Lowell: Let's say the president acted on an allegation by Pulte, who says Cook did something wrong. Before the president acts on the basis of what he said, that's the person -- Pulte -- before whom there should be an opportunity to be heard
Replies
I’m no lawyer, but I feel like this attorney is woefully underprepared to answer any questions today.
aug 29, 2025, 3:06 pm • 1 0 • view
reasonably answering a lot of questions seems to suggest otherwise
aug 29, 2025, 3:17 pm • 1 0 • view
I'm likewise no lawyer, but I do have considerable experience as an expert witness in federal courts, and I think Lowell is doing an outstanding, masterful job. 👏
aug 29, 2025, 3:09 pm • 0 0 • view
Well, just for context, he was Hunter Biden's lawyer. And if not for the pardon, he would be in jail.
aug 29, 2025, 3:09 pm • 0 0 • view
how is that context?
aug 29, 2025, 3:17 pm • 0 0 • view
Because he has a not great record against Trump apparatchiks. See Shapley and Ziegler, whose testimony eventually resulted in Hunter's conviction, and who are now suing Lowell for defamation.
aug 29, 2025, 3:27 pm • 1 0 • view
attorneys sometimes represent guilty people and losses don't necessarily speak to anything
aug 29, 2025, 3:29 pm • 1 0 • view
Fair
aug 29, 2025, 3:30 pm • 0 0 • view
Mostly because the judge didn't give them enough time to get everything in order.
aug 29, 2025, 3:07 pm • 0 0 • view
if you seek a TRO you're asking for a hearing right away
aug 29, 2025, 3:24 pm • 0 0 • view
What? Abbe Lowell is doing great imo.
aug 29, 2025, 3:08 pm • 2 0 • view
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbe_Lo...
aug 29, 2025, 3:12 pm • 0 0 • view
Lowell seems to suggest that if Pulte were to hear Cook out but doesn't find it sufficient and then the President still acts on Pulte's view that there is cause for removal, then there could be APA challenge for arbitrary & capricious agency action. [I'll admit I'm a bit confused by this argument]
aug 29, 2025, 3:08 pm • 243 17 • view
One cannot lose their job just based on an allegation of a mistake on a loan application; however, if the mistake involves fraud or intentional misrepresentation, that could have serious consequences. That issue has been ignored so far. How can cause be determined without knowing intent?
aug 29, 2025, 3:24 pm • 5 0 • view
But was it a mistake. as a Military family we were selling a home in Florida which was our primary residence and buying a home in Ga which was going to be our primary residence. The loan officer instructed us to check Primary Residence for the new home in Ga because that is what is was going to be
aug 29, 2025, 4:22 pm • 1 0 • view
There are three types of home loans: Investment Primary residence Vacation The Question is: was the new home she was buying going to be one of those three things? of course.. But which one. Most likely a new Primary residence.
aug 29, 2025, 4:25 pm • 0 0 • view
why is primary the most likely?
aug 29, 2025, 5:14 pm • 2 0 • view
Because most people sell a home to buy a new home. However, Even if the old home was going to turn into an investment property, it would still make the new home "intended Primary" 8 out every 10 homes are Pirmary home purchases according to The National Real Estate Association
aug 29, 2025, 5:21 pm • 1 0 • view
So if you buy a primary home and then decide to rent it do you have to refinance? Of course not...
aug 29, 2025, 6:06 pm • 1 0 • view
It depends on when you do that
aug 29, 2025, 7:06 pm • 3 0 • view
that's why the specific situation matters. wonder whether DOJ will try to bring a case. I doubt it.
aug 29, 2025, 7:30 pm • 0 0 • view
In cook’s situation it’s a few weeks between refinancing and completing the purchase
aug 29, 2025, 7:37 pm • 1 0 • view
I don't think they can. I don't know the specifics, but it is hard to prove intent. The DOJ would have to prove she intended to mislead and lie on documents. and I am not even sure the DOJ could bring charges.
aug 29, 2025, 9:54 pm • 0 0 • view
Nope. Just change the property tax info and insurance info. Thats why this is rediculous
aug 29, 2025, 6:35 pm • 0 0 • view
yep
aug 29, 2025, 6:53 pm • 0 0 • view
But it should be assessed based on the actual circumstances, not just the average
aug 29, 2025, 7:07 pm • 2 0 • view
Right. what I am saying is when Financing a home the criteria is specific. it is really hard to commit "mortgage fraud" after the 2008 market crash. financing a home, interest rates ect are based on the type of purchase. people buy homes on say "contingencies" whether it passes inspection,
aug 29, 2025, 9:52 pm • 0 0 • view
whether the military orders come thru or whether an offer is accepted or not. Refinancing a home with the INTENT of using it as a primary resideence and then weeks or a few months later take a job in a different town doesn't indicate fraud. fraud would be classified as knowing you were taking a
aug 29, 2025, 9:52 pm • 0 0 • view
again, the actual circumstance is what matters here. refinancing a home in one state as a primary and then allegedly purchasing a home in another state a few weeks later *while your job is still in the first state* isn't the sort of situation you are talking about
aug 29, 2025, 10:11 pm • 2 0 • view
job in a few weeks and lying on the paperwork saying you are not. I don't think thats the case here. In real estate the evidence relies heavily on "intent".
aug 29, 2025, 9:52 pm • 0 0 • view
Seems to me the stronger argument is that a failure to cabin the President’s discretion to find cause defeats Congress’ intent to have Board members protected against political discharges.
aug 29, 2025, 3:30 pm • 4 0 • view
did Cook hire the wrong lawyer?
aug 29, 2025, 3:22 pm • 0 0 • view
Cobb turns to the question of irreparable harm. You also reference the fact that the president is having discussions about a replacement, she says to Lowell.
aug 29, 2025, 3:10 pm • 173 13 • view
Lowell: President has already referred to potential candidates, mentioned that he will soon have majority of the board. If he announces vacancy and senate takes it up and person confirmed within weeks, that is irreparable harm.
aug 29, 2025, 3:10 pm • 253 26 • view
If he gets the voting majority at the Fed, watch the stock market collapse.
aug 29, 2025, 3:16 pm • 5 0 • view
It won’t collapse, it will skyrocket because rich people will take zero/low interest loans out to dump into stocks while the country tailspins into hyperinflation
aug 29, 2025, 3:18 pm • 1 0 • view
The market at this point is only held up by like four or whatever tech firms (Meta, Tesla, Apple, NVIDIA etc.), and only because of the AI bubble. It won't take much to collapse absolutely everything, not to mention billions$ artificially being inflated through buyouts.
aug 29, 2025, 4:15 pm • 1 0 • view
Before he wraps, Lowell stresses that the proper relief for maintaining the status quo is to keep Cook in her position as governor.
aug 29, 2025, 3:16 pm • 228 22 • view
Then Lowell reads a quote from the Harris case, which Roth (repping DOJ today) signed. The quote talks about uniqueness/independence of the federal reserve. He signed that several months ago, but now he's changed his view, Lowell emphasizes. Then he's done. Roth walks to lectern for DOJ.
aug 29, 2025, 3:18 pm • 245 24 • view
Of course he has
aug 29, 2025, 3:19 pm • 3 0 • view
He is our retribution
aug 29, 2025, 3:20 pm • 0 0 • view
There you go! That’s what we want to see!
aug 29, 2025, 3:22 pm • 1 0 • view
Clever rhetorical move. Not exactly dunking, which judges rather hate, but certainly in line with argument around bad, pretextual motive.
aug 29, 2025, 3:20 pm • 5 0 • view
POS Roth realizes, no doubt, that their disbarment is under scrutiny by representing this particular cosplay DOJ that is unlikely to remain for long
aug 29, 2025, 7:08 pm • 0 0 • view
When Roth arrives at the lectern, Cobb announces she has a number of questions for him. Cobb: Given what Lowell was saying about unique independence of this board, does it make sense that there would be such broad discretion [for the president to determine cause]?
aug 29, 2025, 3:21 pm • 172 13 • view
Roth: Here, president didn't -- as he has before -- say you are removed under Article II. He said he was removing her for cause. But beyond that, the statute doesn't provide any further description. And what that means under the Reagan case is that it's discretionary and not reviewable by courts.
aug 29, 2025, 3:21 pm • 158 11 • view
Cause I said so doctrine
aug 29, 2025, 3:23 pm • 1 0 • view
"Not reviewable" is TACO mouthpieces' favorite phrase. In English: you dare not question the King.
aug 29, 2025, 5:08 pm • 0 0 • view
Jesus Christ, here we go again. “Judges can’t review what Trump is doing”. Take it to SCOTUS, Roth. They’ve already said Trump can’t fire Fed Governors. You go tell them that they have no right to review it.
aug 29, 2025, 3:23 pm • 2 0 • view
Good god, not that "it's not reviewable by courts" again!
aug 29, 2025, 3:27 pm • 0 0 • view
As in "I have the right to do anything that I want to do. I'm the President of the United States."
aug 29, 2025, 3:28 pm • 0 0 • view
Roth: Counsel gave court all these factors for what constitutes cause. But to me that is exactly what the president's discretionary power is...he looks at those factors and that's when president's power is at apex.
aug 29, 2025, 3:22 pm • 153 14 • view
Cobb: Plaintiff's counsel can probably tell I'm "uncomfortable" with the pretext argument. But I'm also uncomfortable with the idea that someone could be removed [for pretextual reasons]...
aug 29, 2025, 3:24 pm • 190 16 • view
Roth: I don't think this is a strong pretext argument. Before referral arose, not aware of any statements Trump made about Cook. They say he tried to get Powell fired, but okay, that's Powell. This is Cook. President might be happy to have opening to fill, but that's different from pretext.
aug 29, 2025, 3:25 pm • 157 12 • view
Okay, given that everything happening here is pre-textual this is scary 😳
aug 29, 2025, 3:25 pm • 2 0 • view
aug 29, 2025, 3:25 pm • 2 0 • view
🤮
aug 29, 2025, 4:35 pm • 0 0 • view
Yet another circle jerk for overpaid lawyers.
aug 29, 2025, 3:26 pm • 4 1 • view
Is "power is at apex" some legal standard or quote? Is it some type of legal jargon? Because otherwise, it just sounds stupid.
aug 29, 2025, 3:28 pm • 2 0 • view
Anyone have a # for how many times "unreviewable" has been invoked in these cases? And does anyone know what baseline it can be compared to? I suspect it's coming up way more now. If this is the case, it'd be nice to have some concrete evidence to point to.
aug 29, 2025, 6:02 pm • 0 0 • view
Every Trump DOJ lawyer insists what Trump does is not reviewable by anyone.
aug 29, 2025, 7:06 pm • 1 0 • view
Oh here we go with the "not reviewable by the courts" thing again. 🙄
aug 29, 2025, 4:34 pm • 0 0 • view
man, in every single one of these litigious harassment cases, no matter WHAT the target is, DOJ's entire argument is exactly the same: "he can do what he wants and they can't take us to court to be heard." Just fricking disgusting.
aug 29, 2025, 4:21 pm • 1 0 • view
You know they’re spewing 🐂💩 when immediately go to “unreviewable by courts.”
aug 30, 2025, 4:37 am • 0 0 • view
Meow, claws out!
aug 29, 2025, 3:29 pm • 1 0 • view
If it's not Ensign it's Yaakov?
aug 29, 2025, 4:39 pm • 0 0 • view
:-) Happy to hear your words, Mr Roth?
aug 29, 2025, 3:21 pm • 0 0 • view
Thanks for this. You're really good at it.
aug 29, 2025, 4:25 pm • 0 0 • view
😂🤬 but he can’t be embarrassed
aug 29, 2025, 6:18 pm • 0 0 • view
Which is exactly what he intends on doing.
aug 29, 2025, 3:12 pm • 2 0 • view
A clown with a flame thrower, still has a flame thrower.
aug 29, 2025, 3:13 pm • 0 0 • view
This seems odd. A newly confirmed gov would cause Irreparable harm to whom?
aug 29, 2025, 3:12 pm • 0 0 • view
To Cook!!
aug 29, 2025, 3:14 pm • 2 0 • view
Cook, if she were terminated without sufficient cause, then Trump filled her seat.
aug 29, 2025, 3:14 pm • 6 0 • view
Not only Cook but it could harm the federal reserve.
aug 29, 2025, 3:15 pm • 5 0 • view
the "fired" person has a number of years remaining in her term .. ,a Trump appointee would fill in -- and that's for another 10-12 years, or so .. (*14 year term for a fed governor)
aug 29, 2025, 3:17 pm • 2 0 • view
Legally, to Cook, I bet, but, practically, to markets in the USA and everyone affected by them. Everyone.
aug 29, 2025, 5:08 pm • 1 0 • view
For all of us.
aug 29, 2025, 3:11 pm • 25 0 • view
Well, not for the rich
aug 29, 2025, 3:15 pm • 1 0 • view
I would not even count on that with these nutcases Trump is putting into these positions.
aug 29, 2025, 3:17 pm • 0 0 • view
Isn't this about whether Cook is fired, and not who might replace her.
aug 29, 2025, 3:15 pm • 0 0 • view
I think it’s retaliatory
aug 29, 2025, 3:18 pm • 0 0 • view
Thank you for writing these posts.
aug 29, 2025, 3:12 pm • 9 0 • view
I disagree with Lowell here. The answer to this is, at this point, clearly that the judge gets to decide, not Pulte, not Trump. This isn't some grievance hearing where you start with supervisor and work up. We are now in court.
aug 29, 2025, 4:28 pm • 3 0 • view
Lowell is scrambling. Judges' hypotheticals tend to cause that to happen.
aug 29, 2025, 3:34 pm • 0 0 • view
Surprised he's getting into the minutiae of the prices behind the allegation rather than standing on the pretextual argument...
aug 29, 2025, 3:10 pm • 2 0 • view
kind of seems the judge has been leading him into the minutiae by her posing hypotheticals
aug 29, 2025, 3:12 pm • 4 0 • view
Feels as if Cobb wants a bulletproof case that SCOTUS can't overturn w/o armor-piercing bullets supplied by Trump. Meanwhile, Thomas can cite his own experience in mortgage fraud while not recusing.
aug 29, 2025, 3:18 pm • 11 0 • view
... interesting
aug 29, 2025, 3:26 pm • 2 0 • view
DOJ is saying that trump determines what cause is & that's not reviewable by the courts. we call that bullshit where I come from😂👍💯
aug 29, 2025, 3:24 pm • 3 0 • view
I guess Abbe is human.
aug 29, 2025, 3:16 pm • 0 0 • view
The argument would be fired by a quasi-agency without appropriate process.
aug 29, 2025, 9:20 pm • 0 0 • view
I think they’re basically saying that’s the process on any allegation and then in this particular case even if Pulte/Trump found she’d done it, it wouldn’t amount to just cause.
aug 29, 2025, 3:11 pm • 3 0 • view
Or that his investigation to begin with was arbitrary/capricious, so it can’t be basis of cause (sort of a fruit of the poisonous tree argument.)
aug 29, 2025, 3:14 pm • 7 0 • view
They're trying to do the same thing with Schiff about his mortgage. There are probably others, too. It's a damn conspiracy to remove Democrats from offices.
aug 29, 2025, 3:32 pm • 6 0 • view
The govt wants to have Trump be King and will claim anything and everything is his right. I HATE this timeline.
aug 29, 2025, 3:09 pm • 11 1 • view
I'm not confused. The Trump Administration is doing all half-ass shit like this, to rile up folks, so they distract from the Epstein files. Very clear to me.
aug 29, 2025, 3:11 pm • 14 0 • view
Can you explain what a "pretextual" argument is? It seems to be coming up a lot in the arguments.
aug 29, 2025, 3:25 pm • 1 0 • view
Constituting a pretext. Dubious or spurious (Not being what it purports to be; false).
aug 29, 2025, 3:52 pm • 1 0 • view
I can’t believe we have to have an entire ass hearing about basic HR practices
aug 29, 2025, 3:06 pm • 12 0 • view
📌
aug 29, 2025, 3:08 pm • 0 0 • view
History has shown that a government run by petty incompetent leaders with absolute power to vindictively banish dedicated competent civil servants, is NOT a democracy held together by the glue of the rule of law.
aug 29, 2025, 3:12 pm • 0 0 • view
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jia_M._...
aug 29, 2025, 3:10 pm • 0 0 • view
Wrap it up. Go home. Take your L. This judge doesn’t wanna hear it
aug 29, 2025, 3:05 pm • 5 0 • view
Okay, doomer.
aug 29, 2025, 3:06 pm • 4 0 • view
Is there any reason not to be at this point?
aug 29, 2025, 3:06 pm • 0 0 • view
Yes, absolutely. A district judge probing the contours of the area of law in the face of a total lack of binding precedent means that she's _thinking_ about it. A district judge uninterested in understanding the scope of the question she's being asked is the one who's already decided against you.
aug 29, 2025, 3:09 pm • 6 0 • view
Yep. If the judge is challenging your arguments at every turn it means that they want to establish for appeals purposes that they weren’t giving you an unwarranted win in case they find in your favor.
aug 29, 2025, 3:13 pm • 4 0 • view
I meant more *meta* and generally speaking than this particular case. You’re probably right, I just have no faith that this goes anywhere just like every other litigation session against the administration where the case seemed bulletproof and SCOTUS just decided to ol’ yeller it anyway
aug 29, 2025, 3:11 pm • 0 0 • view
Social media is not a replacement for therapy
aug 29, 2025, 3:18 pm • 1 0 • view
Ok?
aug 29, 2025, 3:18 pm • 0 0 • view
Are you gonna say it out loud or do you need some therapy so you can be a big man and say it?
aug 29, 2025, 3:21 pm • 0 0 • view
I'll say it - you need to seek help bsky.app/profile/rw53...
aug 29, 2025, 3:37 pm • 1 0 • view
Years ahead of you!
aug 29, 2025, 3:47 pm • 0 0 • view
Say what?
aug 29, 2025, 3:53 pm • 0 0 • view
Judges often go hard after the good guys so their rulings aren’t overturned on appeal. It’s quite normal to get a grilling like this.
aug 29, 2025, 3:07 pm • 65 5 • view
I think Lowell is doing a great job answering her hypothetical and other questions.
aug 29, 2025, 3:08 pm • 3 0 • view
From what I've read, Pulte seems to be the one who's been assigned the task of looking at all Democrats' mortgage apps. to try to find this exact thing. Like he's trump's henchman.
aug 29, 2025, 3:13 pm • 6 0 • view
Eh
aug 29, 2025, 3:09 pm • 0 0 • view
if the judge didn't want to hear it she wouldn't be asking so many questions
aug 29, 2025, 3:15 pm • 1 0 • view
She literally has the power to end the hearing whenever she wants.
aug 29, 2025, 3:18 pm • 2 0 • view
Oh, I think it's going very well for her. Abbe Lowell is showing the conspiracy Pulte and Trump schemed to go after her. Think it's great Cobb is letting it be revealed with her questions.
aug 29, 2025, 3:07 pm • 4 0 • view
Judge Cobb is making her earn her position, it's a healthy thing because he wants his final ruling to be as appeal-proof as possible--he said as much in the beginning as he started questioning her.
aug 29, 2025, 3:09 pm • 3 0 • view
Judge Cobb is a female just so you know
aug 29, 2025, 3:10 pm • 3 1 • view
Thanks, I just noticed that myself!
aug 29, 2025, 3:25 pm • 1 0 • view
Appeal proof? In 2025? Good luck
aug 29, 2025, 3:09 pm • 1 0 • view
SCOTUS has already ruled in favor of Fed independence this year. Don't surrender in advance.
aug 29, 2025, 3:25 pm • 2 0 • view
Fair enough. But I feel I’m allowed to surrender in advance since I’m not the one on the battlefield litigating it 😂
aug 29, 2025, 3:27 pm • 0 0 • view
she* - Cobb is female, didn't realize until after I posted
aug 29, 2025, 4:17 pm • 0 0 • view