President Donald Trump - J.D. Vance Administration

#39,152
#39,152
Well, sometimes Trump tells the truth about a thing. I'm all in favor for returning to DoW, but why Trump would want to and why bypass congress to do it, I have no idea.

1756225983456.png
 
#39,154
#39,154
jmacvols1 said:
...give it time...the half billion fine was thrown out on appeal and the rest will be thrown out also


But the other point is Fed Govs. have resigned over suspicion not indictments so shouldn't Cook resign also over, not only suspicion, but signed papers?
Click to expand...


Now hold on ....

She is being fired because she was accused of financial fraud. Team Trump claims that is enough, on it own, to preclude federal employment.

Trump had charges filed, was tried, and was convicted of financial fraud. And you hang your hat on maybe it will be thrown out on appeal?

Sorry, that is some serious weaksauce there.
 
#39,155
#39,155
lawgator1 said:
Now hold on ....

She is being fired because she was accused of financial fraud. Team Trump claims that is enough, on it own, to preclude federal employment.

Trump had charges filed, was tried, and was convicted of financial fraud. And you hang your hat on maybe it will be thrown out on appeal?

Sorry, that is some serious weaksauce there.
Click to expand...
Didn't you think there is a difference between being accused and having possible charges related to you government position... Which she is paid by tax payer in the federal reserve..as opposed to a civic charge for a private citizen at the time,??
 
#39,157
#39,157
jmacvols1 said:
if Intel pays a dividend or capital gains then it would go to the taxpayer, any value of the stock goes to the taxpayer..better than nothing taxpayers would have gotten from Biden's give away.
Click to expand...
so I should be expecting a check from Intel this year, gotcha. I will need to let my CPA know about it.
 
#39,158
#39,158
whodeycin85 said:
Didn't you think there is a difference between being accused and having possible charges related to you government position... Which she is paid by tax payer in the federal reserve..as opposed to a civic charge for a private citizen at the time,??
Click to expand...

"related to your government position...." "as opposed to a civil charge for a private citizen at the time..."

Come on. Even you must have winced when you wrote that.
 
#39,161
#39,161
whodeycin85 said:
Didn't you think there is a difference between being accused and having possible charges related to you government position... Which she is paid by tax payer in the federal reserve..as opposed to a civic charge for a private citizen at the time,??
Click to expand...


Oh, and by the way, the mortgage documents were made in 2021, the year BEFORE she was appointed.

You fail again.
 
#39,162
#39,162
lawgator1 said:
Now hold on ....

She is being fired because she was accused of financial fraud. Team Trump claims that is enough, on it own, to preclude federal employment.

Trump had charges filed, was tried, and was convicted of financial fraud. And you hang your hat on maybe it will be thrown out on appeal?

Sorry, that is some serious weaksauce there.
Click to expand...
I was pointing out others resigned simply over suspicions, not over indictments.

There is not just suspicions that Cook committed felony fraud but hard evidence....signatures on documents...

According to GROK no indictment is necessary for a President to fire a Federal employee "for cause"...

"Firing a federal employee "for cause" by the President does not require an indictment. Under 5 U.S.C. § 7513, adverse actions such as removal (firing) against most civil service employees must be based on "such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service." This typically includes documented misconduct (e.g., insubordination, harassment, or security violations), poor performance (e.g., consistent failure to meet standards), or other behaviors that impair agency operations. The process requires at least 30 days' advance written notice (with exceptions for emergencies like credible belief of a crime warranting imprisonment), an opportunity for the employee to respond orally and in writing, representation by an attorney or other advocate, and a written decision with specific reasons. Employees can appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) under 5 U.S.C. § 7701.

An indictment—a formal criminal charge by a grand jury—is not a prerequisite for "for cause" removal. While criminal activity on or off duty can justify termination if it harms the efficiency of the service, the agency does not need to wait for charges, an indictment, or a conviction. The focus is on the impact to the agency's mission, supported by evidence like investigations or documentation, not judicial proceedings. For example, agencies can act under the "crime provision" exception to advance notice if there's reasonable cause to believe a crime occurred, even without an indictment.

This applies to competitive service employees (most federal civil servants) and certain excepted service employees with at least one year of continuous service. Political appointees and some senior executive service members may be removable at the President's discretion without "for cause" requirements, per Supreme Court precedents like Myers v. United States (1926) and Seila Law LLC v. CFPB (2020), which affirm broad presidential removal power over executive officers but allow limited congressional "for cause" protections for certain roles (e.g., heads of multimember independent agencies). Recent executive actions, such as those under President Trump's 2025 orders reinstating Schedule F-like categories, aim to expand at-will removals for policy-influencing positions, but even there, an indictment is not required."
 
#39,164
#39,164
NorthDallas40 said:
I’d guess it will manifest more as an investment loss honestly
Click to expand...
no no no. I have been assured that Daddy Trump has figured out how to get the big bad corps to pay the citizens.

*but to your point, yeah I am going to really need to get with my CPA if I can claim misspent tax dollars as a personal loss. They are about to owe me some serious money*
 
  • Like
Reactions: USF grad in TN and NorthDallas40
#39,165
#39,165
jmacvols1 said:
I was pointing out others resigned simply over suspicions, not over indictments.

There is not just suspicions that Cook committed felony fraud but hard evidence....signatures on documents...

According to GROK no indictment is necessary for a President to fire a Federal employee "for cause"...

Firing a federal employee "for cause" by the President does not require an indictment. Under 5 U.S.C. § 7513, adverse actions such as removal (firing) against most civil service employees must be based on "such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service." This typically includes documented misconduct (e.g., insubordination, harassment, or security violations), poor performance (e.g., consistent failure to meet standards), or other behaviors that impair agency operations. The process requires at least 30 days' advance written notice (with exceptions for emergencies like credible belief of a crime warranting imprisonment), an opportunity for the employee to respond orally and in writing, representation by an attorney or other advocate, and a written decision with specific reasons. Employees can appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) under 5 U.S.C. § 7701.

An indictment—a formal criminal charge by a grand jury—is not a prerequisite for "for cause" removal. While criminal activity on or off duty can justify termination if it harms the efficiency of the service, the agency does not need to wait for charges, an indictment, or a conviction. The focus is on the impact to the agency's mission, supported by evidence like investigations or documentation, not judicial proceedings. For example, agencies can act under the "crime provision" exception to advance notice if there's reasonable cause to believe a crime occurred, even without an indictment.

This applies to competitive service employees (most federal civil servants) and certain excepted service employees with at least one year of continuous service. Political appointees and some senior executive service members may be removable at the President's discretion without "for cause" requirements, per Supreme Court precedents like Myers v. United States (1926) and Seila Law LLC v. CFPB (2020), which affirm broad presidential removal power over executive officers but allow limited congressional "for cause" protections for certain roles (e.g., heads of multimember independent agencies). Recent executive actions, such as those under President Trump's 2025 orders reinstating Schedule F-like categories, aim to expand at-will removals for policy-influencing positions, but even there, an indictment is not required.
Click to expand...


Oh, well, if Grok says it.

And does Grok say that if financial fraud allegations are "for cause" then what does Grok say about Trump being POTUS while standing actually convicted of it?
 
#39,168
#39,168
lawgator1 said:
Oh, well, if Grok says it.

And does Grok say that if financial fraud allegations are "for cause" then what does Grok say about Trump being POTUS while standing actually convicted of it?
Click to expand...
so you are saying that Cook must first have an indictment against her before she can be fired?
 
#39,172
#39,172
jmacvols1 said:
so you are saying that Cook must first have an indictment against her before she can be fired?
Click to expand...


No. And I've said that if she did commit fraud she simply ought to resign.

But that is not the issue. The issue is that Trump fired her "for cause," with the cause being she is accused of financial fraud. And Trump's people go on tv saying that if a person commits fraud, they are disqualified from having office in the federal government.

Trump ticks all of those boxes, and even more, as he was tried and convicted.

If the argument is, well, he's appealing, then that makes no sense since she hasn't even been charged, much less tried and convicted, and hasn't had the same chance to appeal.

Bottom line is that the rationale offered for firing her is not being applied evenly. At all.
 
#39,173
#39,173
lawgator1 said:
Oh, well, if Grok says it.

And does Grok say that if financial fraud allegations are "for cause" then what does Grok say about Trump being POTUS while standing actually convicted of it?
Click to expand...

Funny, we say the same thing about you. Like, ask Grok who Jawtator votes for? Probably more accurate than Jawtator has been on this forum about his own voting. 😂
 
  • Like
Reactions: Peradox1K
#39,174
#39,174
lawgator1 said:
Now hold on ....

She is being fired because she was accused of financial fraud. Team Trump claims that is enough, on it own, to preclude federal employment.

Trump had charges filed, was tried, and was convicted of financial fraud. And you hang your hat on maybe it will be thrown out on appeal?

Sorry, that is some serious weaksauce there.
Click to expand...

There is a difference in being an employee and an elected official.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol and Peradox1K
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top