Opinion First Thing: Trump says he is firing Fed governor Lisa Cook in escalating attack on bank’s independence

[PainIsLIfe]

Uh, no dude. Again, Trump was officially investigated for his role in J6 for years, and that resulted in enough evidence to get an indictment. Evidence was again presented in the CO SC to get him removed from the ballot. And then scotus saw the case and ruled that it wasn’t enough to remove him. That’s an assload of due process, sherbro.

This Cook lady has had none of that. No investigation, no court, no due process. Just a Trump henchman saying that he found some loan applications that prove she committed fraud before she was appointed to the fed, and that was enough for her to be fired. These things are not remotely the same. And I already said I disagreed with removing Trump from the ballot.

Anyhoo, I feel like people are misunderstanding or purposely misrepresenting the issue here. Which is:
Fed governors, by law, can only be removed by the potus for “cause”, which is undefined in the law as written (because, naturally, why would congress bother to define something like that, fuckers love ambiguity).
So, Trump firing her means that courts will be forced to decide whether or not “cause” is basically anything the potus deems a credible allegation, no matter if it’s substantiated or even related to the job in question, nor will it matter if the accused has any chance to defend themselves or even present their side.

It’s just another obvious power grab for the executive office. The end goal being that the fed will serve at the whim of Trump, and that will be true for every POTUS going forward.

Presented to the CO SC. LOL

What trial did they have? Was Trump allowed to dispute evidence? Did he even have attorneys?

 

[MacGregor]

 

[sickc0d3r]

Presented to the CO SC. LOL

What trial did they have? Was Trump allowed to dispute evidence? Did he even have attorneys?

Do you not understand the difference between evidence from an investigation, a grandy jury trial, and a state supreme court ruling, versus some paperwork a guy found? You called them both the same. Which would you prefer to be on the other end of? Do you have an adult nearby that can explain it to you?

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Do you not understand the difference between evidence from an investigation, a grandy jury trial, and a state supreme court ruling, versus some paperwork a guy found? You called them both the same. Which would you prefer to be on the other end of? Do you have an adult nearby that can explain it to you?

How many people go to trial only to be found innocent?

Its easy to present evidence to support your claim if only 1 side gets to present it, thats why they say you can indict a ham sandwich.

I'm all for due process and fair trials, but you guys didnt care then so dont ask for it now.

And again, no one has addressed the fact that her defense isn't that she didnt do it, but rather that she can only be fired for malfeasance in regard to the job.

 

[sickc0d3r]

How many people go to trial only to be found innocent?

Its easy to present evidence to support your claim if only 1 side gets to present it, thats why they say you can indict a ham sandwich.

I'm all for due process and fair trials, but you guys didnt care then so dont ask for it now.

And again, no one has addressed the fact that her defense isn't that she didnt do it, but rather that she can only be fired for malfeasance in regard to the job.

Who’s arguing it proved he was guilty? Not me. The state was trying to rule on its own election laws based on the available evidence, not on his guilt or innocence in a criminal trial. And it failed on appeal, so it only further illustrates the need for due process.

You’re the one trying to compare years of investigation and an indictment, which is, in fact, due process, to a guy showing Trump a couple of mortgage applications.

She might be guilty, who knows? That’s not the issue, as I have tried to explain. Trump pushing for more executive power by firing someone for “cause” based on no evidence that’s ever even been seen in a courtroom or even a hearing of any kind, anywhere, is the issue. This will go to court, and if he wins, the threshold for firing a fed governor is essentially whatever the potus deems a credible story.

Now’s your next chance to keep ignoring whatever I say so you can argue with the voices in your head, have another go!

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Who’s arguing it proved he was guilty? Not me. The state was trying to rule on its own election laws based on the available evidence, not on his guilt or innocence in a criminal trial. And it failed on appeal, so it only further illustrates the need for due process.

You’re the one trying to compare years of investigation and an indictment, which is, in fact, due process, to a guy showing Trump a couple of mortgage applications.

She might be guilty, who knows? That’s not the issue, as I have tried to explain. Trump pushing for more executive power by firing someone for “cause” based on no evidence that’s ever even been seen in a courtroom or even a hearing of any kind, anywhere, is the issue. This will go to court, and if he wins, the threshold for firing a fed governor is essentially whatever the potus deems a credible story.

Now’s your next chance to keep ignoring whatever I say so you can argue with the voices in your head, have another go!

How do you not see that Trump was removed by a court in the same way that this lady was removed by Trump? One side came in and said here are the facts and the court and Trump ruled.

Now you could claim Trump is hypocritical for doing it to someone after he complained that it happened to him, but that isn't your argument.

Ive not ignored you argument; just gave it the weight it deserved.

 

[sickc0d3r]

How do you not see that Trump was removed by a court in the same way that this lady was removed by Trump? One side came in and said here are the facts and the court and Trump ruled.

Now you could claim Trump is hypocritical for doing it to someone after he complained that it happened to him, but that isn't your argument.

Ive not ignored you argument; just gave it the weight it deserved.

He wasn't removed, though. And the attempt to do so was based on actual evidence, examined by a court that weighed that evidence and applied it to state election laws. And it was later overturned. All things that prove due process is necessary. You're making my argument for me, but since you're ignoring it you don't even realize it.

 

[sickc0d3r]

Oh, wait, now I get it @PainIsLIfe . Your comment was that "one side" said whatever... you're saying the investigation into J6 is no different than an unsubstantiated allegation against Cook because it was rigged against Trump.
Ok, fine, you can believe that. But, at least they made the effort. And as it pertains to the actual issue at hand, requiring a real investigation would be better than courts ruling it is okeydokey for the potus to fire fed governors without any due process at all.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

He wasn't removed, though. And the attempt to do so was based on actual evidence, examined by a court that weighed that evidence and applied it to state election laws. And it was later overturned. All things that prove due process is necessary. You're making my argument for me, but since you're ignoring it you don't even realize it.

And the attempt to remove her was based on actual evidence (loan application) examined by her "boss". And its in court right now so she's getting due process.

You still completely miss the point. Having one side show evidence to the court is not due process, but you were OK as long as it was Trump.

You guys also seem to be OK with loan fraud so Long as it isn't Trump doing the defrauding.

I dont expect you to get it until its the right thats holding double standards.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Oh, wait, now I get it @PainIsLIfe . Your comment was that "one side" said whatever... you're saying the investigation into J6 is no different than an unsubstantiated allegation against Cook because it was rigged against Trump.
Ok, fine, you can believe that. But, at least they made the effort. And as it pertains to the actual issue at hand, requiring a real investigation would be better than courts ruling it is okeydokey for the potus to fire fed governors without any due process at all.

Close, but not exactly. In CO there was a one sided presentation and no court had ever ruled that Trump led an insurrection.

This is similar in the fact that Cook's loan application was shown to her boss and he said we can't have criminals running the fed. Ironic as that may be.

I agree that she should have due process. I just dont think the left wanted to give it to Trump so shouldn't be complaining.

I'm also not fond of her claim that she can break any law she wants and not lose her job so long as the crime didnt involve her role in the fed.

 

[Limbo Pete]

How do you not see that Trump was removed by a court in the same way that this lady was removed by Trump?

Donald Trump is not a fucking court lmao what is wrong with you

 

[sickc0d3r]

And the attempt to remove her was based on actual evidence (loan application) examined by her "boss". And its in court right now so she's getting due process.

You still completely miss the point. Having one side show evidence to the court is not due process, but you were OK as long as it was Trump.

You guys also seem to be OK with loan fraud so Long as it isn't Trump doing the defrauding.

I dont expect you to get it until its the right thats holding double standards.

JFC, Trump's henchman finding an application and calling it fraud is not due process. Court hearings are due process. FBI investigations are part of due process. And lol at bringing up loan fraud as if Trump wasn't convicted of that in court. Stop being an infant.

 

[sickc0d3r]

Close, but not exactly. In CO there was a one sided presentation and no court had ever ruled that Trump led an insurrection.

This is similar in the fact that Cook's loan application was shown to her boss and he said we can't have criminals running the fed. Ironic as that may be.

I agree that she should have due process. I just dont think the left wanted to give it to Trump so shouldn't be complaining.

I'm also not fond of her claim that she can break any law she wants and not lose her job so long as the crime didnt involve her role in the fed.

At least now you're admitting this is just about what you think "the left" wanted, and not about reality. That's progress I guess.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Donald Trump is not a fucking court lmao what is wrong with you

Trump is basically her boss/employer.

He was shown a fraudulent loan document that she signed and he fired her. She is currently filing an appeal in court.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

At least now you're admitting this is just about what you think "the left" wanted, and not about reality. That's progress I guess.

My first post was that the left didnt mind removing Trump without a court declaring him an insurrectionist.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

JFC, Trump's henchman finding an application and calling it fraud is not due process. Court hearings are due process. FBI investigations are part of due process. And lol at bringing up loan fraud as if Trump wasn't convicted of that in court. Stop being an infant.

FBI investigations are not due process; they are evidence gathering. Did you miss me saying Trump was a hypocrite for it.

Point stands - she hasn't denied lying on the application. She simply claims that he can't fire her for breaking the law.

Where are my "no one is above the law" lefties?

 

[sickc0d3r]

My first post was that the left didnt mind removing Trump without a court declaring him an insurrectionist.

Yes, your original false equivalency. They had evidence and courts that voted on it. Trump has none of that wrt to Cook.

 

[sickc0d3r]

FBI investigations are not due process; they are evidence gathering. Did you miss me saying Trump was a hypocrite for it.

Point stands - she hasn't denied lying on the application. She simply claims that he can't fire her for breaking the law.

Where are my "no one is above the law" lefties?

But you are wrong, they are due process. Procedures were followed to protect rights while gathering evidence, he was charged with a crime by presenting that evidence to a grand jury, and then a state decided if he can be on their ballot based on that evidence and the state's election laws. Where's your "state's rights" conservative outrage?

Your point is just you arguing with yourself. Again. All I've said is your comparison of these two things is dumb, they are not the same, and if Trump gets to fire someone in the fed based on an unsubstantiated allegation, that will be a bad thing.

On the other hand, bright side, maybe DOGE can cut half the FBI budget, since according to you, they don't need to investigate shit anymore, they can just make an accusation and it's exactly the same thing.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Trump is basically her boss/employer.

He was shown a fraudulent loan document that she signed and he fired her. She is currently filing an appeal in court.

No, he's fucking not lol
God almighty

 

[Loiosh]

Trump is basically her boss/employer.

He was shown a fraudulent loan document that she signed and he fired her. She is currently filing an appeal in court.

Trump is an authoritarian who has repeatedly illegally fired people in order to replace them with loyalist lickspittles.

How many fired on his word have had to be re-hired?