Trump removes Fed Governor Lisa Cook

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lisa Cook is not denying that she lied on the mortgage application. Curious omission.

It seems like many people don't consider this a crime.

People emulate the President.

So it's ok for anyone to break the law now? Do you hear yourself?

Hmm, apparently for Trump, it is (except if you are a Black woman):

During his second presidency in 2025, Trump issued executive orders to pause and roll back several anti-corruption measures:

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA): In February 2025, Trump signed an executive order pausing all FCPA investigations and enforcement for at least 180 days. This act, which has been law since 1977, prohibits U.S. companies from bribing foreign government officials. The order directed the Attorney General to review existing cases and issue revised guidelines to prioritize "American competitiveness".

Biden Administration ethics rules: On his first day in office in January 2025, Trump revoked ethics pledges that had been required for executive branch personnel under the Biden administration. These pledges had included restrictions on accepting gifts from registered lobbyists and a two-year ban on appointees participating in matters related to their former employers.

Firing independent watchdogs: In both of his presidential terms, Trump fired various Inspectors General (IGs) and the director of the Office of Government Ethics (OGE). IGs are independent officials who investigate waste, fraud, and abuse in government agencies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Those commies at the National Review want Trump to back off.
https://x.com/michaelrstrain/status/1960419718604439733?s=46&t=kf1qYlCXQnKgUhJWEIu2vg[twitter]

So do the commies at the Wall Street Journal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lisa Cook is not denying that she lied on the mortgage application. Curious omission.

It seems like many people don't consider this a crime.

Marilyn Mosby might beg to differ. She was convicted of mortgage fraud and lost her job and her reputation, as a result. She still has the Florida condo, though, so I hope it was all worth it.

[Anonymous]

CNN is on the case-
"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."

I'm wondering if this is how CNN would report it for a Republican.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:CNN is on the case-
"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."

I'm wondering if this is how CNN would report it for a Republican.

You mean an objective statement of facts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNN is on the case-
"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."

I'm wondering if this is how CNN would report it for a Republican.

You mean an objective statement of facts?

Exactly! The only person that knows "why she did so or if she did so intentionally" is Lisa Cook, and I'm sure she won't be talking to the press since she has retained a lawyer and is suing to get her job back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lisa Cook is not denying that she lied on the mortgage application. Curious omission.

It seems like many people don't consider this a crime.

Marilyn Mosby might beg to differ. She was convicted of mortgage fraud and lost her job and her reputation, as a result. She still has the Florida condo, though, so I hope it was all worth it.

Mosby literally set up a website to rent out her Florida vacation home that was a "primary residence."

The bar for proving intent related to mortgage fraud is very high.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:CNN is on the case-
"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."

I'm wondering if this is how CNN would report it for a Republican.

How did CNN get her mortgage documents?

I found both of her residences on county tax sites. The Ann Arbor home is listed as taking homestead credit (ie, primary residence), while the Atlanta apartment does NOT take a homestead credit.

[Anonymous]

Lawsuit officially filed according to the WSJ:
“Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook sued President Donald Trump on Thursday, seeking to block his move to fire her from the central bank.” 

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lawsuit officially filed according to the WSJ:
“Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook sued President Donald Trump on Thursday, seeking to block his move to fire her from the central bank.” 

Game on! This will likely make it up to the Supreme Court and then we’re really going to see where we stand in terms of presidential authority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lawsuit officially filed according to the WSJ:
“Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook sued President Donald Trump on Thursday, seeking to block his move to fire her from the central bank.” 

Game on! This will likely make it up to the Supreme Court and then we’re really going to see where we stand in terms of presidential authority.

I expect something like the Bush vs. Gore "...to the present circumstances..." circular reasoning w/r/t limitation on precedent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lawsuit officially filed according to the WSJ:
“Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook sued President Donald Trump on Thursday, seeking to block his move to fire her from the central bank.” 

Game on! This will likely make it up to the Supreme Court and then we’re really going to see where we stand in terms of presidential authority.

I expect something like the Bush vs. Gore "...to the present circumstances..." circular reasoning w/r/t limitation on precedent.

I'm afraid of that too. If our institutional integrity depends on SCOTUS doing the right thing, we're doomed. Enjoy the 20% inflation everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lawsuit officially filed according to the WSJ:
“Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook sued President Donald Trump on Thursday, seeking to block his move to fire her from the central bank.” 

Game on! This will likely make it up to the Supreme Court and then we’re really going to see where we stand in terms of presidential authority.

I expect something like the Bush vs. Gore "...to the present circumstances..." circular reasoning w/r/t limitation on precedent.

A big difference is that the Supreme Court had some credibility 20 years ago and could get away with that fact-less decision on the basis of serving the bigger picture.

Now the Supreme Court has no credibility. A limited-circumstance decision will be just as damning as a complete cave. Not that it matters because we are already sunk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lawsuit officially filed according to the WSJ:
“Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook sued President Donald Trump on Thursday, seeking to block his move to fire her from the central bank.” 

Game on! This will likely make it up to the Supreme Court and then we’re really going to see where we stand in terms of presidential authority.

I expect something like the Bush vs. Gore "...to the present circumstances..." circular reasoning w/r/t limitation on precedent.

Wrong, SCOTUS isn't going to rule against Trump even for Wall Street.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lawsuit officially filed according to the WSJ:
“Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook sued President Donald Trump on Thursday, seeking to block his move to fire her from the central bank.” 

Game on! This will likely make it up to the Supreme Court and then we’re really going to see where we stand in terms of presidential authority.

I expect something like the Bush vs. Gore "...to the present circumstances..." circular reasoning w/r/t limitation on precedent.

Wrong, SCOTUS isn't going to rule against Trump even for Wall Street.

The previous posts assumes that the SC upholds Cook's firing.