MemphisAg1 said:

---

We're better off with rates determined by a bunch of nerdy, smart people than a politician demanding something in the moment to please a segment of his voting base.

---

So, we are in agreement. Powell, that politician demanding something in the moment to please a segment of his boss' voting base, needs to be fired.

To that point, there is so much actual talent out there that Lisa Cook should never have sniffed anything at a bank past teller.

I am not a Powell fan but did speak with someone who has dealt with him which I shared previously. Powells main fallacy is being too late, wanting to "wait and see" too much, particularly for Trump. Is Powell always wrong? No, but he is almost always late.

I think being late right now HELPS Trump in 2026. Dry powder and such if needed.

samurai_science said:

---

https://www.takimag.com/article/half-cooked-data/

"What if, instead of having made an epochal discovery, Cook is mostly just confused?"

Bascially, shes a fraud, or stupid, or both.

---

Just needs the right Dr to declare her unfit...

LMCane said:

---

rate cuts here we come!!

---

Needed.

AggieVictor10 said:

---

LMCane said:

---

rate cuts here we come!!

---

Needed.

---

They were needed 6 months ago.

Powell is an idiot. Even worse, an arrogant, political idiot.

4 said:

---

AggieVictor10 said:

---

LMCane said:

---

rate cuts here we come!!

---

Needed.

---

They were needed 6 months ago.

Powell is an idiot. Even worse, an arrogant, political idiot.

---

What do you think we gain with rate cuts?
Just curious.

4 said:

---

AggieVictor10 said:

---

LMCane said:

---

rate cuts here we come!!

---

Needed.

---

They were needed 6 months ago.

Powell is an idiot. Even worse, an arrogant, political idiot.

---

Lol, not gonna disagree. Not a fan of potential inflationary effects but I think capitalizing on the short term gains would help insulate me from any potential long term consequences.

KerrAg76 said:

---

Seems like a lot of democrats have cheated on legal documents

---

And also Ken Paxton

Changes in interest rate policy have a lagging effect.

By the time Powell figures out they are needed, they are 6 months overdue.

We need a Fed president that understands how to get out in the front of recession/inflation.

There's nothing that says he can't reverse policy 90 days after he makes it if needed.

The guy is the prototypical engineer / accountant.

He has to analyze every single variable add infinitum before he can make a decision, and by the time he's done analyzing them all, one or two of them have changed so he has to start all over again.

The guy could never own a business.

Out the commie crook.

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...:

---

Maybe we start with your weird notion that you can't fire someone unless it is for an
event or cause that has been litigated and adjudicated.

suburban cowboy said:

---

you're fired

---

There needs to be a lot more of this firing business.

Good point from Bessent:

🚨 JUST IN: SCOTT BESSENT excoriates Democrat Fed Governor Lisa Cook for refusing to let President Trump fire her after she committed mortgage fraud pic.twitter.com/HjmDAK5Lj0

“We haven’t heard her say ‘I didn’t do it!’ She just keeps saying the president can’t remove her.”

“If a…

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) August 27, 2025

Quote:

---

She has argued that the president has no authority to fire her, and that she's filing suitagainst the administration.

But Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told Fox News Business' Maria Bartiromo Wednesday that there's one notable thing that Cook hasn't saidthat she's innocent.

Quote:

---

There are two kinds of people there are people who think that President Trump is putting undue pressure on the Fed, and there are people like President Trump and myself who think that if a Fed official committed mortgage fraud, that this should be examined, and that they shouldn't be serving as one of the nation's leading financial regulators.

And what we haven't heard from Miss Cook is we haven't heard her say "I didn't do it." We haven't her say "I didn't do it."

---

---

"For good cause" is a common legal term and has a long history of case law surrounding it.

It is odd that some appear to believe that "good cause" needs to be specifically defined as to the very limited fact pattern of removing Federal Reserve members.

That's not how the law works.

Now, an employee can refuse to believe that "good cause" was used properly by the employer and they can sue. That should be where this case lies.

But, good cause is a commonly used legal term with extensive history surrounding it.

This fat *****'s personal property should be sitting by the curb this morning.

Yes. Claiming the boss is wrong about 'for good cause' doesn't mean the firing is stayed pending litigation, it gives a right to the due process provided by statute(s). She is fired, end of story, and her clearance/communications devices should have been turned off since that happened.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

This fat *****'s personal property should be sitting by the curb this morning.

---

I'm quite sure her system userid has been disabled. If they have unique personal physical passes, that has also been disabled. They can box up any of her personal crap and leave it at the gate.

The conservative paper in New York is not impressed. This isn't the NY Times, a liberal rag. It's the NY Post, which almost always take a conservative view counter to the Times.

Quote:

---

We're not seeing much upside in President Donald Trump's bid to fire Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve Board, just a lot of risk.

For starters, he seems to have chosen needlessly weak grounds: The "cause" he says he's axing her for consists of allegations from Bill Pulte, the Federal Housing Finance Agency chief, that Cook in 2021 fraudulently claimed two separate properties as her "primary residence" to get better loan terms.

The prez didn't even wait for Attorney General Pam Bondi to act on Pulte's criminal referral with an investigation, let alone charges.

---

https://nypost.com/2025/08/27/opinion/trumps-fed-board-firing-comes-with-a-rising-rate-of-risk/

4 said:

---

AggieVictor10 said:

---

LMCane said:

---

rate cuts here we come!!

---

Needed.

---

They were needed 6 months ago.

Powell is an idiot. Even worse, an arrogant, political idiot.

---

I disagree. Powell is not an idiot. This is purposeful on his part. Anything to sabotage President Trump is not too far. Apparently at least one of President Trump's advisors steered him wrong (purposefully also?) when it was appointment time in his first term.

🚨 JUST IN: The markets have GAINED ever since President Trump announced the firing of Democrat Fed Governor Lisa Cook - the exact opposite of what the experts said. Imagine that.

Jerome Powell critic and Trump ally JAMES FISHBACK: "Everyone was saying last week that if Trump… pic.twitter.com/Xi5WLKU9NR

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) August 27, 2025

Troy91 said:

---

"For good cause" is a common legal term and has a long history of case law surrounding it.

It is odd that some appear to believe that "good cause" needs to be specifically defined as to the very limited fact pattern of removing Federal Reserve members.

That's not how the law works.

Now, an employee can refuse to believe that "good cause" was used properly by the employer and they can sue. That should be where this case lies.

But, good cause is a commonly used legal term with extensive history surrounding it.

---

You are saying two very conflicting things. So if it is a "common legal term" with a "long history of case law surrounding it" then why in the hell can it not be specifically defined?

If I am an employer, how is it an acceptable risk to me that I may be able to terminate employment for good cause, but I may still be liable because it is a common legal term with a long history of case law but one cannot have a definition of right v. wrong, good v. bad; just v. unjust.

You are correct in saying that is NOT how the law works. And here we are dealing with the term "for cause" and not "just cause" or "good cause", further clouding the legal take you propose.

Noctilucent said:

---

I disagree. Powell is not an idiot. This is purposeful on his part. Anything to sabotage President Trump is not too far. Apparently at least one of President Trump's advisors steered him wrong (purposefully also?) when it was appointment time in his first term.

---

Its purposeful, and he may not like Trump, but again I think his delay is part of his "strategy" of keeping powder dry. This guy would lose a battle then brag to the public about the munitions and powder he saved all of us.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

The opinion section conservative paper in New York is not impressed. This isn't the NY Times, a liberal rag. It's the NY Post, which almost always take a conservative view counter to the Times.

Quote:

---

We're not seeing much upside in President Donald Trump's bid to fire Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve Board, just a lot of risk.

For starters, he seems to have chosen needlessly weak grounds: The "cause" he says he's axing her for consists of allegations from Bill Pulte, the Federal Housing Finance Agency chief, that Cook in 2021 fraudulently claimed two separate properties as her "primary residence" to get better loan terms.

The prez didn't even wait for Attorney General Pam Bondi to act on Pulte's criminal referral with an investigation, let alone charges.

---

https://nypost.com/2025/08/27/opinion/trumps-fed-board-firing-comes-with-a-rising-rate-of-risk/

---

Its from the Editorial Board in the opinion section and as far as I can tell is an unsigned article. Not very strong and certainly not the "see guys, even the NY Post conservatives say its bad". #misleading

MemphisAg1 said:

---

The conservative paper in New York is not impressed. This isn't the NY Times, a liberal rag. It's the NY Post, which almost always take a conservative view counter to the Times.

Quote:

---

We're not seeing much upside in President Donald Trump's bid to fire Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve Board, just a lot of risk.

For starters, he seems to have chosen needlessly weak grounds: The "cause" he says he's axing her for consists of allegations from Bill Pulte, the Federal Housing Finance Agency chief, that Cook in 2021 fraudulently claimed two separate properties as her "primary residence" to get better loan terms.

The prez didn't even wait for Attorney General Pam Bondi to act on Pulte's criminal referral with an investigation, let alone charges.

---

https://nypost.com/2025/08/27/opinion/trumps-fed-board-firing-comes-with-a-rising-rate-of-risk/

---

I'm not going to venture a guess about the upside vs the risk involved in this move, but the underlying premise that Trump should wait for Bondi to move is a head scratcher to me. How many discharges "for cause" in the real world depend on the place of employment waiting for a criminal prosecution to be initiated before the firing? I know a lot of for cause firings occur after criminal charges have been brought, but a company which is aware of activities which might also constitute criminal activity are poorly led if they wait for an AG or DA to move before they themselves act.

Who cares? She's a criminal accused of a financial crime. She should not be employed anywhere within the federal government. On top of that, her bonfides are social, not financial. No brainer. Shes fired.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Who cares? She's a criminal accused of a financial crime. She should not be employed anywhere within the federal government. On top of that, her bonfides are social, not financial. No brainer. Shes fired.

---

Don't let facts get in the way. Her alleged crime hasn't even been investigated, much less indicted, or convicted.

I'm pushing back on the lack of due process here and people rushing to judgment just because somebody said something about her in the media. I didn't like it when people did it to Trump, and I don't like it when he does it to others.

Frankly, her pedigree doesn't impress me and her politics don't align with mine. But I also believe in doing things the right way and not yielding to emotional, knee-jerk reactions. I realize there are some Trump supporters who will rubber stamp everything he does simply because he said so. I'm not one of them.

People who exercise authority capriciously tend to lose support over time.

She just filed suit. I'll bet the judge says she's not fired until due process runs its course. But I could be wrong and will admit it if that's the case.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Noctilucent said:

---

I disagree. Powell is not an idiot. This is purposeful on his part. Anything to sabotage President Trump is not too far. Apparently at least one of President Trump's advisors steered him wrong (purposefully also?) when it was appointment time in his first term.

---

Its purposeful, and he may not like Trump, but again I think his delay is part of his "strategy" of keeping powder dry. This guy would love a battle then brag to the public about the munitions and powder he saved all of us.

---

"Don't know. Got to do with where choo choo go. Mongo only pawn in the game of life."

Scott Bessent has a husband and 2 adopted little boys. He needs to follow her out the door.

Quote:

---

Don't let facts get in the way. Her alleged crime hasn't even been investigated, much less indicted, or convicted.

I'm pushing back on the lack of due process here and people rushing to judgment just because somebody said something about her in the media. I didn't like it when people did it to Trump, and I don't like it when he does it to others.

---

This pins down the absolutely hypocritical degree of cognitive dissonance on display by the Trump Maga Crowd.

If legal shade is thrown at one of your team, the paranoia kicks in and you can dismiss it all just a fake, nefarious plot by unnamed non-existent deep state actors.

But if the charges are leveled by your fellow MAGA folks, they are then grounds for instant termination.

Such flimsy, illogical nonsense.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Who cares? She's a criminal accused of a financial crime. She should not be employed anywhere within the federal government. On top of that, her bonfides are social, not financial. No brainer. Shes fired.

---

Don't let facts get in the way. Her alleged crime hasn't even been investigated, much less indicted, or convicted.

I'm pushing back on the lack of due process here and people rushing to judgment just because somebody said something about her in the media. I didn't like it when people did it to Trump, and I don't like it when he does it to others.

Frankly, her pedigree doesn't impress me and her politics don't align with mine. But I also believe in doing things the right way and not yielding to emotional, knee-jerk reactions. I realize there are some Trump supporters who will rubber stamp everything he does simply because he said so. I'm not one of them.

People who exercise authority capriciously tend to lose support over time.

She just filed suit. I'll bet the judge says she's not fired until due process runs its course. But I could be wrong and will admit it if that's the case.

---

It doesn't matter if what she did was a crime or if it has been investigated. Is the only way to remove her from office is to go through a trial convict her of a crime??? That is absurd.

It would clearly be out of bounds for a Fed Reserve Governor to have done what she is accused of. If she didn't do it, then she could clear this up right now with the documents showing she didn't do what is being alleged. That would actually be a better way for the left to prove that Trump is trying to put his thumb on the Fed scale - show he is just making stuff up.

If I fired an employee for doing something wrong and they had not done it, they would be screaming to high heaven that they didn't do it and probably go to lengths to prove it. That is not the case here. This is more of a "Yeah, I did it, and I am going to use the courts to stick it to you and avoid consequences. And, I'd do it again just to spite you" feel.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Troy91 said:

---

"For good cause" is a common legal term and has a long history of case law surrounding it.

It is odd that some appear to believe that "good cause" needs to be specifically defined as to the very limited fact pattern of removing Federal Reserve members.

That's not how the law works.

Now, an employee can refuse to believe that "good cause" was used properly by the employer and they can sue. That should be where this case lies.

But, good cause is a commonly used legal term with extensive history surrounding it.

---

You are saying two very conflicting things. So if it is a "common legal term" with a "long history of case law surrounding it" then why in the hell can it not be specifically defined?

If I am an employer, how is it an acceptable risk to me that I may be able to terminate employment for good cause, but I may still be liable because it is a common legal term with a long history of case law but one cannot have a definition of right v. wrong, good v. bad; just v. unjust.

You are correct in saying that is NOT how the law works. And here we are dealing with the term "for cause" and not "just cause" or "good cause", further clouding the legal take you propose.

---

Case law definitions of terms is not equivalent to you looking up a one sentence answer in a dictionary.

Most legal definitions are very fact specific. That's why you pay attorneys to help you make your best guess on what "good cause" means to your company.

You also need to remember that being correct legally has nothing to with being sued or legal fees.

When a company makes a "good cause" finding in taking an employment action, it means that they are comfortable litigating that decision. It does not mean that the decision will never be challenged.

You also might not be aware that I believe that the facts in this case would constitute a good cause separation. And, that I also believe that courts will be the ultimate arbiters of whether or not that standard was met with this fact pattern.

5Amp said:

---

Scott Bessent has a husband and 2 adopted little boys. He needs to follow her out the door.

---

He's a fat ***** too. His stuff needs to be thrown to the curb.