The DOJ was amusingly feeble in the SC regarding the Fed’s Lisa Cook.
Oral Arguments
GEN. D. JOHN SAUER on behalf of Trump vs PAUL D. CLEMENT, ESQ. On behalf of Lisa Cook
GENERAL SAUER: Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court: Deceit or gross negligence by a financial regulator in financial transactions is cause for removal. In a two-week period in 2021, Lisa Cook submitted mortgage applications for two properties in Michigan and Georgia. In both, she told the lender that, within 60 days, she would occupy that property for one year as her principal residence.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: You ask us today in this emergency application to provide — to — to finally decide these issues. I want to know why. Meaning, the president, by your own admission, cannot fire someone for disagreeing with his policy choices. You’ve conceded that, correct?
GENERAL SAUER: Correct.JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: All right. So it’s not as if keeping her is going to thwart any right he has to run the department because he has none. Now it’s not as if she’s been incompetent, negligent, or committed malfeasance while in office. This is something pre-office. So keeping her in office is not causing an immediate harm to to the agency. Why shouldn’t we wait until the end of this case, where all the issues are clear and where we make a final decision as to whether she should have been removed or not?
GENERAL SAUER: Let me start by addressing that last point. We are seeking a stay of an unprecedented preliminary injunction, restoring a principal officer of the United States after being removed by the President of the United States. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: A hundred and twelve years, and it’s unprecedented that any Federal Reserve officer has ever — has ever been removed. So the unprecedented nature of this case is a — is a part of what the president did, not what Ms. Cook did.|
GENERAL SAUER: What this Court held in Sawyer is there is no jurisdiction to issue a preliminary injunction restoring a public officer to office, and — and that’s a holding of the Court.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: She never left. She never left. She’s still there.JUSTICE BARRETT: General Sauer, can I ask you a question that’s also related to the stay factors? Justice Sotomayor brought up the public interest here, and we have amicus briefs from economists who tell us that if Governor Cook is — if we grant you your stay, that it could trigger a recession. How should we think about the public interest in a case like this?
GENERAL SAUER: Surely, that if investors are jittery or whatever the argument is, you would have seen that on August 25th, and you did not see that. In fact, you have the surprised —
JUSTICE BARRETT: Well, I’ll interrupt you there to say that I don’t want to be in the business of predicting exactly what the market’s going to do.
GENERAL SAUER: What the Court has to do is weigh — essentially, you have those amicus briefs as a reflection of very elite opinion, elite opinion that what’s happened here —
JUSTICE BARRETT: But there’s a risk, General Sauer.
GENERAL SAUER: Yes.
JUSTICE BARRETT: I don’t want to be responsible for quantifying that risk. I’m a judge, not an economist.JUSTICE JACKSON: General Sauer, excuse me, I — I guess I think you may have to be a little bit more specific with respect to the irreparable harm that you are alleging because, really, as Justice Barrett sort of indicated, we are in a stay posture here. So the question is, to what extent do we believe that the president or the public is harmed by allowing Ms. Cook to remain in her position for the pendency of this case?
GENERAL SAUER: Among other reasons, we assert grievous irreparable injury to the public perception to the Federal Reserve of allowing her to stay in office. They argue that this is going to cause the markets to tank.
JUSTICE JACKSON: You have evidence related —
GENERAL SAUER: When she was first removed, they [the market] didn’t tank ……JUSTICE JACKSON: You’re — you’re — you’re repeating —
GENERAL SAUER: — by seeing it so low —
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Counsel —
JUSTICE JACKSON: — you’re repeating —
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: — please allow the Justice —
GENERAL SAUER: I’m sorry.
JUSTICE JACKSON: You’re repeating the allegation. What I’m asking you is the evidence that supports that allegation.
GENERAL SAUER: Well, the removal order addresses that because it — JUSTICE JACKSON: What is the removal order? The — the — the Truth Social post?JUSTICE JACKSON: Was Ms. Cook given the opportunity in some sort of formal proceeding to contest that evidence or explain it?
GENERAL SAUER: Not a formal proceeding. She was given an opportunity in public because she was notified —
JUSTICE JACKSON: Like, she was supposed to post about it and that was the
opportunity to be heard —
GENERAL SAUER: Yeah. […. …]
JUSTICE GORSUCH: So just — just — just a meeting across a conference table finished with “you’re fired”?JUSTICE KAGAN: Do — do I understand you, General, going back to Justice Gorsuch’s first question, to continue to maintain that, in fact, there is no requirement for notice and opportunity for a hearing? Is that right?
GENERAL SAUER: Absolutely, yes.
JUSTICE KAGAN: But the outcome of your position is that in this case, without — where you don’t have the inefficiency, neglect standard, the President need not provide any notice, the President need not provide any hearing; the President just really has to say, Ms. Cook, you’re fired?
GENERAL SAUER: He has to provide a cause. We contend that there has to be a cause, something that relates to conduct, fitness, sufficiency, or competence. We concede it cannot be for policy disagreement or — or for no reason at all or at will.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: General Sauer, if — if you’re correct that courts do not have the authority to reinstate a removed officer, why are we wasting our time wondering if there’s cause or not? Because, even if we say, yes, there is cause, he shouldn’t have removed her, but we don’t have the authority to order her reinstatement, what’s the — how is that consistent with — with the time and energy being spent on determining if there’s cause?
GENERAL SAUER: We agree.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, it’s an independent basis. I guess it’s not independent in the sense that, if that’s right, the other one is irrelevant, right? It seems to me that if there is any level of cause, and you indicate that there is some level of cause, right, well, then you can’t be right about the idea that courts can’t order anybody who’s been removed to be reinstated.JUSTICE ALITO: Is there any reason why this whole matter had to be handled by everybody, by the executive branch, by the district court, by the D.C. Circuit, in such a hurried manner? We — you began by laying out what you claim to be the factual basis for the for-cause removal. But no court has ever explored those facts. Are the mortgage applications even in the record in this case?
GENERAL SAUER: I know that the text of the social media post that screenshots the mortgage applications is in the record. But I don’t recall if the — the paperwork itself is in the record, in the district court’s record.JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: For present purposes, you accept the constitutionality of the for-cause removal provision for the Federal Reserve, and that is what protects the independence of the Federal Reserve. What, in your view, is the purpose of that independence?
GENERAL SAUER: It protects the — exactly reflecting the plain text of the statute, it protects the governors for removal for policy disagreement or for no reason at all.
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: And what is the broader purpose of that?
GENERAL SAUER: To preserve the independence of the Federal Reserve. JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: And what is the broader purpose of that?
GENERAL SAUER: Well, there is a number of reasons that are discussed by their amici and I think not disputed by us, which is that there is a — you know, a long tradition of having this exercise of monetary policy be exercised independent of, you know, executive — executive influence.
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: And why is that independence important in your view? GENERAL SAUER: For — I — I don’t — we don’t dispute the importance of that for many of the reasons that their amici say, but we emphasize that there’s a balance struck here. This is not a ironclad “you can never be removed.” There is a cause removal authorized in –
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: But, on that, your position that there’s no judicial review, no process required, no remedy available, a very low bar for cause that the president alone determines, I mean, that would weaken, if not shatter, the independence of the Federal Reserve that we just discussed.
GENERAL SAUER: We disagree with that.
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: Let’s talk about the real-world downstream effects of this because, if this were set as a precedent, it seems to me, just thinking big picture, what goes around comes around. All of the current president’s appointees would likely be removed for cause on January 20th, 2029, if there’s a Democratic President or January 20th, 2033, and then we’re really at at-will removal. So what are we doing here?
GENERAL SAUER: Yeah.
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: What is — you know, we started — that’s why I started with what’s the purpose of the independence in the for-cause removal. If we accept all these no procedure, no judicial review, no remedy, you know, that’s what’s going to happen, I think, and then — then where are we? So do you dispute that that is, you know, the — the real-world effect?
GENERAL SAUER: I cannot predict what future presidents may or may not do, but the argument strikes me as a policy argument —
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: Well, history is a pretty good guide. Once these tools are unleashed, they are used by both sides and usually more the second time around. We have to be aware of what we’re doing and the consequences of your
position for the structure of the government.JUSTICE BARRETT: I want to pick up on that question about why — Justice Kavanaugh said why are you afraid of a hearing or what would there be that would be wrong with process. I mean, you spent a lot of time litigating the case. You know, it’s gone up from the district court to the court of appeals, and now we’re here. And if there isn’t anything to fear from a hearing and if you have the evidence, why couldn’t those resources have been put into a hearing?
SCOTUS Blog Comments
I am pleased to report the SCOTUSblog view Supreme Court appears likely to prevent Trump from firing Fed governor
The Supreme Court on Wednesday appeared likely to leave Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors, on the job while her challenge to President Donald Trump’s attempt to fire her continues. Although the Trump administration contends that the president acted within the law, a majority of the justices seemed ready to reject the government’s request to allow him to remove her, even if it was not clear whether the justices would send the case back to the lower courts or instead go ahead and rule that Trump does not have a good reason to fire Cook.
DOJ’s Interaction with the Court
The Law Dork comments DOJ’s defense of Trump’s Fed firing effort falls flat at SCOTUS
President Donald Trump doesn’t like rules.
Announcing that “the Fed is different“ carve-out was all but a dare to a man like Trump, and, on August 25, he tried to fire Lisa Cook as a governor of the Federal Reserve Board, via a letter in a Truth social post.
It was “an extraordinary application” as Cook’s lawyer, Paul Clement, told the justices at one point of DOJ’s request.
With this president, many have been saying that a moment like this was inevitable. More than that, though, it was the combination of a president like Trump with this court’s recent executive authority expansion that brought us to Wednesday.
Despite that expansion, though, it was an extraordinarily difficult argument for Solicitor General John Sauer — due to the pushback and skepticism he faced from across the bench.
Sauer, Trump’s former personal lawyer, was aggressive in argument, combative in tone, and eager to repeatedly speak over justices (all women justices, by my count) trying to ask questions. After Sauer did this with both Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Amy Coney Barrett, this behavior eventually led Chief Justice John Roberts to step in and tell Sauer to let Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson speak.
“Counsel,” Roberts said, “please allow the Justice —” At which point Sauer said, “I’m sorry.”
It was an unusual moment for any advocate before the Supreme Court, but almost unheard of for the Chief Justice to have to step in and correct the behavior of a Justice Department lawyer — let alone the solicitor general.
On Wednesday, the court appeared to have reached a similar point with Trump as Roberts had reached Sauer: Trump’s behavior has led the court to step in.
Sauer’s failure to convince the justices of his and Trump’s position as to the president’s effort to fire Cook was clear throughout the arguments.
Unlike the other firing cases, the Trump administration is not in court challenging the for-cause removal requirement for Fed governors. Instead, they are arguing that Trump has cause to fire Cook based on allegations of mortgage fraud (that Cook’s lawyers have questioned). Those allegations, Trump wrote in his firing letter, amount to “deceitful and potentially criminal conduct” or, at least, “gross negligence in financial transactions.“
Sauer was attempting to argue three main points: (1) Cook has no right to a hearing to counter the allegations or standards applied; (2) courts have no authority to review Trump’s cause determination; and (3) courts can’t order reinstatement by way of a preliminary injunction and can’t issue final relief by way of mandamus against the president.
Justices across the board were skeptical of all three points, and, on top of that, questioned whether the Trump administration could show it would face irreparable harm necessary to get the “emergency” relief sought here, what the public interest is, or even why the case was being rushed forward in this way.
If a hearing is needed — an opportunity for Cook to respond to the allegations and cause claimed by Trump for her removal — Justice Neil Gorsuch asked about what sort of hearing would be needed. Kagan picked up on Sauer’s answer, asking, “Do I understand you, General … to continue to maintain that, in fact, there is no requirement for notice and opportunity for a hearing? Is that right?”
Sauer responded, “Absolutely. Yes.”
Gorsuch also questioned Sauer’s arguments against a remedy being available, asking, “[I]f you think mandamus doesn’t apply to the president at all, ever, how could you ever test the things you say can be tested?” — noting that Sauer had acknowledged, “[The president] has to remove for cause. He can’t remove for policy disagreements.”
Roberts had already challenged this even more bluntly: “It seems to me that if there is any level of cause, and you indicate that there is some level of cause, right, well then you can’t be right about the idea that courts can’t order anybody who’s been removed to be reinstated.”
When Sauer insisted that the law’s limits that he was arguing for — a “hard-fought compromise” he claimed — meant that this was a “removal standard that protects [Fed] governors from removal for a policy disagreement,” Jackson pushed back.
“But it only protects them insofar as the president’s determination about cause is reviewable and based on actual evidence that has been established,” she told him. “It doesn’t protect them if the president can just make it up.“
Throughout it all, an exchange with Justice Brett Kavanaugh was perhaps the most striking sign of where things stood on Wednesday. The best Sauer could muster to that was, “We disagree with that.“
In a sign of how far the argument had gotten away from Sauer, most of Clement’s time at the podium was spent in friendly debate with the justices over the contours of how the case should proceed, backup arguments, and — in one instance — “the backup to the backup” argument.
The former solicitor general in the George W. Bush administration, Clement was regularly engaged in joking laughter with the justices.
There was no laughter during Sauer’s argument.
Conclusion
The oral arguments were 151 pages. I read all of Sauer’s discussion with the court (over half) and skimmed much of the rest.
This literally may be one of the stupidest cases ever argued before the Supreme Court.
When Kavanaugh is forcefully challenging Trump’s case, you know it’s over.
Thomas and Alito may find a way to side with Trump, but this appears to be no worse that 7-2 against Trump.
Sauer truly looked like an idiot.
Trump’s past mortgages mirror those now labeled as ‘fraud’
And the irony of it all is Trump’s past mortgages mirror those now labeled as ‘fraud’
A report published this week by ProPublica indicates that in late 1993 and early 1994, Trump — then a New York resident — signed two mortgages for neighboring homes in Palm Beach, Florida, each time affirming that the property would serve as his principal residence.
Records and recent interviews indicate he never lived in either house. Instead, both homes, situated just north of Mar-a-Lago, were reportedly treated as rental investments, mirroring the conduct his administration now claims is fraudulent.
“They were rentals from the beginning,” Shirley Wyner, who with her late husband served as Trump’s local real estate team and later handled leasing for the homes, told ProPublica. “President Trump never lived there.”
The mortgages, issued by Merrill Lynch for $525,000 and $1.2 million, required Trump to occupy each home as his principal residence within 60 days and to remain for at least one year unless the lender gave approval.
“If somebody is claiming two primary residences, that is not appropriate, and we will refer it for criminal investigation,” Bill Pulte, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, has previously stated.
Trump has moved to oust Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, citing her two primary-residence mortgages.
“It is inconceivable that you were not aware of your first commitment when making the second,” the president wrote in a letter accusing Cook of “gross negligence.”
Related Posts
January 13, 2026: CPI Up 0.3 Percent in December, Price of Food Jumps, Gasoline Lower
Except for declines in gasoline and used cars, this was not a good report.
January 15, 2026: Real Average Hourly Earnings Have Been Negative for Five Months
Wages are not keeping up with inflation.
January 20, 2026: Might the Next Interest Rate Move by the Fed Be a Hike?
It’s time to discuss the real possibility of a renewed surge in inflation.
“Puh-leez. Rein it in or I’ll be unsubscribing with others.”
Unlike those wearing TWS hat, I will always take a stand for
1. The Bill of Rights
2. The Constitution
3. Signed Treaties
Regardless of which party is in power.
Some of us have principles and value them more than readership.
I’ve been reading your blog (on and off) since 2011 and you’ve always pointed out the idiosyncrasies regardless who was in charge. Unfortunately politicians have way to much influence on business and the economy, so it is worth covering that subject.
Thank you Mish.
I can say something about it legally: what the Doj didn t do is as far I m aware to argue this:
That while individual reserve banks are private, the federal reserve board is mainly an independent government agency like the Fec and thus if can fire peoples at will at the Fec, he can do it at the Fed without cause.
As to the economy, judges should base their decision on written laws/constitution and not if its good or bad.
Except that, in the law that established the Fed, the 63rd Congress provided that the only form of removal was “for cause.”
And that was signed into law by a previous president, Woodrow Wilson..
Which ties the hands of future presidents, including this one, until an administration succeeds in getting the Congress to change the law, or the SC overturns it.
Was I the only one paying attention when we covered this stuff in high school?
The same is true for the nation labour board. Yet the the Sc asserted the for cause in the law was unconstitutional.
However, in this case the administration didn’t ask SCOTUS to overturn it, and explicitly stated that they weren’t challenging that feature.
See, Republicans don’t want a Fed that is dependent on politicians’ whims.
They know that better than liberals, who are fine with currency debasement, because of the perception that higher government debt will benefit their base via government largesse.
Trump doesn’t care about any of that, he just wants control and lower interest rates.
HOPE this is true and the FIRST of MANY to COME!
And when the Federal Reserve RAISES interest rates in the near future because inflation and, more importantly, interest rates have become a bigger problem than unemployment; Trump will accuse the Federal Reserve of retaliating.
Uh oh. Sounds like PedoPigs’s luck is running out. He’s headed for the rotisserie.
It s not that much luck but incompetance. What the Doj didn t do is as far I m aware to argue this:
That while individual reserve banks are private, the federal reserve board is mainly an independent government agency like the Fec and thus if can fire peoples at will at the Fec, he can do it at the Fed without cause.
As to the economy, judges should base their decision on written laws/constitution and not if its good or bad.
Except that, in the law that established the Fed, the 63rd Congress provided that the only form of removal was “for cause.”
And that was signed into law by a previous president, Woodrow Wilson..
Which ties the hands of future presidents, including this one, until an administration succeeds in getting the Congress to change the law, or the SC overturns it.
So the Executive Branch accepted and endorsed a limitation on its own authority.
And Solicitor General John Sauer didn’t even try to challenge the “for cause” requirement.
The Administration’s position on this isn’t just incompetence. It’s myopic stupidity brought on by an Executive who is spewing manure out as fast as possible, trying to see what the court will allow.
Trump et al know they are going to lose on the facts:
A loan summary from the Bank-Fund Staff Federal Credit Union in May 2021 reads: “Property Use: Vacation Home.” Additionally, public records in Fulton County, Georgia, reviewed by NBC News show that no tax exemptions available for a primary residence were sought by Cook.
Thanks Mish. I enjoyed reading the transcripts of the Court’s argument. Brings back nostalgia and my attending several Court oral arguments in the mid-80s when I was in Law School in DC. I once followed Justice Rehnquist walking around the Court Building for his daily walk when the Court was not in session and finally approached him as he was about to descend back up the steps to return to his office. An absolutely delightful and unselfish man who spoke with me and my roommate for about 10 minutes and offered to give me a tour and meet several other Justices when the Court was back in session. Never followed through on that.
I Expect trump to lose this case-maybe not order reinstatement but slam him otherwise with instructions to the lower Court which will essentially destroy Trump’s decision. Probably unanimous decision. People all around the world are getting really sick of Trump. Sadly, I think the American people will pay the price for Trump’s bullying and warmongering for the benefit of his billionaire donors. I hope I am proven wrong and that somehow Trump’s insanity will somehow benefit all of us– some kind of “Art of the deal” but I would predict that in time, even the most ignorance, zealous MAGA supporter will turn on him.
It seems like people in the legal profession would have an elevated distaste for an executive that treats the law Lao cavalierly.
What’s it like among your colleagues?
This case is a microcosm of the near absolute corruption that now exists. SC members seemed to be surprised by the outcome of their previous executive immunity decision. American citizens now appear to need a new 21st Century Magna Carta to control the whims of the new king and his court.
It is kinda weird how the SC and Congress have been complicit in eroding their own power, no?
Gold $4,895 & Silver $96.
This case seems really obvious. Why did the Supreme Court agree to hear it? They could be spending this time ruling on the tariffs.
This may involve some justices trying to get additional ammo from the SG to persuade other justices to rule against the Trump administration. Sauer doesn’t seem very smart, and his bad answers to questions that concede important strategic points can themselves be used to justify a ruling against the administration.
The case was shallow as is the syncophant bench intelligence.
Sauer could use a pair of these https://store.gavinnewsom.com/kneepads/
Let’s hope they follow through and do the same to the broad “emergency “ tariff powers as well.
The oral arguments you cite are truly amazing. The Solicitor General’s ‘arguments’ are a joke, he and the whole DOJ are a laughingstock.
Congress has completely gone AWOL. SCOTUS is the only thing standing in the way if King Trump establishing complete authoritarian control.
The same USSC that wrote that anything a President does while in office is de facto legal? That the President is immune from prosecution for official acts? That USSC?
In other bizarre news seen on my Bloomberg Terminal. “The US won’t give security protection to its companies producing oil in Venezuela.”
Isn’t Trump the self proclaimed president/dictator there?
Epstein!
I am seeing rotation into oil stocks. Some of my holdings are looking good right now.
Take away all articles with ‘Trump’ in the title and the rest is the weekly neighborhood shopper without the grocery store ad coupons.
Meanwhile the most consequential assertion that ICE does not need a judicial warrant to forcefully enter a home (4th Amendment) will not possibly hit the SC until next term
Still waiting for the Constitution Police to return calls…
Sorry, the Constitution Police is now busy busting down doors and banging heads. No due process, no regard for the rule of law.
It’s a Trump thing…
EPSTEIN!
It’s great news for ATF when they become militarized by the next dem president. ATF can then go after all white gun owners as potential mass shooters and terrorists because SCOTUS said it’s perfectly ok to racial profile people. I can’t wait to see Waco and Ruby Ridge x 100. Ship them off to El Salvador!
Got popcorn and exit strategy?
Time is Trump’s friend
consequences for him never come in a way that matters
let’s say the SC decision will likely come this summer
there will be an entirely different Trumpified Fed by then
What’s troubling isn’t just that DOJ is likely to lose, it’s that they seemed to have no answer on limits. When asked where discretion ends, there was basically nothing — just an assumption the Court should step in and clean it up.
SCOTUS striking this down doesn’t really fix that. If the DoJ can bring a case this thin, get slapped down, and move on, the lesson for the next administration is obvious: push first, see if anyone stops you later.
It would be refreshing to see real consequences — malicious prosecution, abuse of office, something — but in practice accountability is close to nonexistent once politics enters the picture.
Which is why the problem is structural. Without changes like curbing the pardon power, ending gerrymandering, and shutting down Super PACs, this just keeps cycling, regardless of who’s in office.
Yes, it’s a corrupt system. Enacting your proposals would accomplish little compared to the power of the tech oligarchs to sway elections by manipulating the information space. Here’s too much money and power involved to let the voters’ opinions matter.
Agree totally. It is media capture that has made political change impossible in places like Turkey and Russia. Hungary may come back from the brink but still to be seen.
Which is why blogs like this are important.
Used to be a pretty good finance blog….since TDS, not so much.
Don’t let the door hit ya…
Nonsense and you know it. I don’t always agree with Mish but he will always provide a clear reasoning for his positions, and generally holds power to account. Great stuff if you ask me.
Edit: comment was meant as a response to JP, not Walt.
Aww… go back to your safe space, boo boo.
@Joe Penny: Used to be a pretty good commenter….since TWS, not so much.
Where’s Judge Engoron on this?
This opinion will be very limited to the specific case. The court does not want to set precedent beyond this case.
It appears that Trump has surrounded himself with such incompetent sycophants that he can’t even get a hand picked SC to go along with the outlandish cases he brings.
Stunning that Trump himself committed the same “Alleged crime” by owning two homes next to each other that he lied on both mortgage and never lived in either.
So, our 34 time convicted felon, insurrectionist, election denier, liar, pederast and grifter is pointing fingers and getting them bitten off by his own hand picked SC?
Greenland just might be the Mouse That Roared!
Facts like this are what the Trumpers call TDS
If she committed fraud, kick her can to the street. I would give the Justices a D+ for their questions. Sauer gets a D.
What is your standard for Trump? He did the same thing with two homes next to each other that he declared as primary residences on the mortgage applications and never lived in.
In this case, the accuser/abuser is guilty of yet another crime ~ one that disqualifies him for service to the country by his own standard.
Should Trump resign for the same thing he wants to fire her for?
I had not heard of that Trump fraud. Not surprising. It’s probably outside the statute of limitations.
It’s mentioned in this post you are commenting on, near the end.
I do not believe that “fraud” affords a new privilege to the chief executive. Congress passed laws that are quite strong declaring that the President has no power to remove FED Board members, not for policy positions, not for legal infractions, not for any reason.
I am assuming that TDS is in effect and laws and the constitution only matter if it is convenient.
While neither SCOTUS or Sauer care what you think, I am willing to give you an “F” and send you back a year (Sarcastically, sadly the kindergarten is full again this year, so you will have to redo 1st grade for another year).
I keep pointing out that a previous President signed that into law, an Executive voluntarily agreeing with Congress to limit the power of the Executive branch.
Patrick apparently didn’t read the part where Sauer states that the administration isn’t even challenging the law, and the case they brought didn’t even submit any evidence to prove fraud.
Sorry, DEI privilege..