17 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

In reality

Thanks for your dose of reality. But you left off clearly or "of course".

2 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

That's not what it means. That's just what Cooki's lawyers say it means. Due to obvious reasons.

 

In reality "cause" means did she objectivelly do something that could cause her to be removed. Fraud would be an obvious cause for removal.

 

The case law on the issue does not support your interpretation.

2 minutes ago, khunjeff said:

 

The case law on the issue does not support your interpretation.

 

Would be a bit suprising since no Fed Governor before has been removed for cause, and thus there is no case law on  12 U.S. Code § 242.

 

At least as pertains to removal of a Fed Governor.

 

 

12 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Would be a bit suprising since no Fed Governor before has been removed for cause, and thus there is no case law on  12 U.S. Code § 242.

 

At least as pertains to removal of a Fed Governor.

 

Her attorneys are using the extensive case law litigating what it means to remove an official for cause. There is no reason to think that the term would be interpreted differently, or with a lower standard, in the removal of a Fed Governor, than it's been interpreted in cases involving other officials in the past.

 

And as was pointed out above, the Supreme Court actually indicated earlier this year that removal of a Fed Governor would be more - not less - difficult due to what the Court perceives as the unique status of the Fed.

55 minutes ago, khunjeff said:

 

Her attorneys are using the extensive case law litigating what it means to remove an official for cause. There is no reason to think that the term would be interpreted differently, or with a lower standard, in the removal of a Fed Governor, than it's been interpreted in cases involving other officials in the past.

 

And as was pointed out above, the Supreme Court actually indicated earlier this year that removal of a Fed Governor would be more - not less - difficult due to what the Court perceives as the unique status of the Fed.

 

Again, there is no case law on the dismissal of a Fed Governor, since no president has previously used  12 U.S. Code § 242. to dimiss a governor for cause.

 

Obviously the attorneys of Cook are interpreting and presenting the case law on removal of other officials in a way that favours the case, however, it is a very one-sided intepretation. One can equally argue, as the office of the President and his lawyers will no doubt do, that the position of Fed Governor imposes a higher standard of conduct on the official. 

 

In any even fraud is universally recognised as a very serious  matter in alll the previous cases, something which Cook;'s lawyers ignore for obvious reasons. It would be a breach of trust of the employee relationship if Cook committed fraud.

 

Neither USC nor the law, including case law, prescribe what cause is, this is for the courts to decide objectively on the facts of the case. And in the past the Supreme Court has been siding with Trump more often than not.

 

Mortgage Loan Fraud

 

An Industry Assessment based upon Suspicious Activity Report Analysis

November 2006 

 

Mortgage loan fraud can be divided into two broad categories: fraud for property and fraud for profit.

 

Fraud for property generally involves material misrepresentation or omission of information with the intent to deceive or mislead a lender into extending credit that would likely not be offered if the true facts were known. 

 

https://www.fincen.gov/mortgage-loan-fraud

 

18 U.S. Code § 1014 - Loan and credit applications generally;

 

Whoever knowingly makes any false statement or report, or willfully overvalues any land, property or security, for the purpose of influencing in any way the action of the Federal Housing Administration, ....

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1014

 

From the Complaint:

 

49. The letter’s only reference to President Trump’s “cause” for purportedly
terminating Governor Cook was Director Pulte’s “criminal referral,” which President Trump cited for his belief that Governor Cook “may have made false statements on one or more mortgage agreements.” (emphasis added in the original).

So lawyers will decide if the President of the US is allowed to sack a governor of the Fed.

 

In Thailand lawyers have just sacked the prime minister of the country.

 

Amazing the powers lawyers have.

20 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Trump's war on the Fed

 

Why is the Fed "independent" though? What does that mean? 

Since you don't know, your attacks on Trump are unwarranted.

Everyone hates Trump so much they don't even bother to ask what this means. 

Since Trump is in the top position, he should be allowed to appoint whoever he wants.

But go ahead and keep making Trump look like the bad guy here. 

 

27 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

 

Why is the Fed "independent" though? What does that mean? 

Since you don't know, your attacks on Trump are unwarranted.

Everyone hates Trump so much they don't even bother to ask what this means. 

Since Trump is in the top position, he should be allowed to appoint whoever he wants.

But go ahead and keep making Trump look like the bad guy here. 

 

So why is the Fed "independent" (as in most significant economic entities apart from China), according to you?

 

Or rather, as you seem to advocate, why shouldn't it be independent (whoever the President may be, Republican or Democrat)? 

11 hours ago, candide said:

So why is the Fed "independent"

 

You may think conspiracies are nuts, but if you watch at 4:43, you can see Bernie Sanders grilling Bernanke.

Trump is fighting these people because they are greasing their own pockets and money would be better spent in the actual economy. They are not even allowed to be audited by the President. You don't think there is corruption there? 

 

 

 

11 hours ago, candide said:

So why is the Fed "independent"

 

Here, ask Warren Buffet.

He is probably profiting off this whole thing and one of the reasons he is filthy rich. 

If Trump gets power over it, it probably cuts into Buffet's profits somehow.  

 

 

11 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

 

You may think conspiracies are nuts, but if you watch at 4:43, you can see Bernie Sanders grilling Bernanke.

Trump is fighting these people because they are greasing their own pockets and money would be better spent in the actual economy. They are not even allowed to be audited by the President. You don't think there is corruption there? 

 

 

 

 

1 minute ago, save the frogs said:

 

Here, ask Warren Buffet.

He is probably profiting off this whole thing and one of the reasons he is filthy rich. 

If Trump gets power over it, it probably cuts into Buffet's profits somehow.  

 

 

Unsurprisingly, no rational and coherent reply, apart from conspiracy theories......

10 hours ago, candide said:

Unsurprisingly, no rational and coherent reply, apart from conspiracy theories......

 

No, no, no. 

Bernie Sanders is clearly attacking Bernanke in the video because they're crooks.

Don't tell me .... Bernie Sanders has dementia? 

 

1 hour ago, save the frogs said:

Trump is fighting these people because they are greasing their own pockets

Sadly i think you believe this.

1 hour ago, save the frogs said:

Trump is fighting these people because they are greasing their own pockets

 

As in, not his pockets?

 

22 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Sadly i think you believe this.

But as usual, no links or proof to back up the conspiracy theories.

11 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

She sounds like a race baiter.

Like many on this thread. 

Let's see if she's guilty of the fraud. That's all that matters. 

 

Her work on the  economic costs of  economic bias, is common sense. it recognizes that women  form a majority of the population and hold significant untapped underutilized economic opportunity. The same for  afro americans. It is all about extracting the maximum potential from a resource asset.

 

Nice to see that you believe that guilt should first be established. To date all there is, is a partisan motivated accusation. No evidence has been provided. No criminal charges, no indictment, no trial, no judicial verdict. In effect, a denial of due process. No much different than a Salem witch trial. The Trump administration is playing fast and loose with civil rights and the US Constitution.

3 hours ago, save the frogs said:

 

No, no, no. 

Bernie Sanders is clearly attacking Bernanke in the video because they're crooks.

Don't tell me .... Bernie Sanders has dementia? 

 

Buy according to MAGA cultists he is a commie shill.

8 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

To date all there is, is a partisan motivated accusation

Even stronger, an accusation of something from before the confirmation.

9 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

 

Her work on the  economic costs of  economic bias, is common sense. it recognizes that women  form a majority of the population and hold significant untapped underutilized economic opportunity. The same for  afro americans. It is all about extracting the maximum potential from a resource asset.

 

Spare me your Liberal identity politics nonsense. 

 

9 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

 

Nice to see that you believe that guilt should first be established. To date all there is, is a partisan motivated accusation. No evidence has been provided. No criminal charges, no indictment, no trial, no judicial verdict. In effect, a denial of due process. No much different than a Salem witch trial. The Trump administration is playing fast and loose with civil rights and the US Constitution.

 

Lots of people get sacked and then appeal. It's not a murder trial. Let her appeal if she is not guilty of what she is accused.

 

She better hope she has the leftist of lefty activist judges. Maybe they will smuggle her out the back door on the way to court like the lefty activist judge did with the immigrant? 

9 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

Her work on the  economic costs of  economic bias, is common sense. it recognizes that women  form a majority of the population and hold significant untapped underutilized economic opportunity. The same for  afro americans. It is all about extracting the maximum potential from a resource asset.

 

Yes, her work on how lynchings depressed the rate of patent applications by Black Americans, which could have otherwise contributed to innovation and economic growth is clearly of maximum use in setting interest rates. If not we can read her helpful articles on the challenges that Black women entering economics face, such as  a 2019 New York Times op-ed titled, “It Was a Mistake for Me to Choose This Field.”.

 

Endless whining is after all ensuring maximum potential these days. Well, for your particular interest group anyway.

22 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Next time I am sacked from a public role for fraud I will be sure to do so, Olav.

 

Make sure they get you on 3 (count 'em... 3) counts of fraud.

 

It's rather delicious when the lefties get exactly what they've been dishing out.  They don't seem to like it...

 

 

9 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Make sure they get you on 3 (count 'em... 3) counts of fraud.

 

It's rather delicious when the lefties get exactly what they've been dishing out.  They don't seem to like it...

 

 

 

They don't really care about the crime as long as the perp is left wing and preferably LGBTQ and/or a racial minority. 

 

Look at the support for Ricky Jones vs. the condemnation of Lucy Connolly. 

 

Their hypocrisy never ceases to astound me. 

16 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

They don't really care about the crime as long as the perp is left wing and preferably LGBTQ and/or a racial minority. 

 

Look at the support for Ricky Jones vs. the condemnation of Lucy Connolly. 

 

Their hypocrisy never ceases to astound me. 

 

TBH, I'd have some sympathy for her (and others) if they hadn't spent the past 10 years (or more) persecuting conservatives for the exact same things. 

 

If they don't get some blowback, they'll just keep doing it.  They'll burn down entire city centers and prosecute nobody, while some people walking through doors propped open by the cops languish in prison.  Conservatives were over 200 times as likely to get sentenced to prison as BLM'ers.  That's gotta stop.

 

22 hours ago, stevenl said:

Sadly i think you believe this.

 

My theory could be wrong, but feel free to offer another interpretation as to why the Federal Reserve is "independent" and the President can't even control who heads it and has no say in the interest rates.

 

The President of any company is the boss and has the final word on everything. 

 

22 hours ago, billd766 said:

But as usual, no links or proof to back up the conspiracy theories.

 

What are you talking about? I did provide a link.

Here is AI's take on the Federal Reserve ... not saying it's absolute fact ... just food for thought. 

 

Serves to benefit the financial sector (ie Warren Buffet and friends) at the expense of the general public. 

 

Ron paul made a book about ending the fed. A must read for anyone interested in US politics, which seems to be almost everyone on this forum

30 minutes ago, impulse said:

TBH, I'd have some sympathy for her (and others) if they hadn't spent the past 10 years (or more) persecuting conservatives for the exact same things.

 

Pretty much what I said on page 1.

 

The Dems took the fight to the gutter and now they're complaining when others use gutter tactics against them.

 

What goes around comes around. 

16 minutes ago, angryguy said:

Ron paul made a book about ending the fed. A must read for anyone interested in US politics, which seems to be almost everyone on this forum

 

Ron Paul was neither an expert on US economics, nor competent to offer guidance on fiscal management policy.

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

 

Spare me your Liberal identity politics nonsense. 

 

 

Lots of people get sacked and then appeal. It's not a murder trial. Let her appeal if she is not guilty of what she is accused.

 

She better hope she has the leftist of lefty activist judges. Maybe they will smuggle her out the back door on the way to court like the lefty activist judge did with the immigrant? 

 

The taxpayers are going to have to pick up the legal costs and the damages.

Trump has no authority to terminate a Fed bank director. It is doubtful that the SCOTUS will support him on this.