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

[PainIsLIfe]

No, they aren't. "Cause" requires evidence, not allegations. Her opinions aren't either. Trump firing her -because he think he decides cause without evidence- is the problem. Literally nobody thinks she would have a leg to stand on if she was found guilty of anything. And that's because the real issue isn't even her, but the elimination of the Fed as an independent body (which would happen if Trump is granted the power to unilaterally fire anyone he chooses without cause).

And you still ducked the question.

If she did it; actually still doing it, should she keep her job?

 

[Limbo Pete]

Her "opinion" was 'I did it before I was put on the board'. Lol

"Literally" the statutes says the potus can remove with cause. I'd say he has a pretty good leg to stand on.

Maybe Biden shouldn't have nominated someone that he knew had committed mortgage fraud and it wouldn't be an issue.

Moreover, removing 1 person from a 7 person board won't give Trump control of it.

Yes, with cause. And the only cause is, at this point, an accusation. That was the point of termination. Trump said I accuse you of doing something, and I can fire you on that basis. And to the larger point, if he can unilaterally decide that "cause" means his own accusations, then there is nothing stopping him from firing anyone on that board. Not that he would need to, just firing the one person is obviously meant to not just test the process, but scare the rest into doing what he wants. The fed is supposed to act independently, and for an extremely good reason.

 

[Limbo Pete]

And you still ducked the question.

If she did it; actually still doing it, should she keep her job?

Did you miss the part where I said literally nobody thinks she would have a leg to stand on if she was found guilty of anything?

 

[cottagecheesefan]

actually still doing it, should she keep her job?

This is what I don’t understand. If there was an issue, that she actually recognized and reported to the Biden team… why did she not correct it immediately? She hasn’t even said a fraction of that in her defense. It is beyond bizarre and seems blatantly corrupt

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Yes, with cause. And the only cause is, at this point, an accusation. That was the point of termination. Trump said I accuse you of doing something, and I can fire you on that basis. And to the larger point, if he can unilaterally decide that "cause" means his own accusations, then there is nothing stopping him from firing anyone on that board. Not that he would need to, just firing the one person is obviously meant to not just test the process, but scare the rest into doing what he wants. The fed is supposed to act independently, and for an extremely good reason.

Da fuk? There is paperwork with her signature. That isn't an accusation, unless you are suggesting that Trump is making the whole thing up. If that's the case, then she should fire her attorney because the only thing she or he should be saying is "it's a lie/never happened" Instead we have him telling reporters that Biden knew she had mortgage issues and telling the court that she can't be fired since it started before she was put on the board.

Did you miss the part where I said literally nobody thinks she would have a leg to stand on if she was found guilty of anything?

Honestly, I did. I'll own it.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

This is what I don’t understand. If there was an issue, that she actually recognized and reported to the Biden team… why did she not correct it immediately? She hasn’t even said a fraction of that in her defense. It is beyond bizarre and seems blatantly corrupt

Why should she? Biden didn't have a problem with it and what's a little mortgage fraud among elites?

 

[Limbo Pete]

Da fuk? There is paperwork with her signature. That isn't an accusation, unless you are suggesting that Trump is making the whole thing up. If that's the case, then she should fire her attorney because the only thing she or he should be saying is "it's a lie/never happened" Instead we have him telling reporters that Biden knew she had mortgage issues and telling the court that she can't be fired since it started before she was put on the board.

But it is, legally, nothing more than an accusation. And that is why she was "fired". Trump said X, he removed her. For the 1,000,000th time, _he_ doesn't unilaterally decide cause without guilt. If that were true, he could fire anyone on that board, and at any time (which is the actual goal). The standard is either one way or the other. You're grasping at this desperately, and it looks a whole lot more like a bothesides virtue signal than anything resembling genuine concern.
Byt there's no doubt in my mind the SC will allow this to continue, so congratulations in advance for Donald fucking Trump - an actual felony fraudster- being handed personal control of the fed.

Honestly, I did. I'll own it.

Fair enough

 

[PainIsLIfe]

But it is, legally, nothing more than an accusation. And that is why she was "fired". Trump said X, he removed her. For the 1,000,000th time, _he_ doesn't unilaterally decide cause without guilt. If that were true, he could fire anyone on that board, and at any time (which is the actual goal). The standard is either one way or the other. You're grasping at this desperately, and it looks a whole lot more like a bothesides virtue signal than anything resembling genuine concern.
Byt there's no doubt in my mind the SC will allow this to continue, so congratulations in advance for Donald fucking Trump - an actual felony fraudster- being handed personal control of the fed.




Fair enough

An accusation can be made with or without proof. In this case there is proof. I literally dislike Trump's character and find many of his stunts to be illegal, but I don't think this is one of them.

Care to point out where the statute calls for cause to be determined by anyone else?

 

[Limbo Pete]

An accusation can be made with or without proof. In this case there is proof. I literally dislike Trump's character and find many of his stunts to be illegal, but I don't think this is one of them.

Care to point out where the statute calls for cause to be determined by anyone else?

Can you tell me what the difference is between cause and accusation? Bearing in mind, as we've already dealt with, that nobody would give a flying fuck if she was terminated after being found guilty in a court of law. And it's not like they aren't going to charge her. Trump personally controls the entire DOJ, he can bring charges against anyone he wants.
Why is it so important that Trump supersedes this? Why does she have to be terminated now? Hint: it's because the issue is control, not accountability

 

[Confucamus]

Can you tell me what the difference is between cause and accusation? Bearing in mind, as we've already dealt with, that nobody would give a flying fuck if she was terminated after being found guilty in a court of law. And it's not like they aren't going to charge her. Trump personally controls the entire DOJ, he can bring charges against anyone he wants.
Why is it so important that Trump supersedes this? Why does she have to be terminated now? Hint: it's because the issue is control, not accountability

You didn't answer his question.

 

[Limbo Pete]

You didn't answer his question.

Which question? Because part of this back and forth makes no sense. If the argument is that the President decides what constitutes cause, then there's no barrier to firing her, or anyone on the board- which is NOT how it is supposed to be. And while I'm sure the current SC will have no trouble granting him this power, it absolutely would be power granted. That is to say, claiming it's always been like this would be factually and practically incorrect.

 

[Loiosh]

You didn't answer his question.

 

[Loiosh]

Which question? Because part of this back and forth makes no sense. If the argument is that the President decides what constitutes cause, then there's no barrier to firing her, or anyone on the board- which is NOT how it is supposed to be. And while I'm sure the current SC will have no trouble granting him this power, it absolutely would be power granted. That is to say, claiming it's always been like this would be factually and practically incorrect.

It's weird how he of all people is pressuring someone ELSE to answer questions.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Can you tell me what the difference is between cause and accusation? Bearing in mind, as we've already dealt with, that nobody would give a flying fuck if she was terminated after being found guilty in a court of law. And it's not like they aren't going to charge her. Trump personally controls the entire DOJ, he can bring charges against anyone he wants.
Why is it so important that Trump supersedes this? Why does she have to be terminated now? Hint: it's because the issue is control, not accountability

Not sure if this is serious, but cause in this case is an action (mortgage fraud) that breaches conduct or performance issues. The accusation is the issue (mortgage fraud) that the executive branch said was illegal.
And in this particular case the accusation has evidence (the loan documents)

I've said that Trump is doing the right thing for the wrong reason. Under your line of reasoning arresting me for carjacking would be wrong because Trump is only doing it to look tough on crime, but the fact remains that I broke the law and should be punished.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Which question? Because part of this back and forth makes no sense. If the argument is that the President decides what constitutes cause, then there's no barrier to firing her, or anyone on the board- which is NOT how it is supposed to be. And while I'm sure the current SC will have no trouble granting him this power, it absolutely would be power granted. That is to say, claiming it's always been like this would be factually and practically incorrect.

I asked who the statute says determines cause - there is no mention of courts or legislature in the statute.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Not sure if this is serious, but cause in this case is an action (mortgage fraud) that breaches conduct or performance issues. The accusation is the issue (mortgage fraud) that the executive branch said was illegal.
And in this particular case the accusation has evidence (the loan documents)

I've said that Trump is doing the right thing for the wrong reason. Under your line of reasoning arresting me for carjacking would be wrong because Trump is only doing it to look tough on crime, but the fact remains that I broke the law and should be punished.

No, you still seem to have no grasp on my reasoning at all. This woman hasn't been arrested for anything, or even charged. And she will be charged, but it still hasn't happened yet. As of now, none of the "evidence" establishes anything. It's speculation. And she was fired specifically based on speculation. That's the actual reason she was even fired at all: this is being done, like many things Trump does, to test and push a boundary. If he is allowed to fire based on personal discretion, then he effectively exerts personal control of the Fed. Annnnd, despite what you may want to be true, that isn't how it actually works. Not until now, anyway. It is supposed to exist independent- to at least a significant degree - outside the pressure of the President's politics.

 

[Limbo Pete]

I asked who the statute says determines cause - there is no mention of courts or legislature in the statute.

So your argument then is that up until now we just didn't realize it was determined by the President? Because you can't have this both ways. If your argument is that it's determined solely on the personal discretion of the President, then I'd like an explanation as to why that really hasn't been the case thus far.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

So your argument then is that up until now we just didn't realize it was determined by the President? Because you can't have this both ways. If your argument is that it's determined solely on the personal discretion of the President, then I'd like an explanation as to why that really hasn't been the case thus far.

I just asked where in the statute it calls for anything other than POTUS to fire them for cause.

If you want to say she needs to be found guilty in a court first then that's ridiculous because we've seen jury nullification from juries before. I have to imagine that someone like yourself on a jury would find her innocent regardless of the facts simply to stop Trump from "taking control". Its quite sad really.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

No, you still seem to have no grasp on my reasoning at all. This woman hasn't been arrested for anything, or even charged. And she will be charged, but it still hasn't happened yet. As of now, none of the "evidence" establishes anything. It's speculation. And she was fired specifically based on speculation. That's the actual reason she was even fired at all: this is being done, like many things Trump does, to test and push a boundary. If he is allowed to fire based on personal discretion, then he effectively exerts personal control of the Fed. Annnnd, despite what you may want to be true, that isn't how it actually works. Not until now, anyway. It is supposed to exist independent- to at least a significant degree - outside the pressure of the President's politics.

But she and her lawyer have both basically admitted that she did it? You just keep ignoring that part.

I didn't say Trump can do it as his discretion; I'm saying he can do it with evidence. ie that mortgage loan that she signed.

Again, firing 1 person of a 7-member board wont give Trump control of it.

 

[Limbo Pete]

I just asked where in the statute it calls for anything other than POTUS to fire them for cause.

If you want to say she needs to be found guilty in a court first then that's ridiculous because we've seen jury nullification from juries before. I have to imagine that someone like yourself on a jury would find her innocent regardless of the facts simply to stop Trump from "taking control". Its quite sad really.

And I'm asking you what constitutes cause itself. If it's opinion and allegation based, then there's no actual cause necessary. Remember, she was "fired" based on speculation. They are obviously going to bring charges, but even waiting for that is too much of a barrier to the President's goal of total personal discretion. What we have in that scenario is a president with no check on their control of the Fed, rather than a balanced independent oversight function. And again, that is absolutely NOT what we have up to now. You are arguing for a change to the way things are, and should be honest about it.