The Regeime moves to control our banking system just like his mentor.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx275n8gx0ro.amp

Who needs professional, independent central banking as national legislation requires.

Trump has an economy to wreck.

Inflation baby.

Congress has limited the president’s power to remove Fed officials, saying they can be fired only “for cause,” which is generally understood to mean gross misconduct.

The only entity according this Fed Board of Governors member of mortgage fraud is the guy NY Appellate Court just upheld a ruling he committed fraud.

Trump just wants to politically purge the Fed to appoint a boot lickers.

Of only we had a Congress with political courage and integrity.

A 90-year-old Supreme Court precedent allowed Congress to shield the leaders of independent agencies from politics by making it hard to fire them. HUMPHREY'S EX'R v. UNITED STATES. RATHBUN v. SAME.

The Regime says that those limits are an unconstitutional check on the president’s power to control the executive branch, and that he must be allowed to remove officials for any reason or no reason. No fake conservative here would support a Dem doing this in violation of controlling constitutional precedent.

Who cares about judicial restraint and Stare Decisis that follows established constitutional principles to overturn precedent. We have a Tyrant to empower.

The commissioner declined to resign; and on October 7, 1933, the President wrote him: 'Effective as of this date you are hereby removed from the office of Commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission.'

Humphrey never acquiesced in this action, but continued thereafter to insist that he was still a member of the commission, entitled to perform its duties and receive the compensation provided by law at the rate of $10,000 per annum. Upon these and other facts set forth in the certificate, which we deem it unnecessary to recite, the following questions are certified:

Do the provisions of section 1 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, stating that 'any commissioner may be removed by the President for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office', restrict or limit the power of the President to remove a commissioner except upon one or more of the causes named?

Thus, the language of the act, the legislative reports, and the general purposes of the legislation as reflected by the debates, all combine to demonstrate the congressional intent to create a body of experts who shall gain experience by length of service; a body which shall be independent of executive authority, except in its selection, and free to exercise its judgment without the leave or hindrance of any other official or any department of the government. To the accomplishment of these purposes, it is clear that Congress was of opinion that length and certainty of tenure would vitally contribute. And to hold that, nevertheless, the members of the commission continue in office at the mere will of the President, might be to thwart, in large measure, the very ends which Congress sought to realize by definitely fixing the term of office.

We conclude that the intent of the act is to limit the executive power of removal to the causes enumerated,

I have omitted the numerous internal citations the Court used to reach the above conclusion.


Here is the entire case with all its supportive case law cited that the ones who find reading difficult will ignore.

https://tile.loc.gov/storage-s...5602/usrep295602.pdf

Sadly, based on the immunity decision where this Court’s majority reasoned the intent of the President shall not be inquired into, the Court will distinguish Humphrey’s holding and precedents underpinning it to hold the following:

1) the President has asserted “for cause” being the alleged mortgage fraud,

And

2) the courts are not equipped and not permitted to determine the President’s intent in asserting “four cause” so long as for cause is asserted on its face.

This would be blank cheque to the Executive.

Another step toward a dictatorship.

How come some can't see it?

Can yall make up your minds?
"Trump the felon" for mortgage loan issues, fires a person with fiduciary responsibilities that also has actual ILLEGAL mortgage issues.

Remember your outrage over hersal walker doing the exact same thing, screaming he qasnt fit for office... but crickets when schift does the same? Crying about Tommy's house in fla when hes elected front Georgia

"Oh, she wasnt found culpable in a court of law, as yet" you would be correct

But its radically apparent those that have never held a position of trust and had to sign, under various names, a code of conduct that says even the appearance of a violation or conflict is grounds for dismissal... this doesn't require a conviction, just the stink of one. The Coldplay ceo, for example, (it wasnt a contrite resignation) likely didnt even break a law...., if someone gets a DUI/DWI, and is in a position of trust, it is highly likely that they are fired

And dont get me started on actual "protected speech" where someone says something 1a protected or ignorant, and gets fired. Cancel culture for example of speech or posts

There is ZERO requirement for an employee to have been convicted to remove them from station, just the appearance of the thing

If you have a meltdown about this, you have been on the government teat too long


Yall really need to make up your mind and stick to it

Just because you dont like it doesn't mean its illegal. I recall someone's throwing the opposite of that, then telking me I am a dolt because I dont "understand the dye prices of law"

The ceo of any company can have anyone one fired, except in the rare case where there is a legally required role AND person


But yall go ahead, support a person potentially violating financial related laws, that you sing the praises of on being convicted, and booboo when it happens to someone you never heard of before yesterday..

It's this a "stretching routine " prior to your daily mental gymnastics?

Yall where screaming felon abiut trump for just even the possibility of fraud, but call him a tyrant for acting in exactly the same way

Here's your sign...its a mirror

Shorter version -for the whyever impaired

If Trump hadn't done anything about this

Trump didnt remove a possible mortage crook from the fed, impeach him


Now that he has acted

Trump did remove a possible mortage crook from the fed, impeach him


Is that clear and short enough?

Does he have the authority is the question as I see it. The Fed is supposed to be independent. Since when are unproven allegations considered to be true.

Sounds "unsubstantiated" to me, and we have been over the meaning of that word several times before.

I see and appreciate your pov. In fact, I dont think he should have fired her, and should have asked for help in an investigation, but that is so not trump as to be ludicrous.

However , if there are two over lapping loans, in different states claiming primary residence, and employer could read the plain facts and decide to terminate

My rant was on the hypocrisy of response

I am 100% positive, that is if our cfo over one of their directs, it had the proof of two loans that said primary residents that they would be fired immediately without a trial and even taking into account their employment contracts

When I was at the bank, if I had done this, the bonding company would have pulled my bond. effectively ending my employment, regardless of direct Termination, Because I wouldn't be able to fulfill the terms and conditions of my employment

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Another step toward a dictatorship.

How come some can't see it?

Not if you a MAGA ARSEHOLE CHEERLEADER!

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
Shorter version -for the whyever impaired

If Trump hadn't done anything about this

Trump didnt remove a possible mortage crook from the fed, impeach him


Trump did remove a possible mortage crook from the fed, impeach him


Is that clear and short enough?

Trump and only his administration has asserted this to gain control of the Fed. We know from his prior behavior his intent with the Fed.
based on how he has acted prior.

Trump should be impeached for his 14th Amendment executive order.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
Shorter version -for the whyever impaired

If Trump hadn't done anything about this

Trump didnt remove a possible mortage crook from the fed, impeach him


Trump did remove a possible mortage crook from the fed, impeach him


Is that clear and short enough?

Trump and only his administration has asserted this to gain control of the Fed. We know from his prior behavior his intent with the Fed.
based on how he has acted prior.

Trump should be impeached for his 14th Amendment executive order.

sure -- march right in an demand that congress do your bidding -- you do know there's a PROCESS for that, right?

sigh -- oh, well, back to my non-government teat job

When a grand jury or judge agrees w the Regime, I’ll back off.

The US has a constitution. Three co-equal branches, executive, legislative, and judicial. That is it, all our government must fit in those boxes.

Where do independent boards, panels and so on fit? Where is that spelled out? I don't think a law can do it, takes an amendment. Humphrey goes out the window. Along with a bunch of other junk that has gone by, by over the past few years.

Currently, according to long standing constitutional precedent the legislature can insulate a board from the Executive.

The Texas Contingent will not read.

This Supreme Court Majority will neuter the Fed courts ability to inquire into a president’s motives.

Trump’s propaganda minister will rejoice.

Trump wants QE to keep the economy hot while he's president, leaving the resulting inflation as a problem for the next presidential term. Maybe. If he plans to be the next president, I idly wonder what the plan might be, or if there is a plan...

Hey, tom, where did he learn QE could heat up an economy?

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
Hey, tom, where did he learn QE could heat up an economy?

He may have known about King Phillip of Spain, who presided over a vicious inflation cause by the import of large quantities of gold. On the other hand, that would have come from a study of history, not Trump's style...