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

[Limbo Pete]

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.

There's no distinction between what does or doesn't count as evidence if the standard for cause rests entirely with the opinion of the President. It's crystal clear. You and I aren't making the determination. Those mortgage papers might seem fine, or not, to you or me or anyone, but the only opinion about their contents that has any weight -if what you want were to be true- is Trumps. _He_ decides what is and isn't enough in this scenario.
And if that were true, he would have the ability to fire anyone on the board, which gives him total control of it.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

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.

She was fired based on a loan application that she admits was wrong. Her lawyer claims that she told Biden about it before she took the job, and she's never corrected it. Maybe Biden should have given her 1 of those auto-pen pardons.

She filed her appeal, the courts will hear it. You just don't want Trump to have the W. I get it, but we don't get to pick and choose which laws are followed just because it will bug Trump.

 

[Limbo Pete]

She was fired based on a loan application that she admits was wrong. Her lawyer claims that she told Biden about it before she took the job, and she's never corrected it. Maybe Biden should have given her 1 of those auto-pen pardons.

She filed her appeal, the courts will hear it. You just don't want Trump to have the W. I get it, but we don't get to pick and choose which laws are followed just because it will bug Trump.

What we're doing is changing the oversight standard of the executive because Trump wants control over the Fed. It's a disaster waiting to happen. And framing this as a "you don't want a Trump W" is a bit of a mask off there bud

 

[Crazy Source]

What we're doing is changing the oversight standard of the executive because Trump wants control over the Fed. It's a disaster waiting to happen. And framing this as a "you don't want a Trump W" is a bit of a mask off there bud

This is obvious and anyone supporting what Trump is doing is clearly choosing party over country. Unless they are very, very stupid.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

What we're doing is changing the oversight standard of the executive because Trump wants control over the Fed. It's a disaster waiting to happen. And framing this as a "you don't want a Trump W" is a bit of a mask off there bud

Mask off? I don't even like Trump; and find it particularly ironic that he's firing someone for loan fraud.

Honestly though, if this were one of Trump's cabinet members or conservative in general then you would be calling for their removal. So, yes; you don't want Trump to get the W/his way.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Mask off? I don't even like Trump; and find it particularly ironic that he's firing someone for loan fraud.

Honestly though, if this were one of Trump's cabinet members or conservative in general then you would be calling for their removal. So, yes; you don't want Trump to get the W/his way.

Well, I didn't say you did, so that particular defensive reaction is interesting. No, this just further reveals the depth of your unserious virtue signal. The fed has an extraordinarily important job, and it needs to remain independent. It's a cornerstone of our nation's success. This isn't about an invisible score on an imaginary board; actions have actual consequences.

 

[Alpha_T83]

She was fired based on a loan application that she admits was wrong. Her lawyer claims that she told Biden about it before she took the job, and she's never corrected it. Maybe Biden should have given her 1 of those auto-pen pardons.

She filed her appeal, the courts will hear it. You just don't want Trump to have the W. I get it, but we don't get to pick and choose which laws are followed just because it will bug Trump.

The courts already agreed with her. They blocked Trump's firing.

Now Trump is going to the Federal Appeals court, and I HIGHLY doubt they side with him. This issue seems destined for the Supreme Court, where justice Barrett is basically the tiebreaker. Roberts will almost certainly vote against allowing Trump to fire Cook.

This isn't about Cook -- this is about whether Presidents should effectively be able to control the Fed directly, by installing loyalists every time a new President takes office. That would horrible for the US economy. And Justice Barrett has already hinted she will vote to allow Cook to keep her job, saying she isn't a "partisan hack".

A "partisan hack" would allow Trump to fire Cook & control the Fed, and then reverse this decision immediately if a Democrat president took office.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Well, I didn't say you did, so that particular defensive reaction is interesting. No, this just further reveals the depth of your unserious virtue signal. The fed has an extraordinarily important job, and it needs to remain independent. It's a cornerstone of our nation's success. This isn't about an invisible score on an imaginary board; actions have actual consequences.

What does mask off mean if not to suggest that I'm a secret maga supporter?

There are 6 other board members. Why didn't Trump try to fire 4? Or even 3? Remember he needs 4 to vote his way to "control" the board

 

[PainIsLIfe]

The courts already agreed with her. They blocked Trump's firing.

Now Trump is going to the Federal Appeals court, and I HIGHLY doubt they side with him. This issue seems destined for the Supreme Court, where justice Barrett is basically the tiebreaker. Roberts will almost certainly vote against allowing Trump to fire Cook.

This isn't about Cook -- this is about whether Presidents should effectively be able to control the Fed directly, by installing loyalists every time a new President takes office. That would horrible for the US economy. And Justice Barrett has already hinted she will vote to allow Cook to keep her job, saying she isn't a "partisan hack".

A "partisan hack" would allow Trump to fire Cook & control the Fed, and then reverse this decision immediately if a Democrat president took office.

A single judge sided with Mrs. Cook. Just as a single judge slow walked his case in FL.

Are you suggesting the rest of the judges are party hacks? Barrett may or may not vote for her to keep her job, but I'm having a hard time finding anyone that will openly say that Mrs. Cook should be able to break the law and keep her $250k job. Are you willing to say that?

For the last time, firing Cook doesn't give Trump control of the Fed. FFS, he'd have to fire 4 of them.

 

[Limbo Pete]

What does mask off mean if not to suggest that I'm a secret maga supporter?

There are 6 other board members. Why didn't Trump try to fire 4? Or even 3? Remember he needs 4 to vote his way to "control" the board

That you view this as a W on the board virtue signal. Again, interesting defensive reaction. And it borders on gaslighting to suggest his new-found ability to dictate cause for firing Fed members will stop at just the one, but even that doesn't quite get at the crux, which is that he won't have to actually fire people if the threat of doing so is enough to coerce cooperation. What he wants is to tell the Fed what to do, which is an unmitigated disaster waiting to happen.

 

[Limbo Pete]

For the last time, firing Cook doesn't give Trump control of the Fed. FFS, he'd have to fire 4 of them.

No, he just needs to power to fire them

 

[Alpha_T83]

A single judge sided with Mrs. Cook. Just as a single judge slow walked his case in FL.

Are you suggesting the rest of the judges are party hacks? Barrett may or may not vote for her to keep her job, but I'm having a hard time finding anyone that will openly say that Mrs. Cook should be able to break the law and keep her $250k job. Are you willing to say that?

For the last time, firing Cook doesn't give Trump control of the Fed. FFS, he'd have to fire 4 of them.

You realize that's how courts work right? A single judge hears the case, and then you go to appeals court. You're acting like other judges wouldn't have ruled the same. Probably over 99% of judges would have ruled in favor of Cook, because Trump's firing of her is unconstitutional.

And she didn't break the law; she made a mistake on her mortgage application. This should have been caught by whoever helped her submit said application. So it's more of a failure of due diligence than anything else. She wasn't prosecuted for that exact reason. Outside of Moron Trump Land, making mistakes on paperwork doesn't automatically constitute a crime.

Lastly, your argument is clearly disingenuous because yes, a ruling allowing him to fire Cook WOULD give him control of the Fed. The point of the ruling is not to fire Cook herself, but to test the definition of "for cause". If the Supreme Court rules that Trump can determine what constitutes "for cause", then he can fire anyone on the Fed board. That in turn allows him to threaten them to do what he wants, or be replaced, which does give him control of the Fed. But you know this, and you're just being a little shit.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

You realize that's how courts work right? A single judge hears the case, and then you go to appeals court. You're acting like other judges wouldn't have ruled the same. Probably over 99% of judges would have ruled in favor of Cook, because Trump's firing of her is unconstitutional.

And she didn't break the law; she made a mistake on her mortgage application. This should have been caught by whoever helped her submit said application. So it's more of a failure of due diligence than anything else. She wasn't prosecuted for that exact reason. Outside of Moron Trump Land, making mistakes on paperwork doesn't automatically constitute a crime.

Lastly, your argument is clearly disingenuous because yes, a ruling allowing him to fire Cook WOULD give him control of the Fed. The point of the ruling is not to fire Cook herself, but to test the definition of "for cause". If the Supreme Court rules that Trump can determine what constitutes "for cause", then he can fire anyone on the Fed board. That in turn allows him to threaten them to do what he wants, or be replaced, which does give him control of the Fed. But you know this, and you're just being a little shit.

I'm saying that we've seen on numerous occasions where a single judge rules either for or against an issue to be overruled shortly after. And it's happened with judges favoring both the right and the left.

So, she has corrected her "mistake" then and now pays higher interest and higher insurance premiums? Or has she been letting this "mistake" go on since she told Biden about it?

So forgive me if a Biden appointee ruling against Trump doesn't impress me.

 

[Alpha_T83]

I'm saying that we've seen on numerous occasions where a single judge rules either for or against an issue to be overruled shortly after. And it's happened with judges favoring both the right and the left.

So, she has corrected her "mistake" then and now pays higher interest and higher insurance premiums? Or has she been letting this "mistake" go on since she told Biden about it?

So forgive me if a Biden appointee ruling against Trump doesn't impress me.

Again, Trump's firing of Cook is unconstitutional. It would be unlikely for a federal judge or appeals court to rule in his favor. This is something that can and should be decided by the supreme court. You're delusional if you think anyone but the Supreme Court should be making decisions that potentially subvert the constitution.

Also, you seem to be under the impression that Lisa Cook somehow benefited from "letting this mistake go on". How did she benefit? The mortgage rates she got were higher than average. From what I can see, she didn't benefit at all.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Exclusive: Fed Governor Cook declared her Atlanta property as “vacation home,” documents show

A loan estimate for an Atlanta home purchased by Lisa Cook, the Federal Reserve governor accused of mortgage fraud by the Trump administration, shows that Cook had declared the property as a “vacation home,” according to a document reviewed by Reuters.

www.reuters.com

 

[Limbo Pete]

What a fucking shocker

 

[HockeyBjj]

So republicans just made this whole thing up? I’m sure we’ll have plenty of apologies of people who got fooled by deliberate false information

 

[Limbo Pete]

So republicans just made this whole thing up? I’m sure we’ll have plenty of apologies of people who got fooled by deliberate false information

Well, if it's one thing this administration is known for, it's absolutely never admitting to their own blatant incompetence. And that's because they don't care about right or wrong, legal vs illegal. They just want power. I fully expect them to stick with it and try to drive this lady out regardless. Given the SC track record, there's no reason not to.
But given how vocal he's been about Trump "Doing the wrong thing for the right reason" (or was it the other way around?), I'm sure @PainIsLIfe will be the first in line to admit he was wrong

 

[sickc0d3r]

So republicans just made this whole thing up? I’m sure we’ll have plenty of apologies of people who got fooled by deliberate false information

I'm more interested to see how her lawsuit goes. I assume she'll remain fired and it's still going to court.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Again, Trump's firing of Cook is unconstitutional. It would be unlikely for a federal judge or appeals court to rule in his favor. This is something that can and should be decided by the supreme court. You're delusional if you think anyone but the Supreme Court should be making decisions that potentially subvert the constitution.

Also, you seem to be under the impression that Lisa Cook somehow benefited from "letting this mistake go on". How did she benefit? The mortgage rates she got were higher than average. From what I can see, she didn't benefit at all.

What were that bank's rates? What were they when she would have explained the mistake to the bank? What are the differences in insurance premiums for primary vs secondaty homes?

You act like this is a nothing crime, but Leticia James and the courts of NY have taught me that loan fraud is a very serious offense - let's not pretend otherwise now.

And wtf, lecturing about the constitution while sporting a "canada belt". Lol