We see things for what they are, not what media try to have us believe.
Unlike the first term playbook, the Lawfare operation against President Trump is facing a more affirmed attack posture. Instead of Trump (T1) being on constant defense, Trump (T2) is strategically willing to be more confrontational and direct against the use of Lawfare and corrupt courts against Trump’s intended policy changes.
T2 Main Justice is still not going to the mattresses as many of us would like, and factually the DOJ and FBI operations are still a weakness in the overall war against the radical left; however, they do appear to recognize that direct aggressive confrontation is needed – despite the shortcomings in their capabilities.
In the fight between the executive authority and Federal Reserve board member Lisa Cook, the embattled fed governor is being represented by Norm Eisen. Eisen, together with Mary McCord and other ideological travelers represent Lisa Cook and are using the issue as a point of attack against executive power.
In the latest development, in a 2-1 decision [SOURCE HERE], a federal appeals court has rejected President Donald Trump’s bid to quickly fire Federal Reserve board member Lisa Cook. The two justices who decided to block Trump were appointed by Joe Biden. The justice who sided with the executive authority was appointed by President Trump.
Ultimately, this issue is going to the Supreme Court where hopefully the highest court will rule that President Trump can remove Lisa Cook for cause, because Cook falsified federal mortgage loan documents. But in the bigger picture, the issue around Cook is not as much about her unlawful conduct, as it is the value of what Cook represents in the fight against President Trump.
WASHINGTON DC – […] Judges J, Michelle Childs and Bradley Garcia, both Biden appointees, voted to leave Cook in her post, while Judge Gregory Katsas, a Trump appointee, dissented. The Department of Justice declined comment.
Last week, U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb rejected Trump’s bid to remove Cook just three years into her 14-year term, saying the president’s justification for the firing — mortgage fraud allegations that have not been adjudicated in any forum — did not meet the legal requirements to overcome laws protecting the independence of the Federal Reserve.
While the Supreme Court has repeatedly endorsed Trump’s efforts to remove executive branch officials Congress has sought to insulate from politics, the justices have signaled they view the Federal Reserve as a unique “quasi-private” institution that may put it in a different legal category.
Federal law gives Trump the power to fire members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors “for cause,” which typically means misconduct or malfeasance on the job. Trump said he had cause to fire Cook due to allegations that she claimed in separate mortgage applications that two different homes were her primary residence, which can entitle a homeowner to lower rates. Cook has denied the allegations.
The D.C. Circuit’s majority said there was “no need” at this stage of the case for the appeals court to address whether the allegations against Cook meet the “for cause” standard to fire a Fed member or what that standard would require. Childs and Garcia agreed with Cobb’s finding that Cook’s due process rights appeared to have been violated because she wasn’t properly notified of the accusations against her and given a chance to dispute them.
In his dissent, Katsas grappled directly with the definition of “for cause” firing protections for Federal Reserve board members, concluding that the law gives the president broad power to define the “cause.”
“The Board of Governors no doubt is important, but that only heightens the government’s interest in ensuring that its Governors are competent and capable of projecting confidence into markets,” Katsas wrote. “And in empowering the President to remove Governors for cause, Congress has specifically assigned that task to the President.”
Delving into the president’s determination of cause, Katsas wrote, “would enable a potentially compromised Governor to engage in significant governmental action — such as voting on whether to adjust interest rates, which Cook says she must do tomorrow.”
The Trump administration’s expected emergency appeal will go to Chief Justice John Roberts, who oversees such appeals out of the D.C. Circuit. He’s all but certain to escalate the issue to the full court, but could issue a temporary order blocking Cook from remaining in her post while the litigation plays out. (more)
Norm Eisen left, Abbe Lowell right. Both lawyers for Lisa Cook
Norm Eisen is a well-known Lawfare operative, second only to Mary McCord in his high visibility and connections to all of the anti-Trump efforts. Eisen, like McCord, is at the center of the leftist effort to stop the Trump agenda through the manipulation of the courts, ie. ‘Lawfare.’
Eliminate the Fed. Problem solved
Would Eisen et al, take cases just to cash in on an eventual loser, for a pat on the back (acknowledging that he enjoys the attention and notoriety from his homies)?
Eisen & Co are paid $500 – $1,000 an hour plus expenses. He’s funded by Soros type billionaires because Lisa Cook couldn’t after 20 minutes of his legal fees!
Nor offer 20 minutes in her own legal defense. More Democrat lawfare.
Aren’t such services, when paid for by others, be considered taxable income – or taxable gifts ?
If some wonderful and generous benefactor graciously paid of my mortgage for example, wouldn’t there be some kind of tax obligation ???
Well, in the case of Republicans you’re probably right!
Who paid for the elves (Anne Coulter & George Conway / both Scalia clerks) to round table the DD and the SC brief for Paula Jones? Wasn’t it a few high profile republicans?
Some lawyers count fractions of the hour. So if you spend 20 minutes on the phone you’re billed for the full hour.
There are a number of excellent comments in this thread about the “legal support” being provided to some government employees attempting to thwart the Executive authority to dismiss such employees. Consequently, can the DOJ investigate the sources funding for those efforts, and idenity if there is an effort to harass the administration??? IMESHO, the public has the right to know who is legally representing individuals who are trying to impact public policy. IMESHO, any lawyer trying to subvert Executive authority should be investigated and disbarred if appropriate.
Yup.
The question which needs to answered is HOW virtually every single one of these Lawfare cases at the district court level in Washington DC, Baltimore, New York, Los Angeles and even Miami always gets an Obama or Biden judge?
As has been mentioned here multiple times in the past few years it’s mathematically impossible for any legal team to be so consistently lucky in getting like minded judges “randomly” assigned to what are mostly frivolous lawsuits unless the district court clerks offices are across the board corrupt. Looking at the complexion of the district court clerks you will see that they are identical in staffing as county elections offices which in Democrat run cities are notoriously corrupt! When is Kash Patel and AG Bondi going investigate any of this corruption?
Lawfare court clerks that’s how!!! Justice Roberts had one until recently and maybe still does? District Court Cases aren’t assigned randomly even if that’s the Court’s formal rule!!!! JMO
Judge and clerks are government employees. Their employee protection unions wield the real power that keeps a death grip on their employee protection powers.
Borgs waiting for their government pensions must be protected at all costs – case in point – the James Comey daughter new lawsuit, the Andrew McCabe hissy fit after losing his own pension for cause.
Government employee unions want only Democrats to prevail in elections or by continued deep state sabotage. So many keep overlooking the roles of government employee unions (D) in this ongoing saga.
newsflash. unions are done
Maybe. If U.S. manufacturing returns in any large scale, unions may surge again but they’ll have to better represent their constituents and not defend sloppy quality from their members like they used to.
I don’t think fed employee unions have any power at all. MSPB has the power.
Fed leading by example. I never would have guessed they
d declare its okay to lie on mortgage documents.Silly me, playing by rules.
Love Lisa’s statue in Times Square.
Three words…
‘Separation of Powers’.
This should be an easy one. The high court should be able to easily recognize the continued attempted encroachment of the Judicial branch on the Executive branch & rule accordingly.
That is all.
Who controls the amassed power exerted by the government employee unions today.
Where is the checks and balances built into the US Constitution? That is who is really feeling the lawfare against every Tump move.
“should be”
Two magic words that define the huge gulf between what we vote for and what we get.
The two judges who ruled in Cook’s favor did the usual creation of new made-up interpretations of what the 5th Amendment says that leftist judges are prone to doing.
They ruled she had a “property” interest in her job as Fed governor because she had a statutory protection from at-will firing.
Dissenting Judge Katsas rejected the idea that principal officers of the United States could ever hold property rights in their offices. He likened her to the governor of Kentucky in a 1900 Supreme Court case, where the justices declared that “public office is not property.”
Next stop, SCOTUS. This will probably be the last meeting she will attend.
Most people would like to get “due process” after being fired from their job, but despite what those leftist judges say about the 5th Amendment, there is no such requirement. The 5th Amendment requires that “due process of law” be part of any proceeding that denies a citizen “life, liberty or property”.
Cook is not being denied any of that.
And these same leftist judges feel that they know better than the President what “for cause” is. While the law does not define the term “for cause”, the Justice Department has argued that contradictory statements on financial filings could constitute sufficient cause, asserting broad presidential discretion in such matters.
And it will probably be the “broad presidential discretion” that the SCOTUS rules on, not accepting a lower court’s opinion over that of the President as to what constitutes “for cause”.
when is a judge going to do the same thing with the 5th amendment and word EFFECTS ( make it to where a TOS cant usurp, and a tech comp cant SELL ANY OF YOUR DATA EVER, ITS NOT THEIRS, its digital Footprints of us and our data)
they are stalking us not selling data for ads
Nobody has a property interest in a government position! LOL
Actually, We the People have the property interest because we paid for it – dearly. So, using the judges’ rationale, we should raze the Federal Reserve and cut our losses.
Read the text of the statute for yourself. This is exactly what it says. “The President” has the sole power and discretion. The only relevant term in “for cause” is that the person being disciplined had to have “done it.” And there can be zero question that she did. Of her own free will. Never expecting to get caught.
Presenting THE APPEARANCE of misconduct is normally sufficient cause.
Agreed. I asked a moonbat yesterday something like, “Had this (the appearance of mortgage fraud) come out during her job interview, would she have been confirmed in the position?” His answer – ‘that’s different’.
None are so blind as those who will not see.
Voters can fire or impeach a president if they believe he has abused any “for cause” employee termination rights.
Abuse of this action is not without recourse, as also provided in the US Constitution. No power granted was ever designed to be an unfettered power. Nor was the judiciary given the unfettered power to usurp the checks and balances built into the US Constituiron.
The actual law as actually written is quite simple: “the President” is mentioned six different times, and given absolute power and discretion. “The President” determines what “for cause” means to him: Congress did not elaborate. There can be no question that this person executed multiple notarized, fraudulent public documents within days of each other, therefore she “caused” it. If “The President” now determines that she is to be removed “for cause,” his determination is the only thing that counts, and he doesn’t have to explain himself. Look at these filed pieces of paper, and there is your crime.
Fire them all. They have Zero Constitutional right to exist. Close them down and forfeit all their assets. This abomination is straight up an enemy of the country.
It is quite clear to me this decision was incorrect. This court should have issued “a temporary order blocking Cook from remaining in her post while the litigation plays out.” These accusations are based on publicly-available documents that appear to show lack of financial honesty. I – and many others – have filled out similar loan applications. They are not difficult to fill out honestly and accurately.
activists are in every position relevant like this. they did what they could get away with
I doubt Cook has the financial resources to pay for her defense. Next question is whether or not Eisen and Lowell are going pro bono. If not, the question after that is; Who is funding?
It seems to me that President Trump is missing out on smearing the entire Fed Board of Governors. He could simply ask why they don’t condemn a liar, cheater and scammer in their midst. Are they OK with the entire Fed being tarred with an unethical member in their little conclave?
Like I said many times, these judges are doing the DemocRats’ dirty work for them.
Just a suggestion for nomenclature:
We have
Obama 44,
Trump 45,
Biden 46, and
Trump 47.
I think that helps to keep things straight.
The mortgage business regarding Cook is the narrative. She was fired because she is a plagiarist, an academic fraud and a racist.
Mary was on MSM this week. Looks worse than the last appearance if that is possible.
Eisengruber
Is a Fed Governor a part of the Legislative Branch? No
Is a Fed Governor a part of the Judicial Branch? Uh, no.
Gee, what’s left?
If Eisen and McCord were working for the Republicans doing lawfare against a Democrat president you can be sure that they would have long ago been arrested and imprisoned for some past minor crime or a made up crime.
Disbar them