is a big meanie-head!?

In a court of law, that's a game changer. It's basically legal precedent.

Quote:

---

Not sure what grounds she would even attempt to fight it on if it's as cut and dry as the allegations make it sound like it is.

---

I think the legal argument is that hearsay from Bill Pulte is likely not enough to constitute "for cause." In that scenario, anyone could gin up any rumor as justification for a for cause termination.

Now if the DOJ comes with an actual case and the evidence is legit, she gone and rightly so.

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

Not sure what grounds she would even attempt to fight it on if it's as cut and dry as the allegations make it sound like it is.

---

I think the legal argument is that hearsay from Bill Pulte is likely not enough to constitute "for cause." In that scenario, anyone could gin up any rumor as justification for a for cause termination.

Now if the DOJ comes with an actual case and the evidence is legit, she gone and rightly so.

---

Is it hearsay if it is public records?

"For cause" doesn't require a criminal conviction; instead, it is a legal term of art usually in an employment setting that concerns the application of disciplinary action, up to & including termination.

In the present instance, the erroneous execution of mortgage documents, two weeks apart, is evidence of civil negligence at a minimum & certainly gross incompetence since her conduct could result in a criminal bank fraud conviction at the very worst.

Accordingly, Trump's action is lawful, as you don't want someone in charge of monetary policy who can't fill out a mortgage application correctly; the mere appearance of impropriety is enough, irrespective if it's criminal.

Quote:

---

Is it hearsay if it is public records?

---

if it is a select smattering of public records to allege fraud that does not hold up after a further vetting of all facts, than absolutely it is hearsay. Not saying that is the case here but all we have seen is a photo from Bill Pulte of two docs. She is still not the subject of a federal investigation and definitely not convicted so all we have is hearsay.

Now another and more troubling outcome is that the courts agree she might have done something but that something does not meet the definition of "for cause."

In that case the court kicks it back to the Fed who will likely have to discipline her directly even if Trump's attempted firing is shut down by the judicial branch.

Quote:

---

"For cause" doesn't require a criminal conviction; instead, it is a legal term of art usually in an employment setting that concerns the application of disciplinary action, up to & including termination.

---

No one knows what for cause actually means in this case but we do know that the Federal Housing Finance Agency nor the White House get to make that decision in a vacuum. The courts will ultimately address the validity of Trump's claim.

Quote:

---

the mere appearance of impropriety is enough, irrespective if it's criminal.

---

And this is where you go off the rails. If the mere appearance of impropriety is enough, due process does not exist.

This is just another in the many ugly, clumsy power grab moves that will set precedent that will likely backfire in the faces of those attempting x100 when they are out of power.

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

Not sure what grounds she would even attempt to fight it on if it's as cut and dry as the allegations make it sound like it is.

---

I think the legal argument is that hearsay from Bill Pulte is likely not enough to constitute "for cause." In that scenario, anyone could gin up any rumor as justification for a for cause termination.

Now if the DOJ comes with an actual case and the evidence is legit, she gone and rightly so.

---

This is how I see it. The law is clear the president can remove her "for cause."

A simple allegation where she hasn't even been indicted, much less convicted, wouldn't qualify as sufficient cause in my book. I realize it does in Trump's. Contrary to what some believe, the courts will have the final say here. Trump's opinion by itself won't stand.

If the media reports of her fraud are accurate, it will be confirmed by due process and so will her removal. Just going to take some time to play out. In the interim, I would bet a judge will keep her seated at the Fed.

Are you willing to extend this argument to Kaplan, Rosengren. And Clarida? They were literally railroaded without due process but had the balls to at least resign instead of the current DEI, plagiarist wonder who's currently on the chopping block.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

Not sure what grounds she would even attempt to fight it on if it's as cut and dry as the allegations make it sound like it is.

---

I think the legal argument is that hearsay from Bill Pulte is likely not enough to constitute "for cause." In that scenario, anyone could gin up any rumor as justification for a for cause termination.

Now if the DOJ comes with an actual case and the evidence is legit, she gone and rightly so.

---

This is how I see it. The law is clear the president can remove her "for cause."

A simple allegation where she hasn't even been indicted, much less convicted, wouldn't qualify as sufficient cause in my book. I realize it does in Trump's. Contrary to what some believe, the courts will have the final say here. Trump's opinion by itself won't stand.

If basic due process confirms that she committed fraud, then she should be removed from the Fed IMO.

If the media reports of her fraud are accurate, it will be confirmed and so will her removal. Just going to take some time to play out. In the interim, I would bet a judge will keep her seated at the Fed.

---

I understand what y'all are saying. Innocent until proven guilty.

There WAS a criminal referral. She should at the minimum be put on administrative leave until it is resolved.

If you report someone has been stealing from your company and you could only fire for cause and the police never did anything or took forever to bring charges? What then? They get to keep working for you because it hasn't been adjudicated?

Doesn't quite make sense to me.

Quote:

---

Are you willing to extend this argument to Kaplan, Rosengren. And Clarida? They were literally railroaded without due process but had the balls to at least resign instead of the current DEI, plagiarist wonder who's currently on the chopping block.

---

I don't see it as any different.

Those three all decided to step down immediately after the internal Fed watchdog flagged suspicious trading activity and wanted to have a conversation about it. They had the option to go through the process and keep their jobs and they all decided not to.

They were given due process options and all were ultimately exonerated by the Fed OIG. In Clarida's specific case, he had only two weeks left in his term and was already planning to step down and decided to just ignore the whole thing and return to academia.

will25u said:

---

Windy City Ag said:

---

The Fed is most definitely not part of the Executive Branch. Congress could not have been more explicit on that. So much uniformed swill in social media.

Samuel Alito said as much in the recent CFPB decision and in the Gwynne Wilcox case.

If we want to shake up the Fed, the lazy, useless fatasses in Congress need to step up.

---

Then which branch does this "independent governmental agency" fall under?

Per the constitution there are only 3 branches of government.

---

Also, how are Fed governors appointed? Super independent

Did Cook attempt to enter her place of work today? Or, is she purposely avoiding the office?

will25u said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

to take some time to play out. In the interim, I would bet a judge will keep her seated at the Fed.

---

---

---

I understand what y'all are saying. Innocent until proven guilty.

There WAS a criminal referral. She should at the minimum be put on administrative leave until it is resolved.

If you report someone has been stealing from your company and you could only fire for cause and the police never did anything or took forever to bring charges? What then? They get to keep working for you because it hasn't been adjudicated?

Doesn't quite make sense to me.

---

I think the courts will weigh what's the greater harm of either keeping her seated while the judicial process plays out, or making her sit in timeout during the interim?

It's pretty hard to make the case that someone who was nominated by a different president and confirmed by the Senate isn't capable of serving as a Fed governor while she's on trial for fraud that happened before she joined the Fed. Her attorney will argue the greater harm is to her if she's forced to sit and later proven innocent.

It's clear that Trump doesn't think she deserves to sit on the Fed because he's already decided to dismiss her.

But again, the final view will come down to how the courts see it, not Trump.

If she did commit fraud, I hope she gets sacked, along with Schiff, James, and all the other hypocritical Dems who waged unsuccessful lawfare on false grounds against Trump. That would be karma of the highest order!

Quote:

---

There WAS a criminal referral. She should at the minimum be put on administrative leave until it is resolved.

---

Except that criminal referrals are often just blunt political tools. The Democrats on the January 6th offered up criminal referrals for President Trump regarding his role in the trying to overturn the election. Most people saw that for what it was.

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Also, as mentioned, Biden admin canned 3 at Pocahontas smoke signal. But you think because Trump did it then the Fed will lose credibility?

If anything, Trump continues to show why the Fed is not needed as it serves as some clubhouse for political friends to collect a check and notoriety whilst undoubtedly benefiting themselves and their friends through their MANIPULATION of the monetary policy.

Sorry, but the Goose has been Cook-ed.

---

When did this happen?

---

Jan 20, 2021 to Jan 20, 2025.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

will25u said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

to take some time to play out. In the interim, I would bet a judge will keep her seated at the Fed.

---

---

---

I understand what y'all are saying. Innocent until proven guilty.

There WAS a criminal referral. She should at the minimum be put on administrative leave until it is resolved.

If you report someone has been stealing from your company and you could only fire for cause and the police never did anything or took forever to bring charges? What then? They get to keep working for you because it hasn't been adjudicated?

Doesn't quite make sense to me.

---

I think the courts will weigh what's the greater harm of either keeping her seated while the judicial process plays out, or making her sit in timeout during the interim?

It's pretty hard to make the case that someone who was nominated by a different president and confirmed by the Senate isn't capable of serving as a Fed governor while she's on trial for fraud that happened before she joined the Fed. Her attorney will argue the greater harm is to her if she's forced to sit and later proven innocent.

It's clear that Trump doesn't think she deserves to sit on the Fed because he's already decided to dismiss her.

But again, the final view will come down to how the courts see it, not Trump.

If she did commit fraud, I hope she gets sacked, along with Schiff, James, and all the other hypocritical Dems who waged unsuccessful lawfare on false grounds against Trump. That would be karma of the highest order!

---

Interesting. I guess I missed the Constitutional Org Chart that shows the Judiciary is above the Executive. Courts are NOT the final ruler of our Country. If anything, the Executive is.

Some of the "legal" takes on here feel like a poorly run HR department who think they are above the c-suite.

She listed two different homes on mortgage paperwork as her primary residence. As with Schiff, they have offered no explanation or defense. In true "i'm guilty" fashion, they instead attack the process as flawed.

She's toast. Cook-ed.

Funny to me that people think the courts are above the law. They are not. BTW - The same courts have held the Constitution is the law of the land. There is NOTHING constitutional about hamstringing POTUS from carrying out Article II powers until an Article III judge says its all good.

You option should you think POTUS is acting outside of the law is... wait for it cause it may come to you... its been talked about before... IMPEACHMENT.

If Dems want to impeach him over this political DEI hack who is too stupid or too crooked to fill out her mortgage paperwork in an honest way, then have at it. Add in impeachment for deporting Abrego-Garcia. Should work out well.

Secolobo said:

---

Pocahontas is crusading against @pulte. After melting down on MSNBC, she ran to CNN and used the same script.

Why doesn't Warren want blatant fraud exposed? Especially by someone working at the Federal Reserve?

Weird, I think this reaction warrants a closer look into her past. https://t.co/RSYGS8ymSA pic.twitter.com/A7dS8EHQap

— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) August 27, 2025

---

So, now all of the sudden Warren is worried about the unequal application of the rule of law?

Where was this worry when Trump got the crap sued out of him in the same way? Flynn?

Didn't Pocahontas say that no one is above the law?