Trump’s attacks threaten to backfire in new fight to oust Fed's Lisa Cook

What happened

AlterNet reports that President Donald Trump’s effort to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook may be undermined by his own statements. Trump called Cook “dishonest” but also complained that she is “an automatic no vote” against the lower interest rates he wants, tying his campaign against her to a policy dispute rather than merely to the mortgage allegations cited against her.

The Supreme Court stopped Trump’s initial attempt to dismiss Cook in June because she had not received an opportunity to respond, while leaving open another attempt following due process. The administration then created a committee of Trump appointees and scheduled a closed-door hearing for Nov. 5. Cook denied wrongdoing, had not been criminally charged, and, through attorney Abbe Lowell, questioned the committee’s objectivity and fitness.

The allegations originated with federal housing director Bill Pulte and concern whether Cook improperly identified two properties as primary residences on mortgage applications. According to the report, Cook’s lawyers said a scheduling conflict would prevent her from attending the planned hearing. The White House described the proceeding as fair and open; legal scholars quoted in the reporting questioned whether its outcome had effectively been predetermined.

The president supplied the pretext problem

Trump holds the decisive institutional power in this story. He wants to remove a Federal Reserve governor, selected the officials who will assess her case, and publicly announced both his judgment of Cook’s character and his frustration with her interest-rate position.

That matters because the committee is supposed to evaluate whether the allegations justify removal—not ratify the president’s monetary-policy preferences. Trump’s remark about Cook being an “automatic no vote” exposes an interest separate from the alleged mortgage conduct: he wants a more compliant Federal Reserve.

That does not establish that the allegations are false or prove how the committee will rule. It does establish a conflict between the administration’s claim of neutral adjudication and the president’s stated desire to eliminate a dissenting vote.

A hearing is not independence

The committee consists of National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett, Labor Secretary Keith Sonderling and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Chair Andrea Lucas, all chosen by Trump. AlterNet reports that Hassett and Sonderling have aligned with Trump’s demand for lower rates, while Hassett has called the allegations serious and urged Cook to take leave.

The Supreme Court’s due-process requirement created an obstacle for the administration. The administration answered with a procedure under its own control. Columbia Law professor Kathryn Judge told The New York Times that the process looked like a series of hurdles surrounding an outcome that may already have been chosen. University of Pennsylvania professor Peter Conti-Brown called the arrangement “quasi judges in a quasi-judicial process” and characterized it as pretext.

The White House disputes that assessment. But “in-person hearing” is a description of format, not proof of impartiality. A closed-door session conducted by presidential appointees does not become independent merely because the administration labels it fair.

The weaker actor is made to carry the burden

The framing invites Cook to prove that she deserves a fair hearing from officials serving the president seeking her removal. That reverses the relevant burden. Cook must answer the allegations, but the administration must justify using state power through a credible process.

She has denied wrongdoing and, as the report notes, faced no criminal charges at that point. Those facts do not exonerate her, but they sharply limit what can honestly be claimed. Allegations can warrant investigation without becoming a ready-made basis for dismissal.

Focusing narrowly on whether Cook attends the Nov. 5 session risks misdirecting attention toward the weaker party’s procedural choices. Her scheduling conflict may affect the hearing, but it does not resolve the central institutional question: whether a committee assembled by Trump can impartially decide a case whose desired result he has already advertised.

Control is the larger prize

The consequence reaches beyond one governor’s tenure. Federal Reserve independence depends partly on insulating monetary-policy decisions from a president’s demand for immediate political obedience. If disagreement over interest rates can be paired with unresolved allegations and processed through an administration-designed tribunal, statutory independence becomes easier to circumvent.

The larger pattern is institutional capture through procedural formality. An executive encounters a legal constraint, constructs a process that minimally satisfies it, and places loyal appointees in the seats of judgment. The paperwork may change; the underlying concentration of power does not.

This case therefore turns on more than whether Lisa Cook completed mortgage documents properly. It tests whether due process will constrain presidential power or merely furnish that power with a cleaner script.

Thanks to Alter Net

Source: Trump’s attacks threaten to backfire in new fight to oust Fed’s Lisa Cook