to be fair, Trump was prosecuted for something very similar - fraud on overstating values of property to get better loan rates, I.e. fraud - whereas cook is being investigated for falsifying mortgage applications to get a better rate, I.e. fraud. It's not the top line, two houses as primary residence, it's the crime, fraud.
Fed Governor Lisa Cook Fired with Cause
- Thread starter fatpiggy
- Start date
I’m pretty sure you posted that “no one is above the law” not that long ago
did you have a change of heart or do you want a two-tier justice system?
Sure, and if everyone currently stating they think she should resign for betraying the public trust, were also saying Trump should resign for betraying the public trust, then it wouldn't feel like virtue signaling, it would feel like integrity. But that doesn't seem to be the case.
I don't have a problem with her being prosecuted just like anyone else who was found to have done the same thing. That isn't at all what I was discussing. I just find it ridiculous I keep seeing "betraying the public trust" like she did something wildly ridiculous or something that was directly related to her current role.
You in particular are one of the people I am talking about. How many times have you said that everyone is doing the fraud that Trump committed when getting his loan? You have repeatedly stated that over and over. Like within the past week I believe since his case and the penalty has come up. It wasn't just misrepresenting Mar A Lago, it was claiming multitudes of square footage on a penthouse that didn't exist, and many more things. But you keep stating in all caps how much it doesn't bother you about Trump. That you are loving what he is doing. Zero public trust has been betrayed by him to you. But Cook claims residence in two places and suddenly public trust has been betrayed and you need people that are lily white clean.
Again, if she is guilty, I say treat her exactly like you would anyone else found to have claimed residence in two homes, and move forward. (And I don't know what that is, do they just pay back pay? Are they going to prison for that? (I doubt it)).
It's the "virtue signaling" or whatever the opposite is of that that I find humorous and over the top.
To me it is wildly ridiculous that you are in charge of setting rates for the world, and then break the rules to get yourself a lower rate. That is absolutely absurd and it is directly related to her role. It's a rules for thee but not for me situation and that is a betrayal of trust. We trust those in charge to abide by the rules they set.
lol k
The Fed has nothing to do with a rate difference between main residence and used for rental.
What Trump did was orders of magnitude worse but at least he got a trial. They're going to keep this up until he controls every single lever of government so we can't allow this to be normalized.
Oh wait, we should have learned our lesson about trusting you and your sources by now. eyeroll
Hi Grok, Did Trump order US marshalls to remove Lisa Cook?
"There is no definitive evidence from the provided references that President Donald Trump ordered U.S. Marshals to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook."
"None of the sources mention Trump ordering U.S. Marshals to physically remove Cook from her position or any related premises. The dispute appears to be centered on a legal and administrative action rather than a physical intervention by law enforcement. Posts on X from the U.S. Marshals Service around this period focus on unrelated operations, such as "MakeDCSafeAgain" and apprehending a felon, with no reference to actions involving Cook.
The situation is poised for a legal battle, with Cook’s team arguing that Trump’s attempt to remove her lacks factual or legal basis, and the Federal Reserve emphasizing that its governors are protected by law to ensure independence from political pressure. Without further evidence, it seems unlikely that U.S. Marshals were involved, as the matter is being contested through legal channels rather than physical enforcement."
Love having a higher standard for a Fed Board member than the President. Makes sense.
wasn't the president found guilty? Seems as if some on here are on board with the opposite, fraud for Trump, minor faux pas for Cook.
Not defending either, and I add Schiff and James to this debate. As has been pointed out, one of the factors leading to the housing crisis in 2008 was fraud on mortgage applications. We have laws for a reason. If we're not going to enforce them, repeal them.
I was recently considering refinancing a second home. One of the first questions I was asked, "is this your primary residence"? Seems as if I might have been in the minority by saying "no"
Yes, he was. Sort of my point.
While I think he did commit fraud in that case, you won't find me repeatedly saying that he has broken the trust of the American people for that, and that he is unfit for the presidency (at least due to that
), all the rest of the performative nonsense I keep seeing on this board.So your moral position is that if we find a crime and it NOT THE PERSON DPIC73 wants gulity Then we ignore the crime
Policeman once told me that other people were speeding and I didn’t think it was fair to charge
me
He said yeap other people speed but I caught YOU
She did something massively wrong.
She took an oath and people were expecting lawful behavior.
Do you support lawful behavior or not
Simple question simple yes or no answer
I don't disagree with your thoughts. There is a big difference though, Trump was elected after the court case and verdict. So a majority of voters said in effect I don't care. But the crime was big enough to where the state government prosecuted.Yes, he was. Sort of my point.
While I think he did commit fraud in that case, you won't find me repeatedly saying that he has broken the trust of the American people for that, and that he is unfit for the presidency (at least due to that
In the cook, Schiff, James cases, we seem to be reducing our outrage about the crime.
As I said, we have these laws on the books for a reason.
Do I think Trump should have fired Cook solely on the basis of an accusation. NO!! She deserves a chance to tell her side of the story. If guilty of fraud, then she can be fired. That chain of events would be more politically acceptable and/or a more reasoned approach IMO
You love to compare apples to watermelons.
Trump was doing a private deal and his conduct was NOT ILLEGAL
Do those police have orders to lie in wait for me and follow me around until they catch me speeding because the Chief doesn't like me?
And why does your demand that officials be lily white not extend to the Presidency?
Why do you hold her to a different standard than Trump? Simple question simple yes or no answer.
Cook was doing a public deal? What do you mean his conduct wasn't illegal? He was literally convicted by a jury of his peers.
Piggy: All we have thus far is allegations. No judicial finding of anything. Isn't Ms. Cook entitled to due process and a presumption of innocence? If anyone EVER received a full measure of due process, it is Donald Trump. He had better hope he gets more of the same after he departs office (unless he strokes out in office), since he is likely looking at more time defending both civil and criminal charges.
I suppose he was after his first term, but assumed you meant this election. He was convicted in early 2024. at least 6 months before the election for his second term.
In a criminal matter she is indeed entitled to due process.
Take Clemson football for example. Schef got pulled over for DUI. Dabo would be well within his rights to kick him off the team for making the team look bad even though he had not been convicted yet. Should Dabo wait until he is proven guilty in a court of law to hold him accountable? He is being punished before a court of law speaks. The coldplay couple? They were never convicted, yet both were fired by the board i believe.
She can get due process in a criminal trial. As it is, the evidence is very clear, she either intentionally lied or was incompetent. There is no in-between. Fired with cause.
bear, I don't know this for fact (came from MSM) but supposedly she signed documents two weeks apart.
Two weeks apart is correct. Her signature matches and she has not denied signing them. Either intentional or incompetent, neither is OK. Fired with cause.
Ned: You forgot about Trump inciting the January 6 insurrection and the Supreme Court subsequently giving him a free pass for it, even though the clear language of the 14th Amendment should have made him ineligible for any elective office.
And you forgot about him stealing hundreds of boxes of documents belonging to the Federal Government (many of them classified), and subsequently blowing off the National Archives when it asked, then demanded, their return. With considerable assistance from that sycophantic District Judge in Florida (I forget her name), Trump managed to run out the clock on that prosecution, but it does not change the fact that he committed those crimes.
Hopefully, he will be prosecuted when his term as President ceases (if he does not stroke out before then).
I know, right?! I was similarly mystified by that post. How can anyone be that dumb!