avatar
29 U.S.C. § 157 @organizingpower.bsky.social

“The Fed” here means Powell. Jerome Powell is the person deciding whether the Federal Reserve as an institution will support one of its members. Let the historical record reflect that Powell stayed “neutral” in the face of fascism.

aug 29, 2025, 3:25 pm • 76 28

Replies

avatar
🍩𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝓇𝒶𝓅𝓉𝓊𝓇𝑒🧸 @born2.besilly.online

Powell is gonna try and Merrick Garland his way through this and thatll be that for Fed independence

aug 29, 2025, 4:30 pm • 2 0 • view
avatar
halfpint.bsky.social @halfpint.bsky.social

NO IT ISN'T,ANOTHER ONE BENDING THE KNEE

aug 30, 2025, 2:16 pm • 0 0 • view
avatar
29 U.S.C. § 157 @organizingpower.bsky.social

I’m not being unfair here. The lawyer who wrote this brief is without a doubt taking his orders from Powell. Powell told the lawyer “i dont want us to argue in favor of Cook.”

aug 29, 2025, 3:33 pm • 3 1 • view
avatar
Affidavit Bowie @affidavitbowie.bsky.social

That’s not been my experience as agency counsel. DOJ did whatever they wanted and often ignored our edits, even on things we marked as inconsistent with prior agency representations. Maybe it’s different with the fed, but I highly doubt JP got involved here. More likely a DOJ zealot than JP.

aug 29, 2025, 4:50 pm • 0 0 • view
avatar
29 U.S.C. § 157 @organizingpower.bsky.social

DOJ is not representing the Fed—they are representing the President in this matter

aug 29, 2025, 4:59 pm • 1 1 • view
avatar
Affidavit Bowie @affidavitbowie.bsky.social

www.courtlistener.com/docket/71218... Yes they are.

aug 29, 2025, 5:07 pm • 1 0 • view
avatar
Affidavit Bowie @affidavitbowie.bsky.social

It appears DOJ is representing the Fed, but you're right that response is signed by Fed GC, not DOJ.

aug 29, 2025, 5:11 pm • 1 0 • view
avatar
29 U.S.C. § 157 @organizingpower.bsky.social

Maybe this is because the Defendant has not yet responded? I assume this is going to change soon bsky.app/profile/orga...

aug 29, 2025, 5:15 pm • 0 0 • view
avatar
29 U.S.C. § 157 @organizingpower.bsky.social

I stand corrected—but that is a crazy conflict of interest. I’m not sure that is going to last. The DOJ cannot be on multiple sides of a case

aug 29, 2025, 5:10 pm • 0 0 • view