No, we have no problem indicating people in DC. But the charges have to make sense.
No, we have no problem indicating people in DC. But the charges have to make sense.
Don't be an idiot. They charged a Congressman with felony assault for holding on to an immigrant. The problem is that all these crimes are on video so we can actually see they're not actually serious crimes.
Distrust is part of it, but the cases are historically weak. They're calling everything felony assault to pump up arrest numbers. A protestor who just touched a cop got charged with a felony.
No, bad take. This shows directly that they're lying and idiots and makes it to the Fox News types. You can't just ignore administration figures overall.
If only there were a ruffing the passer penalty
You gotta walk put that big CCSU contingent. You know their fan base travels well.
It's not really his fault. It's the players not getting lined up quickly. They had time to get lined up and snap the ball. At that point, he can't do much to yell ovee crowd noise - the players should have already been trained to be aware and get set up.
Yeah, it was public knowledge about his earlier issues. I had about 2% surprise that he was relapsing. When he disappeared from public view, it's pretty easy to connect the dots.
And what I'm saying is that people are ignoring all the other people that Trump is firing in a way that shows ignorance and a lack of awareness. For example they're saying he went after Cook first because she's a POC, but he actually went after Powell first. And 2 of the 4 left were POC.
Neither is everyone else who claims its due to racism, but at least I'm pointing out the truth here with evidence, including that the guy Trump fired was anti-merger and Trump (presumably) wants the merger to go through.
Well, they're in the middle of a mighty big one right now.
Perfect example: you can yell that him revoking Kamala's SS detail is racist but that shows complete ignorance of the facts that he does this to a lot/all of political enemies. It loses the value in understanding and talking about racism when you yell it for everything.
I'm not saying he's not racist, but you're just wrong here and it shows ignorance. Probably 40% or so (wild guess) of Biden's nominees were people of color, so a lot of Trumps firings will be people of color. But he's going after anyone that's in his way. FEC, FCC, Fed, etc.
I'm not saying he's not a racist, but as others have done, yelling racism at every firing of a minority is just MAGA-ing the facts to fit your narrative and showing an ignorance of the facts. He's going after everyone that is in his way.
You're just wildly speculating in a way that's not charitable. The point is, when you call everything racist and don't look at the facts, you lose credibility. Probably 40% or so (wild guess) of Biden's appointments were people of color, so a lot of people Trump will fire are people of color.
Yes a bit. Well get stagflation. Mortgages even at 5.5 percent would still be nearly the highest since 2008 so home prices won't climb much. Even if the fed lowers rates a bit, it won't lower rates to the public much. Someone needs to buy all that debt and they're going to command a decent return.
It is entirely temporary because its a one time hit, then the same in future years. BUT, as prices rise because of tariffs, it gives other companies license to raise prices just because everything else is rising, so that part can not be temporary.
Because the evidence shows its not about race as I laid out. There were only so many people to fire to begin with, and she was his second choice.
No, he also tried to fire Powell and the CDC director and the BLS director among others.
Dual mandate. They hold him back for everything except a crashing job market. He has to split the middle between high tariff rates and and lower rates for jobs. Plus, high rates aren't going to be able to do much to offset tariff-based inflation.
Not necessarily, esp. if zoning is ok. Probably in this case a gap in the law like not requiring public meetings for facilities using x amount of water or power.
He went after the white guy first and if you understand how the Fed works, he wants one of 4 seats. 2 of the people in those 4 seats are black. And if he had a stronger case for firing someone else of those 4, he would have done that.
Simpler - oil was already an efficient market. You can't force more supply there when its already functioning fine. Oil companies have thousands of untapped wells already.
Thats likely whats happening other than cleaning out the desk. They first figure out what court to go to and maybe put her on paid leave while they get an injunction. Congress isn't writing specific procedural for these things.
I'm not assuming guilt, but I'm saying there seems to be something here and I'm waiting for her answer. Trump didn't come up with this to get his ass kicked in 2 minutes with a basic misread of facts. And there's still a benefit she gets from 2 primary mortgages in terms of underwriting.
Again, she's not disputing so far that she signed 2 primary mortgage docs at the same time, and I doubt Pulte would make that big a fuckup. Shes had several days to prepare a response. So its likely not a massive issue that she didn't sign the two docs because that seems to be conceded at this point
The rental listing itself is not the most concerning part. The applications are. For the rentail listing though, you then have to figure out did she end up renting if. If so, why is that income not listed and did she rent it before in 2021 or was it her primary residence.
That's just fees. There's usually more to it regarding down payment and underwriting standards if it was a second or investment home. If it didn't matter at all, why would she claim two homes as primary at the same time.
God, your reading comprehension sucks. I'm not saying anything other than she didn't come out with a clear explanation that would shut Trump down and that's concerning. She didn't say they had the timeline wrong or the details wrong.
To save money dude. Primary reaidences get better rates. If I need to explain this to you, you're clearly not ready to make a strong case for anything about the case.
I don't even think the documents have been publicly released unless it's happened in the last hour or two, so you're talking out of your ass because none of us have seen the documents.
If Cook gave an explanation like "after I refinanced my house, I got a job offer in Atlanta a couple of weeks later so I had to move quickly" this could all be over. But she's not. There's a lot of smoke here, possibly fire. The issue is why wasn't this caught in vetting for the Fed board in 2022.
No, dont be delusional. The evidence would certainly be strong enough for a grand jury to likely indict unless there was something that summer like a job change. The issue is not that she likely didn't do it, its that lots of rich people do do it.
Let's not forget, she finished like 10th in the primary for 2020. She wasn't the Dems most compelling star. The play was always to put Biden as a one term and get the leadership under age 70 out there from 2021 through 2024 to get Bidens successor. Dems fed that up.
A late VP pick wouldn't fix things, but Walz was great They! Where was he earlier?? They butchered the election by putting Biden back on the ticket (we all knew he was not doing great) and then waiting too long so they had to put Kamala. She didn't do anything wrong campaigning, but...
That's the process though. Theres no process to seek permission to fire someone from a court. You do the firing and the it goes to to the court of they contest it.
That's what the courts will decide regarding the veracity of the allegations. No different than anything else. Biden didn't have authority to directly fire Decoy. He could have done what Trump wanted to do and takeover the board.
The whole point is that Dems should be able to crush Rs but we put bad people out there - like are we going to run Beto and lose again?
Keep saying dumb shit instead of having a reasonable discussion. We need to put people out there that win moderates and independents instead of Bernie and tell liberals to hold their nose and vote for some progress. Dems lose votes in Midwestern states by talking about a $17 minimum wage.
I'm sure there's oppo research on the entire Fed board. Biden should have done this research on her before 2022. The question is, if true, is it enough cause to fire her. Courts will likely say it is. Dems need to reclaim some power quickly by (probably) running to the center in 2026.
It's not a bare assertion. They have the mortgage docs and that she put a residence up for rent. It comes down was there a good explanation (like a job change and move) or did she take a refi on her primary residence and then roll that money into a second home and lie on that loan. Don't know which.
The question is really does it meet the legal standard for firing. MAGA will follow Trump anywhere as long as it doesn't tank markets which is why he pivoted from Powell. If markets don't tank, no Republican (MAGA or not) is going to disagree with him.
That's at least a far more reasonable take than anything else except it's going to be a legal case not a MAGA PR case. The NYT makes it seem pretty clear that her activity was bad/fraudulent barring an explanation from her (got a new job offer) or Trump lying about details of what the docs contain.
Trump tried to fire Powell and would have but a) he didn't have a good case, and b)markets tanked and CEOs called him so he backed off because it would have killed the American economy. Markets aren't going to tank for a regular old board member because its not going to make much difference.
What are you talking about?? Powell pushed back on Trump for months and is running thr Fed exactly as he would have without public pressure.
No, he didn't do photo ops. He gave Trump a tour and Trump turned it into a photo op. He clearly and forcefully pushed back on Trump, but only an idiot would think you don't start cutting rates a bit when the job market is producing 0 jobs in 3 months.
Seek an education on monetary policy first before posting. Powell was always going to have to cut and has long said he expected cuts this year. He only stalled as long as he has because the job market still looked to be strong.
Don't bring a psycho rant into a logical discussion. We can save that for later. Cook isn't a political enemy. As far as we know, she's never done or said anything anti-trump. He just wants the board seat.
God, your narrow-mindedness is exactly how Trump wins. Because it's going to the court, he needs strong backing evidence. And he doesn't care about whose seats he gets, he just needs the seats. He already went after Powell. They did opposition research on the entire board. This was his best option.
Because that's how the process starts. It's not rocket science logic here. Trump thinks its illegal and it's enough to remove her. If she doesn't resign, he has to present evidence publicly. Then she can deny, explain, or justify. And then we go from there on legality and removal.
No, he has to have some cause on others. It's still the Fed. It's not hard to live your professional life where you don't give him an opportunity to fire you, but we'll find out. If he had more ammo on other members, he'd probably have released it already too.
No, it IS 100% a step he can legally take under some circumstances. The question is is the accusation accurate and strong enough to justify a legal removal.
Because it's not illegal. It's an open question, but it's possibly and likely legal IF the accusation is true. Until we see the documents and details around them, no one knows.
Because its not clear if its illegal yet. That's the whole point. If the mortgage fraud is true, Trump has a reasonably strong case. Not clear cut, but strong.
You do realize that's within White House secured grounds....
No, first they came for Powell, but they didn't have a strong enough case against him and the damage to the markets was going to be too massive.
(Probably) more importantly, foreign money is going to leave. With the dollar falling and unstable policy here, people aren't going to leave their money in the US to get 2.5%. Which will drop the dollar further and contribute to de-dollarization.
As I said elsewhere, it's an open secret among rich people that you can do this. There's a MASSIVE amount of this type of fraud out there because once the paperwork is done, no one ever looks at it again. Which is why it's the go-to accusation these days.
And thats why he stopped that attack. He found out the better way is to get a majority of the board.
It has nothing to do with race. It has everything to do with reclaiming Fed seats. That's what he wants. He would do the same to anyone om the board - he already tried it with Powell but got too much pushback. He just thinks he has the strongest case for cause here among the rest of the board.
This IS a a valid complaint if it's accurate. We'll see when the details come out. It's mortgage fraud. You can't talk about Trump's judgements as criminal then deny it when it happens to one of us. She could have a valid defense like she got a new job and moved or Trump is lying. We'll find out
Jesus Christ, do you know anything about anything??? It's basic opposition research that political operatives do ALL THE TIME. It's not fantasy, it's politics 101.
Which is why Paxton, Schiff, and others have been under investigation for it. It's something politicians are looking for these days in opponents, and again, its an open secret to the wealthy that you can do this easily.
He looked at all the ones that weren't in favor of a rate cut. And most of the fed governors have no dirt on them because it's not hard at all to be clean. If Cook did what Trump said and there's no explanation away, it's illegal, but it's also an open secret that rich people do it ALL THE TIME.
YES!! That's exactly what he did. Remember, every accusation is a confession. So he told his henchmen, see if any of them have questionable mortgages, investments, or finances. So they gathered property records and made sure any tenants were reflected on taxes and the like.
Your questions are silly now. They're questions for the court but irrelevant to claiming he attacked her because it was racist. At the end of the day, he's not going to waste months in court if he had a better target for a fed seat now regardless of race.
The point went right over your head. The point is that this will have to be made public when it goes to the court and this is the strongest case he's got (whether its good enough we'll find out). He's not going to sacrifice a fed seat to go after a woman if he had a better case against a white man
Comparing that to the Fed is beyond silly.
This is going to the courts, so it's not about race or sex there. It's about getting a win in the courts.
Good for you that "you think". But this is still going to be a court battle, so logic dictates that he had to bring the strongest case he could. If he had a better case against a white guy, he'd bring that first and get the ruling he wanted then go after the rest.
Good for you. And that's how Republicans keep getting elected, because that becomes the Dem party line. But if he had a better case to take to the public for someone else, he would have. His goal here isn't race, it's interest rates.
That's different. Here he needs cause. So he had his people come up with whatever they could. If he had a stronger case against a white guy, he would have run with that.
This wasn't even a Trump-directed thing to go after her specifically. He told his people to research all the board members to try and gather dirt and picked the most promising. If he had stronger dirt on someone else he would have used that. His purpose is to get control of the board.
He didn't bully Powell. Powell had to lower now because unemployment was rising, and his plan all along was to lower interest rates a couple times this year already.
Let's not forget he tried Powell first a couple times but markets dropped and Dimon and others told him not to. But he went after her now because had the most ammo here.
It wasn't about race. It was about getting anyone off the board ASAP. He would have done the same with a white person.
Their factory is 5 years behind schedule so far and wouldn't be surprised if it slips more, especially if there's a slowdown. That alone could let Trump clawback the money. This is a win win because that would hang over Intel's head for the next 6 years and now it won't.
Intel was still going to have to reach various thresholds in order to get all the money, and their factory in the US was delayed for several years already. It was big news a while back and could have jeopardized their cash. And again, since when are dems on the side of free corporate welfare???
Actually, Intel is in the great recession for chip makers. They're way behind the game and need $$ to catch up. Their size has been cut in half while Taiwan semi has more than doubled and NVDA is more than 10x since COVID. If they don't act now, they will get run under and we need US chip makers.
They should have. Why would we not ask for something back from giving for profit companies billions of dollars?? Are we against corporate welfare??
This isn't communism bud. And Bush and Obama did the same thing. What I'm down for is not giving out corporate subsidies without getting something back, and this did that. Arent you against corporate giveaways???? Intel wasn't forced into it. They needed cash and to stabilize their stock price.
In any other circumstance you'd rail against corporate welfare w/o US getting anything, but when the US gets something back you rail against it too because its Trump. Be consistent. But there likely wasn't a demand - intel needed more $$ and they needed to stabilize their stock and bond prices.
Actually Biden and Congress apropriated the money in the CHIPS Act. This was actually a good way of saying if you want all your money, give us something back for it.
For the record, this is actually really good and what Dems should have done with the CHIPS Act and should try to force Trump to do this more frequently. If you're going to give out corporate welfare, get something for it.
The best way to reduce crime IS to prevent the immediate circumstances before crimes. And you're beyond stupid if you can't agree teens don't belong in a bar district at midnight, especially when there's a significant issue with teen crime. Teens "getting a snack" are not what's going on here.
They've tried and they have room. But not everyone wants to be housed or abide with the rules around shelters.
The problem is that you think it's cool to out liberal liberals and you lost yourself in that. Theres a place for a lot of things, but at the end of the day you're an idiot and lost the plot if you can't agree that 15 year olds have no business in a bar district at 2am.
Hahahaha. That's so naive, and sure, we have the budget for all that. DC already provides universal preK, schools, lots of subsidized housing. But guess what, we still have teens jumping people and shooting people and you have to address that. Theres nothing wrong with stopping crime directly.
You're so embarrassing. You're the left wing version of MTG, immune to truth you don't like. You're an impediment to progress.
I explained above pretty clearly. Theres also this: wjla.com/news/local/d... where DC is pretty clearly "adjusting" crime stats. Crime is down from 2023 record highs mostly because they stopped re-releasing juvenile carjackers. Crime is still high overall in the city.
It's embarrassing that you think you're being useful arguing against the curfew. As I have showed, the curfew isn't strong enough and liberal city leadership all agree its a necessary thing. Theres no ACLU objection. Get over yourself and play in the real world.
The fact that you think this is what liberalism should be is astoundingly stupid. We're talking about a curfew for underage teens who a) have no reason to be out in a bar district at night, and b) are the largest driver of crime increases in recent years in DC, both boys and girls.
www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou... there are SO many of these episodes weekly even with curfews. You're just a destructive person by failing to be objective enough about the issue to have an honest conversation. Just yelling ACAB does nothing to make anyone's lives better or the city safer to live in.
Everyone in DC (liberal and conservative) has acknowledged in the last couple of years that large groups of teens are a major problem and have enacted curfews and task forces. So when teens say "I can't believe we can't hang out" its because a few of their classmates were behind surges in violence.
You're completely ignorant of the local goings on in a way thats not useful to the conversation here. The issue is that its not teens sneaking out to smoke a cigarette, its teens shooting, jumping a Trump staffer, starting brawls, carjacking, etc. www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...
dcist.com/story/23/11/... Dc can't understand why juvenile crime skyrocketed and couldn't figure out how to address it. Think just maybe there could be a correlation here??? And lots, if not most, of these chronically absent students are still moving up grades so consequences are minimal.
And its far better than what DCPS did for years, which is pass kids and graduate them when they weren't even in school enough to graduate. Again, DC has no leg to stand on in saying Trump is interfering when the city has done a piss poor job of governing itself effectively in recent years.
Yes, but so should the schools, esp. given that parents don't necessarily know if kids play hooky. The best way to address the root cause is to hold people accountable. Making parents come in to answer for why their kids are skipping school just may have an impact.
It's not that Trump is logical, but DC saying "how dare they!!" now but not actually making a concerted effort the last 2 years is troubling. The NPR article talks about how kids are victims of trauma like missing school. Ok, but then why is DC not making school attendance a priority?!?!?
We let crime get completely out of control 2 years ago and elected a mayor and council without a plan. Theyve fjinally started to address it but they gave Trump lots of ammo. Also,, this type of crap: wjla.com/news/local/a...