Hearing Related to Lisa Cook's Lawsuit, 29 August 2025

… by Kamala Harris, is being credibly accused of mortgage fraud related to three separate mortgages (!) she took out in 2021.

She is fighting her firing claiming the loan applications were filed prior to her appointment to the Fed board and that the president didn't follow the law in removing her. She wants Judge Cobb to enter a temp restraining order to keep her on the board.

… an "expedited" briefing schedule to determine the merits of the case.

He keeps referring to Cook as "governor" 🙄

DOJ says they don't object to converting TRO motion to motion for prelim injunction.

Here is Cook's proposed TRO order for Judge Cobb to consider 👆

Cook atty attempting to dismiss allegations of mortgage fraud and those allegations do not represent "cause" needed to justify removal.

Cook atty raises Humphrey's Executor case--one that keep coming up in nearly all the lawsuits against the president related to firings/dismissals--that "cause" needs to be specific.

Judge Cobb asks for citation to back up Cook's claims any malfeasance prior to appointment cannot represent "cause" for firing. Cook atty doesn't have one and doesn't really rule it out but ponders whether the allegations were known at time of confirmation.

Cobb: "Where do I get the authority for that?" She's asking for case law to support his position that past behavior does not represent "cause."

Cook atty doesn't have an answer.

Judge Cobb asking (more like hinting) if she also needs to find out if there is another motive for the firing aside from what the president/administration determined is "cause" for removal. (I believe she's suggesting Trump removed Cook for political reasons such as Fed Board refusing to lower rates.)

"If there is abundantly clear that there is no cause...you can't have Pulte's crazy midnight tweets as cause. That's when you probably have to address the atmospherics."

Cook atty brings up the president's tweet prior to Pulte's public allegations on Cook about demanding resignations by Fed Reserve members so he can have a majority and his public criticism of Powell.

Cook atty now blasting Pulte for 33 or so posts about Cook allegations. Calls this "litigation by tweet."

Judge Cobb pushing for more clarification on past conduct representing "cause." If person admits mistakes were made, allegations were proven, etc outside of a criminal prosecution--is that cause?

Cook atty says it could be.

Cook atty now comparing a clerical error to what appears to be an intentional misrepresentation on a financial form. Also questions whether someone else was involved in filling the applications--accountant, attorney--as to culpability.

Judge Cobb now asking about irreparable harm, one element generally needed to grant a temp restraining order. Cook atty again raises the "unique" nature of the Federal Reserve--as I told @MegynKellyShow yesterday, the notion these boards represent a 4th branch of government accountable to no one--and that the irreparable harm is Cook's inability to perform her Senate-confirmed duties.

Cobb raises Hampton Dellinger case--Biden appointed office of special counsel whom Trump fired earlier this year--that DC circuit allowed his firing. Cook atty of course again arguing this situation is different.

Cobb is cognizant of higher courts including SCOTUS reversing her DC district court colleagues on firing/dismissal cases.

Now up: Trump DOJ.

Cobb now asking DOJ about "cause" definition and requirements and if a policy disagreement represents "cause." DOJ says he wouldn't go that far in most extreme cases but ordinary disputes don't rise to "cause."

DOJ arguing in this case there is no provision in the statute that allows for court review. Cobb mildly pushes back and also acknowledges she is not totally comfortable with Cook's "pretext" for the lawsuit.

DOJ notes Cook has not denied the mortgage fraud allegations--they are now debating whether the president's social media posts represent notice and what sort of due process is required.

It appears that Judge Cobb, while probably displeased with how this went down, understands she's on thin ice in issuing a TRO given recent case law and lack of specific requirements for cause, due process, and court review.

"It feels weird that an administration could go back and second guess the determinations of presidents and Congress in their advise and consent role."

She then admits feeling weird about it doesn't mean the court has authority to review.

Senate confirmation, of course, does not protect a presidential appointee--i.e., US attorneys and office of special counsel (Hampton Dellinger case.)

Judge Cobb claims Fed Reserve should not be subject to political pressure, which is just silly and extends the argument these boards and agencies operate as an unconstitutional 4th branch of government.

… can ultimately undo her firing. Cook atty keeps arguing Trump's posts about the Fed and Cook represent political influence and lack of due process rights (to the extent they exist.)

Now both sides arguing over Dellinger case law.

It sounds like both sides and Cobb will agree to convert TRO to a preliminary injunction motion--that expedites both the process and appeal options.

For now, it does not appear Judge Cobb will grant any hold on Cook's firing as this plays out over the next few weeks.

Hearing over.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)