U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer has filed a motion with the Supreme Court [SEE HERE] requesting intervention in a lower court ruling that blocks President Trump from firing Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook.
As noted in the filing, “As her removal notice observed, before taking office, Cook had made contradictory representations in two mortgage agreements a short time apart, claiming that both a property in Michigan and a property in Georgia would simultaneously serve as her principal residence. Each mortgage agreement described the representation as material to the lender, reflecting the reality that lenders usually offer lower interest rates for principal-residence mortgages because they view such mortgages as less risky. When her apparent misconduct came to light, the President determined that Cook’s “deceitful and potentially criminal conduct in a financial matter” renders her unfit to continue serving on the Federal Reserve Board, and at a minimum demonstrates “the sort of gross negligence in financial transactions that calls into question[her] competence and trustworthiness as a financial regulator.” App., infra, 29a. To this day, Cook has never attempted to reconcile these representations.” (READ MORE)
“The Federal Reserve Act’s broad ‘for cause’ provision rules out removal for no reason at all, or for policy disagreement,” Sauer wrote. “But so long as the President identifies a cause, the determination … is within the President’s unreviewable discretion.”
“The President may reasonably determine that interest rates paid by the American people should not be set by a Governor who appears to have lied about facts material to the interest rates she secured for herself — and refuses to explain the apparent misrepresentations,” Sauer wrote.
Cook maintains she dindunuffin.
And on what basis did the lower court block President Trumps dismissal of this regulator?
Would also like to puruse her social media and public comments about the things PDJT and other public figures charges — and let see if she is consistent in her standards that she applies to others vs her own standards she keeps for herself.
She’s guilty of either intentional wrongdoing or unintentional ineptitude. Either is grounds for dismissal from such a key position.
Either The Fed is unconstitutional or PDJT can fire her.
SCOTUS must choose.
PLEASE! Isn’t it racist to not let her get away with any crime 99.9% of the general public would be criminally indicted?
That’s what Joy Reid told me.
You can toss the word “racist” around all day long if you like. The word has been abused for so long that it routinely falls on deaf ears. So, to get to the heart of the matter, you must become more familiar with the term “privileged,” a word more appropriate when speaking about Mizzzzz Cook.
Exactly. This is where we are.
Which is why the Left has moved on to Fascists. They do love their F-words.
“Fascist”: another word, like racist, that 99.99% of those using the term to malign others can not correctly define
Time to start challenging every narrative that is built on the mis or re definition of words. Words and terms have actual everyday common meanings and those must be understood by both parties if civil discourse is to occur. Until the false definitions and mis-use of words has ended there can be no “unity” or even conversation.
More than that. Cook and the judge were Sorority Sisters in college.
No ‘conflict of interest’ here!
/sarc off
The SCOTUS will never acquiesce to broadening their ruling beyond what the plaintiff has requested. Unfortunately.
“Either The Fed is unconstitutional or PDJT can fire her. SCOTUS must choose.”
Why choose? Can’t we have both?
End the Fed!
Even If Cook has a protected property interest in her position on the Board, why have a hearing if she does not dispute the facts supporting her removal?
I vote for both! End the Fed and “the queen” ain’t got no job…..
The lower courts arguments are legal (illegal) gymnastics. A DUI coming home from a wedding years before appointment as a Federal Reserve Governor is something entirely different from committing bank fraud within months of taking the position especially when the job is regulating bank and setting interest rates. I would be shocked if President Trump didn’t win this 6-3 or better!
If she’s still receiving the favorable interest rates, isn’t that a continuation of the fraud? If yes, it should be a slam dunk.
Good question Jeem. Now that she’s been informed she can only have one primary residence (that assumes she was dumb, but not trying to commit fraud), has she reached out to the bank(s) to correct it?
She knew better. She did it on purpose because she thinks
laws don’t apply to her. She’s privileged don’t you know.
Maybe 6-3 but not better with the three blind lefty mice dissenters.
6-3 will do. Can’t see one of the mouth breathers voting with the majority. Spit
“Stupidity” is not a plea.
How about the butt ugly pea?
🎯
Gotta think the Supremes really don’t want to try to make their own definition of “for cause”, safest is to leave it up to the head of the Executive Branch
Yep. To me, a legal layman, this decision appears to be pleasingly simple.
A president selects/nominates Fed governors and he or his successor has the stated power to discharge Cook “for cause.” Serious, multiple, and documented occurrences of mortgage fraud, a felony in most states, have been identified and recorded, and she is under criminal investigation by the DOJ.
A reason to fire “for cause” rests in the mind of the President. No court, anywhere, can finitely define the multitudinous, legitimate reasons and associated circumstances that constitute a specific legal requirement the president must meet.
However, I will be equally disgusted and unsurprised if the SCOTUS decides the President has not met the “for cause” standard, albeit totally undefined.
“Here are the documents.” Signed and notarized. Public record. There is absolutely nothing to dispute. You simply never imagined that you would get caught.
(P.S.: Is this what “Federally-regulated banks” today call: “due diligence?”) Perhaps that is the real problem here . . .
Did this person “confidently file” this conflicting paperwork, knowing that the individual banks could not independently verify it? That’s a problem!!
Great point and that makes me wonder if that’s why she used credit unions and not one of the big major banks.
What I read was they claimed her fraudulent behavior didn’t count because it occurred before she was in office rather than during.
It didn’t count because she’s black.
It’s the bigotry of low expectations.
Democrats don’t believe blacks can do any better.
It be ‘dat black magic.
Lisa Cook’d da bookz.
Doesn’t wash if she hasn’t rectified the behavior and also, “honesty about criminal activity” is a common reason for termination of EMPLOYEES.
She’s kinda dumb. She could have easily rectified the “error” in a matter of days and publicly said so.
Instead, just doubles down.
Goes along with a perp claiming the crack rock just taken out of his pocket by the cops wasn’t his.
💯! Exactly
So no vetting took place? I’m convinced that DEI has eroded the caliber of people to the point we are not putting the brightest and most qualified people in positions.
You think?
Oh she was vetted alright.
The Biden administration appointed people to high positions because they would behave unethically. Look at the Biden cabinet appointees – Mayorkas, Garland, Austin, Granholm, Buttigieg, Blinken, Haaland, etc. with Kamala as the VP. Ketanji as Supreme Court justice. KJP as spokes-muppet.
Crooks, deviants and traitors all of them.
Aided and a vetted! Nice list G. Spells it out perfectly. 😎
Wow. These people are just….wow.
So if she robbed a bank or committed murder BEFORE she took the job, she gets a pass? No normal person believes that.
If any of the mortgages are still open then that argument is void.
On the basis of being appointed by Obama and Biden.
On the basis that POTUS doesn’t have power over a private bank entity even though SCOTUS ruled that to be constitutional the Federal Reserve must be subordinate to the executive branch.
The answer should be to end the Fed as Unconstitutional.
Question:
“And on what basis did the lower court block President Trumps dismissal of this regulator?”
Answers:
1. She’s a black, female Democrat.
2. Orange Man Bad.
He hurt her feelings…
(And yes, that is a big dose of sarc..but this Kafkaesque attempt on the part of the lower courts to lay claim to the powers of the Executive MUST be ended once and for all.)
Incidentally, the SC has set November 5 for arguments on President Trump tariffs.
….and there we are again…one year later.
Remember, Remember the Fifth of November.
The lower courts continue to use Chief Justice Roberts refusal to acknowledge or reign in their unconstitutional judicial overreach as the basis to continue doing it.
Add the fact that congress has done nothing either. Why did they wait to press charges?
What basis, you ask? The basis of favoring all ‘Rats, no matter how guilty they are, since the judge is a ‘Rat himself.
That fugly DEI doorstop will be gone by Christmas.
I expect she’ll be gone by Halloween, a more appropriate commemoration.
In addition to the “she did it before it counted” bogus argument, I’ve also heard it fantasized that what she did failed to meet the statutory requirements of “for cause.” Of course, mortgage fraud is a perfectly reasonable cause.
From your keyboard to Gods ears.
Let’s start the office pool. I gots $5 on October 8th. 21 days before the next Fed meeting.
From your lips!
Seems like a slam dunk. How can someone overseeing national interest rates be above scrutiny for gaming the system for personal gain?
Only a Democrat, or perhaps Roberts, would view her behavior as deserving of the position.
Powell looks like snack food in that picture.
I predict another win. Will everyone wake-up, no. But with each win more and more see the light.
Then, Powell will be the next to go.
He is already on the way out.
sorry off topic
This is going to be a twofer. When Trump wins at the Supreme Court, then he will be able to fire both Cook and Powell for cause.
Cook for financial fraud.
Powell for not suspending Cook while under investigation.
Time for the Supreme Court to step up and affirm President Trump’s constitutional right under Article II, Section 1 that “executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”
Important separation of powers matter as the Judicial branch must not be permitted to usurp President Trump’s executive power!
They already did that in his first term. But a more recent statement by SCOTUS then claimed the Federal Reserve was special and cannot be fired with no reasons supporting the claim. This NEEDS to come to a head.
Time to do away with the Federal Reserve since it is not accountable to the Federal Government or the people.
Same with sweetheart deals for AIPAC and Israel. Need an extradition treaty put in place ASAP with Israel.
Thats the plain reading of the law governing the fed board.
Not only must the Court reaffirm that the President can fire presidential appointees, they also need to reaffirm that the power to “To coin Money, [and] regulate the Value thereof” is specifically granted to the Congress of the United States (Article I, Section 8.)
Regulating the value of US money is a specifically enumerated power. It cannot be delegated off to a “quasi-governmental,” “quasi-independent,” unaccountable entity like the Federal Reserve.
Neither the First nor the Second Bank of the United States was able to regulate the value of money by issuing unlimited currency. When the Fed was created it also did not have that power because the US was still on the gold standard. But now it just conjures up trillions and trillions of dollars of new money out of nothing. It has done so again and again (Quantitative Easing, Too-big-to-fail bailouts, stimulus, pandemic response, etc.)
So long as soneone pays her high priced lawfare endorsed lawyers, she’ll fight to the death–or a vacation in Cancun, whichever comes first.
I just had a terrible mental picture at the beach . Thanks a lot.
Didn’t u c the sign “Nude Beach”.
…. and I don’t want to see no more.
Who has more fun than The CTH posters???
Free Shamu!
If the Supreme Court hears the appeal NOW, this is good.
However, the Supreme Court refused to fast track the appeal on an issue as critical as the President’s Authority to set Tariffs …. the case is now put off until … 4 November.
So, when will the Supreme Court hear this appeal??? …. and how many votes will Lisa Cook be making on FED Decisions until the appeal is decided??? Therein lies the reason for the Lower Court Ruling … she gets to keep voting as part of the FED until the appeal is decided.
Even if Bondi or some State AG were to perp walk her … when will the court case for Mortgage and Tax Fraud actually be conducted???
The primary objective of Lawfare cases is to remove time from President Trump … or …. GIVE Time to the likes of Lisa Cook to do damage until removed. … and court room wins are a Bonus.
By the way how many “pending decisions” are there hanging over the President’s Appeals??? It’s in the 100’s. To date very very few, if any, of the Critical Appeals WON by the President are actually final verdicts. ALL these “pending final decisions” are hanging like Swords of Damocles waiting to be dropped when needed.
Just arrest her. A just will allow bond or cash-free bond even. It’s an ugly mess.
The Lisa Cook appeal is from a injunction issued by a lower courts. The tariff appeal is from decisions after actual trials. November 4th is pretty quick for something that typically takes years.
That dog doesn’t hunt anymore, with respect to the Tariff Authority case, just because it was a “decided case”.
That case was months old before the decision was made. By the Federal Courts very own COST and IMPACT Criteria, this case meets ALL the fast track criteria set out by the Federal Courts due to the high national level impacts and cost. Those costs were presented and well known by the Supreme Court. It was the height of corruption and willful neglect on the part of the Supreme Court that the motion to fast track the case made by the President Trump’s Administration was dismissed.
The appeal vs Lisa Cook may very well be treated with the same contempt by the Roberts Court.
This woman committed mortgage fraud, she should lose her job and be held accountable, period.
You know, I know it, the caveman in the commercial knows it …. but in the eyes of of the US Legal System … it’s all ALLEGED CONDUCT.
When charged with a crime in this country there is still a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. This right is more important than throwing her out quickly. However the President should have the right to fire her for just cause. Which he will have if she is found guilty in court. Make her lawyer up and go through the painful process of a criminal trial.
The power to dismiss “for cause” has no prerequisites for a trial and conviction. Be done with her, via the authority given to the President, as expeditiously as possible.
At the least, she should be suspended with pay while the investigation takes place, this is a common practice.
Take her off the job while they go through the process.
Did she do it with intent?…Does the devil made me ploy hold?
This removal wouldn’t have been questioned by any other president, they continue to treat President Trump differently. As if by treating him as if he doesn’t have presidential authority then he’s not the president, a kind of babies putting their hands over their eyes so you can’t see them.
She just checks too many DEI boxes. Same way she got her previous gig a Michigan.
If my math is correct: DEI multiplied by TDS equals FUBAR.
I was just thinking the same thing. It is time to treat the president as THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, “not orange man bad”. The American people chose him for the job fair and square.
With a few exceptions, none of this governing body seems to have a professional bone in their whole bodies. That includes congress, the democrats and some of the republicans, the judges and anybody else who would try to prevent him from carrying out his duties. They must look like a bunch of spoiled children to the rest of the world.
The motion says “Even if Article II allows Congress to impose some limits on the President’s removal power given the Federal Reserve System’s unique historical pedigree—a question this Court need not address here—a reading of “cause” that does not give the President broad latitude to remove an officer for misconduct would violate Article II or, at a minimum, raise serious constitutional doubts.”
Why shouldn’t the SC be asked to address that question? How does any “unique historical pedigree” make something Constitutional that is plainly not Constitutional? This business of “independent” agencies that nevertheless exercise Article II functions needs to be addressed, and since it usually takes so long to get anything up to the SC and then to get a ruling out of them, shouldn’t any opportunity to get this before them be taken? Get this addressed once and for all.
That’s the rub isn’t it. A previous statement by Roberts claimed something similarly vague and smelled of bovine excrement.
They need to be FORCED to address this issue in a way that doesn’t humiliate the country, the courts, the congress or the president. The claims by the judiciary are baseless and are just a way for them to continue living another day.
Does anyone think of a judge or justice ruled against the Federal Reserve they would live much longer?
If they are forced and decide to retire rather than face punishment by the globalist federal reserve, then Trump gets to appoint more justices. How does one become “Chief Justice?” Wouldn’t it be nice if it was Chief Justice Thomas???
Personally, I’d like to see the so called
-Federal Reserve-abolished for good.
See how it was established then ask yourself, who does it serve?
I’ve got a hunch this is what it’s leading to…..
Cook looks like she could be Big Tish’s sista. Maybe she is?
Maybe Lisa, Tish and Fani are brothers from a different mother?
Warning: Land whale crossing ahead
They are going to be forced to claim, in a bit of a contradiction with SCOTUS about the UNCONSTITUTIONALITY of the Federal Reserve system. SCOTUS ruled it must be UNDER the executive to be constitutional. If SCOTUS rules they are “special” and cannot be fired, then SCOTUS will survive without being assassinated by the globalist bankers. But there is no “special” anything in the constitution which allows this. An amendment will have to be created which the public will ABSOLUTELY reject but one which would magically happen over a midnight holiday where we all wake up one morning to the news that a new constitutional amendment was ratified while we all slept.
Let them twist themselves into legal knots defending the indefensible.
The more this happens the more the average man notices just how far the system is off the rails and in need of correction.
Seems the representatives of President Trump has learned the trick of Lawfare in searching for discrepancy.
It also indicates she might be compromised.
I’m sorry, but a feckless judge was not elected by WE THE PEOPLE and this fraud used lies and deception to obtain several mortgages. What part of untrustworthy are we struggling with here?
Why Did the Democratic South Become Republican? 5:19
Listen to BRILLIANT BLACK Vanderbilt University Professor of Law Carol Swain explain the FACTS in this 5 minute video.
Incidentally, this is the PhD whose work was plagiarized by the disgraced and booted former President of Harvard, Claudine Gay AND Lisa Cook to obtain their PhDs….to them, PhD stands for “Plagiarized her Degree.” Why doesn’t Trump also include her plagiarism as part of the “cause” for firing her?
They should have their degrees rescinded. Or at the very least have an asterisk attached.
Excellent clip, thank you.
Dinesh D’Souza debunked The Big Switch in Hillary’s America, The Secret History of The Democrat Party (2016).
State AGs or Maybe DOJ should declare a 30 day amnesty for all public officials who want to decare they “made a clerical error” on mortgage loan documents. The number of clerical errors would probably astonish.
I suspect they will not want to go anywhere near that.
The proximity to vested interests of continuously inflating property values and taxes among other things obfuscates literal mountains of debt, fraud and grift in various States and municipalities across the US.
This comment is not about this but I am so angry, there is a website/blog that is asking the question is Erika Kirk involved in child trafficking, also questioning if the death of Charlie Kirk is fake. I am not going to put the website but maybe a search will find it. Clue it is a woman’s name that starts with a D.
Built like a teapot. Short and stout.
I was think’in nose tackle.
Put your bullsht on the open thread don’t spam this thread
Or else what?
She so fat, when she walks past the neighbors the say “There goes the neighborhood”.
Dont play stupid.
2.) STAY ON TOPIC – please do not post something unrelated to the specific matter and content of the thread subject. There is a ALWAYS a daily open thread available for any subject you feel should get attention. Never place unrelated, “O/T”, or “Off Topic” comments on a thread unrelated to the topic. It is not ok to say: “sorry, O/T but”… or any iteration therein, it is actually quite rude.
The Treehouse operates on the ‘old school‘ standards and practices of civil discourse amid the original blogging community
It is not ok to say: “sorry, O/T but”… or any iteration therein, it is actually quite rude.
Cook is the core “topic”. I described Cook.
You are not the hall monitor. There are dozens of posts in other articles that have been made that do not pertain to the core “topic”. Go stick your nose in their crack and sniff.
… and she makes a lot of loud noise when the heat is turned up.
Open and shut. What else is there to say?
Allegedly steals from Banks and then helps control the nation’s currency? Only in government!
Usually in the hood the standard answer is SODDI….. Some Other Dude Did It. She should try it. 😘🇺🇸🇸🇹
“Cook maintains she dindunuffin”
Sundance, congratulations! You’re just won the “internet” for today! 😂😂😂
Congrats!
01111001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01110111 01101001 01101110 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01101001 01101110 01110100 01100101 01110010 01101110 01100101 01110100
For that silly trick you loose the internet.
https://lingojam.com/BinaryTranslator
The people have recourse, if they think the President has over-stepped his executive powers – impeachment or failure at a re-election ballot box.
The President does not need only the benediction of the court to adjudicate every single act he takes as the chief executive officer of our country.
SCOTUS needs to over-rule their own lower level courts and tell them to get out the business of running the Executive Office .
If the Chief Justice weren’t so enamored of his newfound position as emperor he might do something as sensible as that.
Continuing down this path forces the POTUS to take every disputed executive action to the SCOTUS thus putting the Chief Justice in charge of running the nation.
Judicial tyranny in plain view.
DEI on full display.
If you read the text of the statute in question, you will see that Congress assigned exclusive power and discretion to “the President” at least six times. Including the power to remove “for cause.” Congress did not elaborate. The only provision is: “for cause,” which means that the offender chose to commit the offense … this conclusion being made by “the President” alone. Congress did not elaborate . . . “Due Process” does not apply.
So, there really is nothing to “decide” here, except yet another example of “Lawfare.” Which is an entirely different concern that the SCOTUS will finally have to confront. This statute is not large – not a lot of text – and it is not complicated. The assigned role of “the President” is quite clear, it is entirely “executive,” and it is absolute. If this “case,” like so many others lately, “winds up at the SCOTUS,” it is only because of lawfare. It’s not because the verbiage is hard to understand . . .
P.S.: As I suggested in a comment to another post above … maybe this person “confidently filed” this conflicting paperwork, knowing that the respective banks in question had no “real time” ability to detect it.
And, if this actually is the case . . . “here is the real problem!” The next question now being: “how extensive is it?” (Never mind “politics.”) In this case, I’m talking about “bank exposure” that the banks, individually, might not be [capable of(?) being …] aware of. An extremely serious question.
The question that needs to be addressed is why in every case involving President Trump the district court judges in Washington DC, Baltimore, New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles and Atlanta “RANDOMLY” assigned were all appointed by Biden, Clinton or Obama
But also, the “core problem,” like it or not, is being forced upward to the Supreme Court. They have already reprimanded inferior courts for ignoring their rulings.
It is also entirely possible that this entire issue will be thrust into the very-unwilling hands of Congress. Because, “Article 3” only defined the existence of one “Supreme” Court. It then left the entire task of defining “the entire(!) lower-court hierarchy(!!)” to Congress. Including their “rules.”
The entire structure, over which the Supreme Court is to “preside,” was never(!) created by them.
“Yes, ‘we live in [very …] interesting times …”
DEI and bound to make mistakes. She’s also a black woman in the USA which provides her with special privileges along with DEI. Consider it money owed to her ancestors judge.
Criminals who still have a little good left will feel some shame.
Then there are those who are the darkest evil……
The only key point of the filing: “But so long as the President identifies a cause, the determination … is within the President’s unreviewable discretion.”
CONgress deliberately did not define what constitutes “cause” & deliberately did not include a role for the judiciary. End of case.
Cookin’ her books
This should be quick, hope she’s fully packed & ready to go.
“Cook maintains she dindunuffin.”
I concur. She did nothing to merit her position.
It amazes me that the POTUS puts people on the FED Board; i.e. hires them, but he can’t fire them?
The Federal Reserve Board is nowhere in our Constitution, and apparently answers to no one?
Taxation without representation, anyone?
Cook, by lying, got for herself a preferential mortgage rate for at least one of her houses, while at the same time she blocks millions of millennials and Gen-Zers from having any house at all by helping to keep interest rates simply too high for them to afford a house ever.
And why should this cRook be allowed to continue in her present role?
I sure hope it does not have anything to do melanin.
The federal reserve act is antithetical to The Constitution. Strike it down!
I wonder if this lady was the most maximally qualified person for the job of fed reserve banker-boss? I mean… she must’ve had the qualifications. Right?
Right?
Her ‘black privilege’ card is void because her mortgage fraud shows she has no merit and no morals.
Moral turpitude. Needn’t require a conviction to terminate employees in many industries, particularly involving fiduciary responsibility. And the top banking policymakers most certainly have a fiduciary responsibility to the entire nation. This is all the cause PDJT needs to fire her crooked yuge butt.
Next comment will be large text block from AI chat about if interested.
AI: “While moral turpitude is often discussed in the context of criminal convictions, in practice — especially within the U.S. banking and financial sectors*— employers and regulators consider a broader range of conduct when assessing an individual’s fitness for roles involving fiduciary responsibility or handling money. Even without a criminal conviction, certain records or credible allegations can lead to disqualification.
Broader Risk-Based Hiring Standards in Financial Roles
1. Bankruptcy and Financial Distress:
– While not illegal, personal bankruptcy or a history of serious financial mismanagement (e.g., multiple defaults, tax liens, wage garnishments) can raise red flags.
– Employers may view financial instability as a risk for coercion, fraud, or theft, especially for roles with access to funds or sensitive financial data.
– FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Authority), for example, requires firms to report certain financial responsibility issues (like bankruptcy) on Form U4, which is reviewed during hiring.
2. Credible Allegations or Disciplinary Actions:
– Even unproven but substantiated accusations of dishonesty, fraud, or ethical breaches — such as internal investigations, customer complaints, or prior employer terminations — can disqualify a candidate.
– Regulators and financial institutions often apply a “trustworthiness” standard, and a pattern of questionable behavior may be enough to deny employment or registration.
3. Civil Judgments and Regulatory Actions:
– A civil judgment for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, or financial misconduct — even without criminal charges — can be grounds for rejection.
– Prior disciplinary actions by state boards, professional associations, or financial regulators (e.g., SEC, CFP Board) are closely scrutinized.
4. Background and Credit Checks:
– Employers in banking routinely conduct credit checks and comprehensive background screenings (with consent).
– Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), adverse actions based on such reports must be disclosed, but employers retain wide discretion in high-trust roles.
### Regulatory Framework Supporting These Standards
– FINRA Rule 3110 and 3120: Require firms to supervise employees and report disciplinary events, including financial and ethical issues.
– Federal Reserve and OCC Guidelines: Encourage rigorous employee screening to mitigate operational and reputational risk.
– Dodd-Frank Act: Strengthened oversight of financial professionals, emphasizing integrity and fitness.
### Summary
Yes — in the U.S. financial sector, the principle extends well beyond criminal convictions. Employers and regulators can (and do) reject applicants based on:
– Financial instability (e.g., repeated bankruptcy),
– Credible allegations of dishonesty or misconduct,
– Civil judgments involving breach of trust,
– Or any pattern suggesting lack of integrity or susceptibility to financial pressure.
This reflects the industry’s emphasis on preventing risk before it occurs, not just punishing past crimes. Moral turpitude in spirit — if not in legal label — applies broadly to any conduct that undermines trust, honesty, or financial responsibility in roles managing money.”
Fire her. For cause. Bam!
I have better idea. Shutter the Fed. If the Federal Reserve is shut down, then by definition, the problem is solved.
Another day and another thread about another scandal that makes me want to rub my eyes and ask, “Am I really reading this? How can this be real?”
And yet…….
She’s as guilty as they come. RUN THE WENCH!
If the president cannot terminate the regulator, then who can, and on what basis? If anyone else can, on any basis, then the president must have that authority, too, at a minimum.
If no other may terminate the regulator, then the position is immune from termination, even for cause. That violates the constitution, for no such regulatory position is defined thusly to be out of reach of all three branches of government.
Thus, the regulator is subject to dismissal for cause by the president, and all he need do is state his cause. It’s rather like this: your signature is required to execute a document…what you sign doesn’t matter, so long as it was YOUR signature and for the purpose of executing the document.
The law looks cut and dry in this one. Let us hope SCOTUS does their job and allows PDJT to throw how out for clear cause!!
I just want to know if her replacement will be from Fox News or the Heritage Foundation.
If Ms Bondi were doing her job Ms Cook would be in jail, not attending a fed meeting.
But Ms Bondi is so lazy if you gave her a third hand she’d ask for a third pocket to put it in.
Either that or the dark side owns her.
Shift may have given her some pointers
Trump has every right to fire her and she has every right to appeal it under The Merit System Protection Board.
It is confusing to me that a member of the Federal Reserve Board who is in her sixties has a large mortgage on all of her real estate. I mean, what’s the plan here? Does she not think that she will ever want to stop working? I would think after 35 or 40 years of working the mortgages would be gone in a normal life plan for a highly competent and talented adult? Right?
Didn’t the judge who blocked the firing make a pointed comment about there being no actual evidence?