Of course the real question is: why should she have to provide an explanation in the first place? If Trump thinks she has committed a criminal act, let Bondi pursue it in the courts. Absent that, he has to prove cause. Which Roth denied he had to do.

Roth, for the fed: She can provide an explanation by way of a tweet, which is standard practice. Or she can write a letter to the President who may change his mind depending on whether the Diet Coke really hits today.

I actually admire his candor in telling the judge that the law basically has no relevance under Trump

I mean, it’s truth.

Also, the DOJ may be investigating the thing so providing an explanation is, ah, understandably not something to do right now?

question for the lawyers: If POTUS determines what cause is and he determines cause for firing is applying for 2 mortgages on properties in the same year and claiming they are both primary residences and Cook did this (unknown to me) does the court defer to POTUS?

I dunno, my bank always fills that out for me. That’s the explanation. I just skim it and sign.

while it would be a mistake, it'd be interesting to see how all of trump's arguments in his fraud cases would play out. "oh its just paperwork" "the bank did its own due diligence" "nobody lost money"

"we don't have an explanation and we'd kind of prefer it stay that way thanks"