aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Do you guys actually think this is some major crime? Could definitely reveal a character flaw and if trump did it I'd certainly point it out but would not remotely expect anything to come of it.

---

Remember the plotline from the Tom Cruise movie, The Firm? Mortgage fraud usually involves wire fraud. mail fraud and FDIC insured bank fraud. Those federal statutes have teeth as far as potential large fines and prison time. Also could have an income tax and or property tax fraud issues.

If the feds wish to dogpile on her, there are plenty of associated charges they can attach if they look for them.

---

If she used a computer and the interest savings were more than $5,000 over 12 months, she has federal charges coming under the Computer Act of… 1986.

That $5,000 mark over a year adds another federal charge which may have been what you are getting at.

Mortgage fraud and lying to banks is a major offense.

Hell, I have been told having an opinion on the value of your properties that differs from some future AGs opinion can result in a half a billion dollar fine and forfeiture
Of your businesses.

I have met with FBI agents a few times to report crimes. When I was presenting the evidence I had for other crimes, the agent was going through it (bank records) and announced three or four other crimes that hadn't even occurred to me. That's what they used to do, look for crimes.

flown-the-coop said:

---

She has no right or legal case to retain her job.

Any other legal matter is indeed for the courts. But here, she has no legal basis to challenge the decision of the Executive regarding a power and authority the Executive has under the Constitution.

---

We pointed this out earlier... Trump's ability to remove her isn't a constitutional power. It is expressly defined in the legislation that established the Federal Reserve, where he can remove a member for cause. Like any other legislation, it's implementation is subject to judicial review to confirm the executive's action is consistent with the law.

He very well might get what he wants, but the courts will have the last say.

I don't know why you keep going back to "the constitution" when it's not a right enshrined in the constitution.

Almost committed a federal crime once when an employee attached a report showing the weather for Liverpool, England v Liverpool, TX.

Per the form I sign, I attest all information true and accurate.

chap said:

---

CNN has seen the docs.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/25/business/fed-governor-lisa-cook-what-we-know

Quote:

---

A CNN review of mortgage documents shows that Cook did take out mortgages for two properties, both of which were listed as her principal residence. However, it's not known why she did so or if she did so intentionally.

---

---

It doesn't matter. Zero. At all.

Reminds me of Timothy "turbo tax" Geithner, Hillary Clinton. Looks like the old Democrat "I regret my mistake" and "at this point what does it matter" defense is alive and well.

So, every time she makes a payment, ACH or check, to the company she defrauded before her Fed term, she's committing another fraud (ie The Firm)?

Wrong. Congress can either define for cause more specifically, but since they didn't the judgment call rests with the Executive.

Else, you have a judiciary that for whatever reason says "well, we hear ya Orange Man, but we don't think it meets this undefined threshold we just made up.

If you don't like the DECISIONS of POTUS then you don't get to got to the judiciary to overrule him. If that were the case, then we no longer have co-equal branches.

I struggle with how you fail to understand that. I even linked a Columbia Law Review article detailing what unsettled area this is and even more because Fed Reserve has even less language than let's say the FTC on what for cause means.

Why do people still believe SCOTUS is the final answer? For ordinary citizens and everyone but POTUS is essentially is. For POTUS, it is not.

Does he need to seek court approval to fly to Nebraska on a Tuesday?

He has the power, the authority. She can sue for wrongful termination, but she is not employed and not getting her job back (unless Trump says so).

Are you guys lawyers? I sure hope not.

bqce said:

---

So, every time she makes a payment, ACH or check, to the company she defrauded before her Fed term, she's committing another fraud (ie The Firm)?

---

If the feds want to get overly aggressive? Yep. Separate offenses. Chain together enough separate offenses, then one gets into a whole other federal territory.

I am not advocating for this but just saying that could happen. I don't like overcharging just because they can but fact remains...they can...if they want to.

But this fact remains. She's at the Fed Reserve. She knows the rules that are under her supervision, banks. She knew it was bank fraud. And if she didn't, she's incompetent for that job.

I'll let it rest, as beating my head against the wall would feel better than this.

I've got news for you though... her removal will be reviewed by a judge tomorrow. We'll see what the outcome is, but any notion that a judge can't review it is proven wrong because it is happening.

Sure, I can file a suit tomorrow saying you hurt my feelings. And a judge will review it and dismiss it if they follow the law.

If this judge does anything other than that, really what they should have already done, is say POTUS was within the powers afforded to him in the Constitution and the Federal Reserve Act to terminate the Fed Governor for cause."

They don't get to have an opinion on what makes up for cause. I guess they could say that POTUS has to provide A reason. But that don't get to make a judgment call on whether it was a "good enough" reason.

Was his reason provided and was it factual? Yes. Goodbye Ms Cook.

t - cam said:

---

Prosperdick said:

---

t - cam said:

---

Prosperdick said:

---

I'd love to know how many libs or CM's think she didn't list both properties as her primary (home) address and this is just a witch hunt by Orange Man Bad similar to the witch hunt against poor Maryland Man.

---

I'm sure she did. I also work in this industry and know it happens all the time and is relatively easy to get away with if you can produce utility bills from the property.

This is like the lowest level financial crime that there could ever be.

---

Lowest level financial crime? If Trump did it I wonder how you'd characterize it.

---

Do you guys actually think this is some major crime? Could definitely reveal a character flaw and if trump did it I'd certainly point it out but would not remotely expect anything to come of it.

---

So you don't think it's a major crime, but you'd "certainly point it out" if Trump did it? Why? Do you believe in double standards and 2 tiered justice? The severity of the crime depends on who committed it?

MemphisAg1 said:

---

I'll let it rest, as beating my head against the wall would feel better than this.

I've got news for you though... her removal will be reviewed by a judge tomorrow. We'll see what the outcome is, but any notion that a judge can't review it is proven wrong because it is happening.

---

Maybe someday...you will realize that "the wall" you are beating your head against" is you own construction.

I have made a long running joke about the "Dark Side Cookout" with "leave lightsabers home" for an annual BBQ.

Maybe you might get an e-vite.

Oh? So Trump falsified her mortgage documents?

That sneaky *******!

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Oh? So Trump falsified her mortgage documents?

That sneaky *******!

---

yall are too sensitive to hear me and that's fine.

G Martin 87 said:

---

t - cam said:

---

Prosperdick said:

---

t - cam said:

---

Prosperdick said:

---

I'd love to know how many libs or CM's think she didn't list both properties as her primary (home) address and this is just a witch hunt by Orange Man Bad similar to the witch hunt against poor Maryland Man.

---

I'm sure she did. I also work in this industry and know it happens all the time and is relatively easy to get away with if you can produce utility bills from the property.

This is like the lowest level financial crime that there could ever be.

---

Lowest level financial crime? If Trump did it I wonder how you'd characterize it.

---

Do you guys actually think this is some major crime? Could definitely reveal a character flaw and if trump did it I'd certainly point it out but would not remotely expect anything to come of it.

---

So you don't think it's a major crime, but you'd "certainly point it out" if Trump did it? Why? Do you believe in double standards and 2 tiered justice? The severity of the crime depends on who committed it?

---

Did I say I'd make it a big deal? No, but it may reinforce some views I already have of the grifter in the white house.

t - cam said:

---

G Martin 87 said:

---

t - cam said:

---

Prosperdick said:

---

t - cam said:

---

Prosperdick said:

---

I'd love to know how many libs or CM's think she didn't list both properties as her primary (home) address and this is just a witch hunt by Orange Man Bad similar to the witch hunt against poor Maryland Man.

---

I'm sure she did. I also work in this industry and know it happens all the time and is relatively easy to get away with if you can produce utility bills from the property.

This is like the lowest level financial crime that there could ever be.

---

Lowest level financial crime? If Trump did it I wonder how you'd characterize it.

---

Do you guys actually think this is some major crime? Could definitely reveal a character flaw and if trump did it I'd certainly point it out but would not remotely expect anything to come of it.

---

So you don't think it's a major crime, but you'd "certainly point it out" if Trump did it? Why? Do you believe in double standards and 2 tiered justice? The severity of the crime depends on who committed it?

---

Did I say I'd make it a big deal? No, but it may reinforce some views I already have of the grifter in the white house.

---

What you said implied that your view is that this crime is no big deal unless Trump did it.

Secolobo said:

---

To be clear, if Jerome Powell allows Lisa Cook in the building tomorrow after the duly elected President of the United States exercised his legal authority and fired her, he’s complicit.

He must stay neutral, lock her out, and let her lose in court. https://t.co/XbwNvBGk6V

— James Fishback (@j_fishback) August 26, 2025

---

So Trump says "you're fired" and this stupid ***** responds "nu-uh"?! Libs are completely detached from objective reality.

G Martin 87 said:

---

t - cam said:

---

G Martin 87 said:

---

t - cam said:

---

Prosperdick said:

---

t - cam said:

---

Prosperdick said:

---

I'd love to know how many libs or CM's think she didn't list both properties as her primary (home) address and this is just a witch hunt by Orange Man Bad similar to the witch hunt against poor Maryland Man.

---

I'm sure she did. I also work in this industry and know it happens all the time and is relatively easy to get away with if you can produce utility bills from the property.

This is like the lowest level financial crime that there could ever be.

---

Lowest level financial crime? If Trump did it I wonder how you'd characterize it.

---

Do you guys actually think this is some major crime? Could definitely reveal a character flaw and if trump did it I'd certainly point it out but would not remotely expect anything to come of it.

---

So you don't think it's a major crime, but you'd "certainly point it out" if Trump did it? Why? Do you believe in double standards and 2 tiered justice? The severity of the crime depends on who committed it?

---

Did I say I'd make it a big deal? No, but it may reinforce some views I already have of the grifter in the white house.

---

What you said implied that your view is that this crime is no big deal unless Trump did it.

---

Ok, but that's not at all what I implied.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

She has no right or legal case to retain her job.

Any other legal matter is indeed for the courts. But here, she has no legal basis to challenge the decision of the Executive regarding a power and authority the Executive has under the Constitution.

---

We pointed this out earlier... Trump's ability to remove her isn't a constitutional power. It is expressly defined in the legislation that established the Federal Reserve, where he can remove a member for cause. Like any other legislation, it's implementation is subject to judicial review to confirm the executive's action is consistent with the law.

He very well might get what he wants, but the courts will have the last say.

I don't know why you keep going back to "the constitution" when it's not a right enshrined in the constitution.

---

Trump can remove her as defined by statute. Depends on "for cause".

But, there is a very good argument that Trump can remove her because the Fed is under the executive branch, so he arguably has the power to remove her regardless of the "for cause" clause in the statute due to constitutional powers.

I guarantee you that, if it goes to trial, Team Trump is going to argue that they have the authority to remove her either way.

If the courts rule that the Bank Fraud doesn't qualify under "for cause", they are going to also have to rule whether or not he can remove her as a constitutional power.

I'm VERY SURE that the dems do not want that case in front of SCOTUS. I am also VERY SURE that SCOTUS doesn't want to rule on whether Trump has the constitutional power to fire her. Based on that, and the plain evidence of bank fraud, I am willing to be $ to Donuts that she gets shown the door or quits due to the "for cause" argument.

Buck Turgidson said:

---

Secolobo said:

---

To be clear, if Jerome Powell allows Lisa Cook in the building tomorrow after the duly elected President of the United States exercised his legal authority and fired her, he’s complicit.

He must stay neutral, lock her out, and let her lose in court. https://t.co/XbwNvBGk6V

— James Fishback (@j_fishback) August 26, 2025

---

So Trump says "you're fired" and this stupid ***** responds "nu-uh"?! Libs are completely detached from objective reality.

---

Oh yeah!

You're Fired Buck! Pack your stuff first thing tomorrow morning and never go back to work. You are fired because I said so.

That said, I still agree that Libs are completely detached from objective reality.

t - cam said:

---

G Martin 87 said:

---

t - cam said:

---

Prosperdick said:

---

t - cam said:

---

Prosperdick said:

---

I'd love to know how many libs or CM's think she didn't list both properties as her primary (home) address and this is just a witch hunt by Orange Man Bad similar to the witch hunt against poor Maryland Man.

---

I'm sure she did. I also work in this industry and know it happens all the time and is relatively easy to get away with if you can produce utility bills from the property.

This is like the lowest level financial crime that there could ever be.

---

Lowest level financial crime? If Trump did it I wonder how you'd characterize it.

---

Do you guys actually think this is some major crime? Could definitely reveal a character flaw and if trump did it I'd certainly point it out but would not remotely expect anything to come of it.

---

So you don't think it's a major crime, but you'd "certainly point it out" if Trump did it? Why? Do you believe in double standards and 2 tiered justice? The severity of the crime depends on who committed it?

---

Did I say I'd make it a big deal? No, but it may reinforce some views I already have of the grifter in the white house.

---

At least you're coming from an unbiased position.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Wrong. Congress can either define for cause more specifically, but since they didn't the judgment call rests with the Executive.

---

You keep saying this. It still isn't true.

Why do you think that this is true?

It's not.

I will repeat, this is not true.

It's not true.

It's not true.

See, I can repeat myself over and over again with no support, but what good does that do.

On the other hand, here is a nice write-up about Loper Bright:

https://www.clearygottlieb.com/news-and-insights/publication-listing/after-chevron-what-the-supreme-courts-loper-bright-decision-changed-and-what-it-didnt

Quote:

---

In overturning Chevron, the Supreme Court has authorized federal courts to draw their own conclusions about the correct legal interpretation of otherwise ambiguous federal statutes.

---

chap said:

---

t - cam said:

---

G Martin 87 said:

---

t - cam said:

---

Prosperdick said:

---

t - cam said:

---

Prosperdick said:

---

I'd love to know how many libs or CM's think she didn't list both properties as her primary (home) address and this is just a witch hunt by Orange Man Bad similar to the witch hunt against poor Maryland Man.

---

I'm sure she did. I also work in this industry and know it happens all the time and is relatively easy to get away with if you can produce utility bills from the property.

This is like the lowest level financial crime that there could ever be.

---

Lowest level financial crime? If Trump did it I wonder how you'd characterize it.

---

Do you guys actually think this is some major crime? Could definitely reveal a character flaw and if trump did it I'd certainly point it out but would not remotely expect anything to come of it.

---

So you don't think it's a major crime, but you'd "certainly point it out" if Trump did it? Why? Do you believe in double standards and 2 tiered justice? The severity of the crime depends on who committed it?

---

Did I say I'd make it a big deal? No, but it may reinforce some views I already have of the grifter in the white house.

---

At least you're coming from an unbiased position.

---

We all come from a biased position.

I am in much agreement with your post.

If Dems want to press for rulings, they will not like the result. And SCOTUS sure as **** don't want to hear it as you say.

As with the immunity deal, ultimately the Executive is a very strong position. But it requires some sense of morality and respect for the law and the judicial process.

Amazingly, it's Trump who has shown that and BidenObama who blatantly shoved it all aside.

I want the Dems to keep pushing.

For those worried what happens if a Newsom takes office? Well, if Dems want to start chopping Ds again then we can have the fight we almost had if they had been successful in Butler.

Dems have behaved like children. Trump has been the adult in the room all along. Who'd have thunk.

They are not interpreting a statute. They would be overruling the judgment of the person who was granted the authority under the act.

They could rule that he doesn't have that authority, which would be a bizarre decision since the law says he is the one who can terminate.

They could rule that somehow magically the Fed Reserve is an Article I entity and say Congress is the only one who can change the term or remove.

They could declare the Fed Reserve Act unconstitutional.

But the thing they CANNOT due is instruct the Executive that their determination of whether "for cause" was met was "inadequate". If they had that power, they would be superior to the Executive. And since 1789 even SCOTUS acknowledged they are not.

Cmon son, of by now you think me poorly informed then maybe reconsider how you got there. I don't regurgitate someone else's thoughts. I have my own.

And this is far from settled law, so my take is just as valid as another's, like it or not.

BusterAg said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

She has no right or legal case to retain her job.

Any other legal matter is indeed for the courts. But here, she has no legal basis to challenge the decision of the Executive regarding a power and authority the Executive has under the Constitution.

---

We pointed this out earlier... Trump's ability to remove her isn't a constitutional power. It is expressly defined in the legislation that established the Federal Reserve, where he can remove a member for cause. Like any other legislation, it's implementation is subject to judicial review to confirm the executive's action is consistent with the law.

He very well might get what he wants, but the courts will have the last say.

I don't know why you keep going back to "the constitution" when it's not a right enshrined in the constitution.

---

Trump can remove her as defined by statute. Depends on "for cause".

But, there is a very good argument that Trump can remove her because the Fed is under the executive branch, so he arguably has the power to remove her regardless of the "for cause" clause in the statute due to constitutional powers.

---

"Arguably" is the key word there. The Fed is unique and deliberately intended to operate independently of political influence from the president, for good reason. He can't fire Fed employees at will, only for cause. There is no constitutional power granted to him that says he can.

He might very well get his way, but it will only be settled when affirmed by a court.

Then again, he might not prevail in court. That seems less likely, but we'll see soon enough.

KerrAg76 said:

---

Seems like a lot of democrats have cheated on legal documents

---

The same people screamed "no one is above the law!" about Trump.

So SCOTUS is the highest branch of government in your world? Legit.

I live in America where they are just another branch of government.

Trump can and should ignore the courts when they ignore the law and constitution. The fact he has not done so says great things about his patience, maturity and character.

But enough is enough.

If you believe the courts will rule and Trump will obey, then you maybe skipped some classes. There were 3 questions Marshall addressed Ihat ol case from 1789. And that means Trump can fire here. The court has no authority over POTUS to make them act in a certain manner. It's pretty clear, but people have a problem with it.

POTUS does what the **** he wants when he wants until his term ends, he's dead, he's 25th-ed or he is impeached, convicted and removed. Sorry, that's how it is in the US of A.

Muy said:

---

KerrAg76 said:

---

Seems like a lot of democrats have cheated on legal documents

---

The same people screamed "no one is above the law!" about Trump.

---

Some
Think SCOTUS is above the law as they are evidently infallible and if they rule then all must obey. Though they forget they have zero means to make people obey.

flown-the-coop said:

---

POTUS does what the **** he wants when he wants until his term ends, he's dead, he's 25th-ed or he is impeached, convicted and removed. Sorry, that's how it is in the US of A.

---

Believe that if you want to, but the rest of us know the president is a co-equal branch of government subject to checks and balances by Congress and the judiciary. He also exercises checks and balances over them. No single branch of the government does whatever they want to do, when they want to do it, without some oversight from the others.

That's how it is in the US of A.

Good night.

Congress can impeach. You missed that part.

POTUS can veto legislation. Or he can simply ignore them. You missed that part.

SCOTUS has a role, but it's really just an officiator between the other two. They have no real "power" other than advice / opinion. Yet you elevate them above the others? Why?

In your representation, you are NOT holding them equal. You are very much saying they can tell POTUS what he can and cannot do. That is incorrect.

If the FFs wanted a powerful judiciary that could issue commands, then they failed miserably.

From the earliest days of our Country it was recognized that if the Judiciary could issue orders to the Executive, then we did NOT have separate but equal, balance of power and such.

There has been many a coup and revolution in the course of history from a Supreme Court type thinking they ran the government and were the ultimate authority.

And if SCOTUS acts that way here then we will see revolution. The court is at a juncture where they need to reign themselves in, even as Marshall did, rather than continue to expand their sense of authority.

Quote:

---

Some
Think SCOTUS is above the law as they are evidently infallible and if they rule then all must obey. Though they forget they have zero means to make people obey.

---

SCOTUS is not final because they are infallible. They are infallible BECAUSE they are final.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Congress can impeach. You missed that part.

POTUS can veto legislation. Or he can simply ignore them. You missed that part.

SCOTUS has a role, but it's really just an officiator between the other two. They have no real "power" other than advice / opinion. Yet you elevate them above the others? Why?

In your representation, you are NOT holding them equal. You are very much saying they can tell POTUS what he can and cannot do. That is incorrect.

---

You're missing the part about Congress writing legislation which stipulates what the president's authority is and isn't for a given law, as well as the courts' authorities and limits. That is literally in thousands of laws that have been passed since the beginning of our country. If you are ignoring that, you are missing a huge part of the equation.

You seem to be fixated on the constitution only. Much of our governance is dictated by LAWS that Congress passes, not the umbrella constitution which lays out very general powers and duties.

I think this gap is why we appear to be talking past each other. I mean no disrespect to you, but you are missing or refusing to acknowledge part of the picture.

Anyway, I'm done. Good night again.