Maybe in line with what konata just posted, I think this is worth 13 minutes of your time.

Some clarity from President Trump’s administration on the Chinese student visas that were mentioned on the previous page -

https://x.com/_johnnymaga/status/1961112044582715718

quote:

Originally posted by TMats:
Maybe in line with what konata just posted, I think this is worth 13 minutes of your time.

Just wow. Why isn’t trump hopping mad about this stuff? Is he going to do something about it? I get that some presidents don’t get along. But this seems unprecedented and another level that should never be allowed.

President Trump has his appointees in place to deal with the situation. They know what to do—this time—and it’s far better that he not be personally involved.

^^^^^^^^^^
Freakin' hilarious! Thanks for posting that Para...

Laughing so hard I wet my diaper.

That's "Our Gang"!!!

A 3rd Property!? Pulte Drops New Criminal Referral On Lisa Cook As Mortgage Scandal Widens

https://www.zerohedge.com/poli...ortgage-fraud-fiasco

On Thursday night, Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director Bill Pulte dropped a second criminal referral against Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook based on evidence that she entered into a 15-year mortgage on a third property which she listed as her "Second Home."

On an ethics form signed with the government, however, Cook noted it as an "investment/rental property."

Why is this bad and not simply a 'clerical error'? As Pulte notes, "Representing the property as a second home may have allowed Cook to secure a lower “Second Home” mortgage down payment and rates, as investment properties typically carry higher down payments and higher rates due to increased risk."



This new criminal referral follows an initial referral Pulte made after Cook listed two properties as her 'primary residence' in 2021 - ostensibly reaping manifold benefits on tax treatment and interest rates, which Cook hasn't denied.

About that Clerical Error...
Earlier Thursday, Cook filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration after President Donald Trump fired her on Monday 'for cause.' Among the excuses contained in the lawsuit for listing two properties as her primary residence was a possible clerical error.

Except, Cook described herself in her 2023 nomination hearing as having "significant experience in banking and finance, as is evidenced by my service on the board of directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago and of a Community Development Financial Institution in Michigan, in addition to my employment at an investment bank and a large commercial bank."

Typical mindset of the self-entitled elite overlords.

It’s almost as-if Mr. Pulte had this in his back pocket, waiting for the perfect time / timing to release more damning evidence of her criminality.

Cry harder and louder ms. crook, so we can see what Mr. Pulte’s next drop will be on your sorry ass!!

“President Donald Trump revoked Secret Service protection for former Vice President Kamala Harris on Thursday as she prepares for a nationwide book tour.

Harris received six months of protection from the Secret Service after leaving office by federal law. 

However, shortly before leaving office then-President Joe Biden quietly extended her protection by an additional year in an undisclosed directive not revealed until now, according to a CNN report.

Trump canceled the protection in a Thursday letter entitled ‘Memorandum for the Secretary of Homeland Security.’

'You are hereby authorized to discontinue any security-related procedures previously authorized by Executive Memorandum, beyond those required by law, for the following individual, effective September 1, 2025: Former Vice President Kamala D. Harris,' Trump's letter reads.

The sudden removal of his 2024 rival’s protection comes as Harris prepares to launch a nationwide book tour for her upcoming memoir ‘107 days.’ …”

DailyMail article:
https://mol.im/a/15046793

According to google AI. . .

“A former U.S. vice president, their spouse, and their children under 16 typically receive Secret Service protection for a period of not more than six months after leaving office, according to federal law. However, the Secretary of Homeland Security has the authority to direct the Secret Service to provide temporary protection beyond this initial six-month period if information or conditions warrant it.”

Ok, lefty outrage to commence now

quote:

Originally posted by BigSwede:
Ok, lefty outrage to commence now

She's married to a multimillionaire.

Let him pay for her protection.

Its only making the rich pay their fair share.

Trump DOJ Files Blistering Response To Lisa Cook Lawsuit

https://www.zerohedge.com/poli...se-lisa-cook-lawsuit

The Justice Department has filed a response to Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook's lawsuit over her Monday firing - claiming that the President was within his right to boot her over allegations of mortgage fraud (with a third property disclosed by Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director Bill Pulte last night), and that Cook is "highly unlikely to prevail on the merits."

Trump's legal team argues that the Federal Reserve Act (FRA) gives the President “broad discretion” to remove governors "for cause" and that courts cannot second-guess that judgment:

The Federal Reserve Act (FRA) empowers the President of the United States to appoint (by and with the advice and consent of the Senate) the members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. 12 U.S.C. § 241. Those Governors serve for fixed terms, “unless sooner removed for cause by the President.” Id. § 242. The statute thus expressly contemplates that, even setting aside his Article II authority over principal officers, the President retains broad discretion to remove a Governor for “cause.”

Citing Reagan v. United States (1901) and Dalton v. Specter (1994), they write "Where a statute commits decisionmaking to the discretion of the President, judicial review of the President’s decision is not available," therefore Cook cannot get a temporary restraining order allowing her to stay in her job.

She Never Denied It
The DOJ argues that Cook never rebutted the substance of the FHFA referral:

“Dr. Cook does not try to claim that the contradictory representations were somehow truthful, or maintain that she acted without scienter.”

Instead, she issued a statement:

"I have no intention of being bullied to step down from my position because of some questions raised in a tweet"

The filing claims this refusal to provide an explanation justifies removal:

"Dr. Cook’s refusal even to offer an explanation or defense makes it all the more impossible to conclude that the ‘cause’ standard is unsatisfied."

Procedural Due Process Does Not Apply
In response to Cook's claims that she was 'deprived of notice' and an opportunity to respond to the President's concern over allegations of mortgage fraud, the DOJ notes that "no court has ever extended those due-process protections for employees to principal officers of the United States. Nor does the FRA purport to do so."

The Trump admin also argues that principal officers like Federal Reserve governors have no property interest in their office.

"Dr. Cook had no property interest in her public office and was thus owed no notice or opportunity to be heard"

"Public office is not property’ and ‘the nature of the relation of a public officer to the public is inconsistent with either a property or a contract right.'"

Trump's filing also argues that Cook did receive notice:

"The President gave Dr. Cook notice when he publicized the FHFA referral on August 20—and only acted to terminate her five days later, after it was clear that no adequate response was forthcoming."

The DOJ also notes that Cook has no explanation for the allegations.

Incredibly, Dr. Cook even now hazards no explanation for her conduct and points to nothing she would say or prove in any “hearing” that would conceivably alter the President’s determination that the perception of financial misconduct alone is intolerable in this role. Under these circumstances, there is certainly no equitable basis for a reinstatement injunction.

Addressing Cook's request for an injunction on her filing, the response asserts that recent decisions from the Supreme Court and the D.C. Circuit leave no doubt that reinstatement injunctions are improper.

Trump's Stated Rationale Was Not Policy-Based
Cook hinted her firing stemmed from policy disagreements on Fed independence and interest rates. Trump’s filing denies this:

"The President did not invoke a policy disagreement as the cause for Dr. Cook’s removal. Rather, his letter … made clear that he was acting based on her ‘deceitful and potentially criminal conduct’ in connection with the mortgage agreements."

No Irreparable Harm to Cook
Cook claimed she’d suffer irreparable harm if not reinstated. Trump disputes this:

Loss of employment does not constitute irreparable injury.

They also argue that the next Fed board meeting isn’t until September 16, 2025, meaning there’s no urgent harm justifying a TRO.

More at link

crook: “I have no intention of being bullied to step down from my position because of some questions raised in a tweet.”

PDJT: Bullied?! Hardly. You’ve been FIRED!!

Priceless! Newsom is too stupid to even realize how badly he’s being trolled when he whines about it on Politico

https://www.politico.com/news/...er-election-00532972

Holy shit I want to be a Democrat so I can just make things up.

https://x.com/RedWave_Press/st.../1961426886392741987

quote:

Originally posted by Cookster:
According to google AI. . .

“A former U.S. vice president, their spouse, and their children under 16 typically receive Secret Service protection for a period of not more than six months after leaving office, according to federal law. However, the Secretary of Homeland Security has the authority to direct the Secret Service to provide temporary protection beyond this initial six-month period if information or conditions warrant it.”

I wonder when this became the law. I used to run into former VP Humphrey frequently when I was in college in St Paul, MN, and as late as 1972 (last time I remember seeing him) he had Secret Service protection.

quote:

Originally posted by newtoSig765:

...I wonder when this became the law. I used to run into former VP Humphrey frequently when I was in college in St Paul, MN, and as late as 1972 (last time I remember seeing him) he had Secret Service protection.

2008. Vthoky provided this link in a different thread:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/...ress/house-bill/5938