Posted on 08/30/2025 11:48:18 AM PDT by Angelino97
Just get het outa here.
If you or I did that we’d ALREADY be in jail
Yes, President Trump Has the Authority to Fire Lisa Cook“
That doesn’t seem to matter when all you have to do is go ruining to a rat DC Judge.
Someone didn’t do “due diligence” before she was even nominated.
The author hit on a point I have been harping on lately.
The Congress has - acting against the Constitution’s design of the only Constitutional branches of government - legislated so many protections against executive interference, oversight or direction of the administrative state, as well as even protections against Congressional control over parts of it (the Fed and the CFPB), so as to carve out an illegitimate INDEPENDENT fourth branch of government.
This was always in the political program of the Fascistic Progressives - rule by the experts. To them, Congress is a messy place for making laws and worse for making regulations it can’t be trusted to get it right, too much politics and special interests get in the way, things are “better” turned over to bodies of “independent experts”. The very heart of the idea cannot be found in the Constitution’s design of the government.
To be Constitutionally correct, every “executive” agency the executive cannot control would require an amendment to the Constitution to authorize it’s existence.
May just be the first time for such a position to be bestowed on the low caliber occupant that is such as to bring such antics to our table.
This won’t be the case to get rid of Humphrey’s Executor because in this case there appears to be cause. Cook doesn’t have a good explanation for the mortgage form problem, so far as we know. Clerical error? Good grief.
Multiple felonies [mortgage fraud on each of several houses; tax evasion for failing to declare rental income] should cut it.
May well have criminal false statements on her government jobs.
Even the charging of them, since they relate to her position [this is not, say, an environmental crime], would be a basis for cause in my estimation.
There could well be over a dozen legitimate felony charges.
If that ain’t “for cause” what is the point of conferring that power on the President?
But it also doesn’t specify what constitutes a legitimate “cause”
Common Sense says a few primary criteria:
1) Violation of a law
2) Seriousness of the law violated.. Misdemeanor? Felony?
3) Relevance of the violation to the duties of the office.
Violating mortgage laws is relevant to a person whose role impacts mortgages. Blowing a Stop Sign, or DUI, is not relevant to mortgages.
Cause is not defined in the statute, leaving it to the courts to define.
The courts? or does the President get deference to the Executive branch to decide?
I know that the overturning of Chevron deference applied to agency rulemaking by bureaucrats, the the President is not a bureaucrat, he IS the Executive branch and everyone else has powers delegated by him. As such, his interpretation should carry weight until such time as the court thinks it's not the right interpretation.
To go there, they would look at where else in the US Code "for cause" terminations were found, and there are common definitions for that, as you pointed out. Here are two recent cases where the Supreme Court ruled both cases in President Trump's favor:
This would suggest that the firing of Lisa Cook for the cause of malfeasance is supported by the Supreme Court's decisions in the firing of both Gwynne Wilcox (NLRB) and Cathy Harris (MSPB), without having to wait for a criminal conviction.
- Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) - 5 USC 1202(d): MSPB members "may be removed by the President only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office".
- National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) - 29 USC 153(a): NLRB Board members may be removed by the President "for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office, but for no other cause".
I know that people say it's unprecedented to fire a governor of the FED and it hasn't been done in its 112 year history, but in that time has it ever been discovered that a Fed Governor had two mortgages declaring each property to be their primary residence in order to get favorable interest rates (prima facie evidence of mortgage fraud)?
Do you think the Supreme Court is moving away from Humphrey's Executor and back towards a unitary Executive?
The Constitution grants the power of the Executive in a President AND ONLY a President. What do you think about Congress creating these "independent" agencies inside the executive branch that is effectively beyond the reach of the President? Don't you think that was an encroachment on the separation of powers? The powers inside the executive branch descend downward from the President, not crosswise from the Congress.
-PJ
I don’t get it. He either does or he doesn’t. Why does this have to happen before the issue is even brought up? Legal arguments bring in money to those with law degrees. Perhaps we should vote on it.
Her mortgage payment was probably $200-$300 cheaper per month as a falsely claimed primary. That buys a lot of Big Macs!!
Tax fraud? Lock her up.
According to William Pulte, Trump’s director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency,
<><>black Biden nom Cook allegedly committed mortgage fraud
<><>she lied about her “principal place of residence”
<><>by lying, she secured more favorable interest rates
<><>she also failed to report her rental income from the properties.
The problem is the interpretation of Congress inserting an agency inside the Executive branch that Congress labels as "independent" and the constitutionality of that.
Separation of powers would suggest that Congress cannot interfere with the operations of the Executive branch by creating agencies that are loyal to Congress, and not the President. The Constitution vests ALL the power of the Executive branch into ONE President, and ALL authority to the lower agencies are delegated from the President. When Congress creates a so-called "independent" agency inside the Executive branch, it violates the framework that all power is delegated by the President, if the head of the "independent" agency cannot have his delegated powers taken away (i.e., he's fired) due to an act of Congress.
This was taken up in a SCOTUS case called Humphrey's Executor v. United States where SCOTUS ruled that the heads of independent agencies are protected. Over the decades, legal scholars have been drifting away from Humphrey and towards the unitary executive, as evidenced by the recent SCOTUS decisions supporting President Trump's firing of the other "independent board members."
The question now is whether SCOTUS will go the last step and decide if Directors (the head of an independent agency) can also be fired by the president, doing away entirely with Congress-created independent agencies within the Executive branch.
-PJ
I get a laugh every time the eneMedia says Congress legislated the FED to be “independent”.
No, the bankers (aka, banksters) at Jekyll Island, plus people like Senator Aldridge, planned to have bankers run this nation in 1910-1914. The “independence” is a lousy cover story.
* * * FRB is part of the Executive branch, under POTUS’s control. * * *
Right, and the immediate effect was a big reduction of the percentage down payment required. Principal residence is typically 5% for non-first time homebuyers. Investment or rental property mortgage typically require 15-25% down. She also lied about the number of units to get into a lower interest and down payment tier, iirc.
Every day CNBC has a different Dem weasel lawyer saying this was long ago, small ball, but they are sending off body language that they are lying. I though lawyers had to be able to lie better than that.
Another comment - she also wrote in favor of race reparations. So “entitled to other people’s money” led to “entitled to cheat other people” IMO.
If she was tired by Biden she can certainly be fired by Trump.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.