"you may have" is not a reason to take action against anyone. Can't see this holding up and only going to spook the markets.

He wants the gold so expect to see more gaudiness in the Oval Office soon. Oh, and that ballroom has to get the gold from somewhere, right?

How would they have known about this, if true? Are they allowed to investigate someone just for the sake of trying to find something on them? Was there a complaint?

Are Americans ready to stand up for Black Women now?! We appreciate it.

I need a bigger move than that.

Resist Trump's crimes.

Markets reaction is pretty limited so far. Dollar 20 bps weaker and 2s30s yield curve 3 bps steeper. Not exactly dramatic moves.

They’ve bought into the TACO meme.

You figure they’re pricing in a court defeat or?

Every time markets seem to give Trump the benefit of doubt

Nobody is scared of President tiny dick

Betting on TACO Tuesday, probably.

No because one Gov is not a big deal but the summation of all his insanity should be a big deal. It's hard to believe it won't be. WSJ pitchbot The markets continue to climb the wall of dementia

Wall of dementia ™️

he is just determined to get a recession with his whole economic policy. he keeps making moves and feints at tariffs and pulls back but he is so unrestrained he thinks he is invincible and wants cheap money for growth

I wish he ends up like the comes out businessman in diehard

Markets love Trump Command Economy

Jesus man

yeah, in the absence of any actual evidence of criminal wrongdoing — these are just accusations — it is not clear to me why cook would even leave her post?

"criminal referral" is the most toothless phrase of all time - it literally means nothing!

Me neither! I am very curious what Chair Powell's reaction will be but my understanding of the precedent around "for cause" removal is that accusations of *anything* are not sufficient to meet the standard. And her initial statement on this made it clear she wasn't going without a fight.

The Supreme Court’s shills DID just recently clarify there’s a little known Fed exception to the unitary executive

Its a little known codicil in the Faber College constitution

Also it's giving her defense attorneys some real ammo for the actual charges too of course

You have to consider that there’s a possibility that he’ll just put her in jail…

NAL but "for cause" becomes meaningless if you can accuse someone of a crime and use your own accusation as cause to fire them.

By this standard, Vance could be removed for sexual assault on a couch.

Trump really went with "you're dumb" as a reason. I wonder why he think's she unintelligent. Usually, he seems to think a little light mortgage fraud is a sign of intelligence. Maybe there's something about her appearance.

If the Fed holds their meeting and puts her name in the reports of the meeting, is she really fired? Like, she can just zoom into the meeting. And if the market accepts the report, then she's still setting policy in the only way that matters.

Not even a formal charge, right?

right, no formal charge. just an allegation!

And it seems very important that it's allegations by and to people who work for the President. All he'd have to do is order his subordinates to make allegations against officials subject only to for-cause removal and he could remove anyone.

Right, if this stands, for-cause removal protections are dead. The carveout SCOTUS tried to make for the Federal Reserve would mean nothing.

(imo it should mean almost nothing and the distinction was bullshit, but I also like having an economy that's only in a major and potentially recoverable freefall and not oops all crashes so I hope the distinction gets upheld)

Yes, it was completely arbitrary.

Love to be hoping for that to save us

Get ready for some stupid amicus briefs taking very seriously the importance of knowing the scope of the president’s power 1816–36 to remove five of the 25 directors of the Second Bank of the United States

That is different because -----------

All the dashes stand in for the phrase "John Roberts want stock portfolio up, no down."

Roberts suggested in a footnote in Seila Law and then the court flippantly adopted the “Fed is different because of the history of the 2nd Bank” handwave, but IIRC the charter doesn’t spell out how removals work other than the president can only remove his appointees but not shareholder appointees

The founding era is characterized by a lot more flexibility (and tension & conflict) over the constitutional order than the Roberts Court “history & tradition” formulation could ever permit The history & tradition is the framers disagreed and tried a lot of a weird shit

She better not fold.

Gotta wonder whether the SCOTUS libs might threaten to go nuclear here

We are going to need a lot of cause to root out the assholes going fw

youtu.be/avcS0aYJ2a8?...

We are fully through the looking glass peeps

I’m not worried. this time, the supreme court is going to stand up for the law instead of covertly signing off on clearly illegal actions from this administration

He's trying to make this a "for cause" firing. So complying with the law, in the most pretextual way.

Yields moved a touch, down 3-4bps.

If this works, there will be thousands more. All must bend the need for the dictator.

Absolutely. Time to end this shit m

Well, either the markets will punish him or not. I don't think the courts will be the answer.

The markets will not punish him.

the only court that matters is on record not caring. And most business leaders have drank the coolaid