to fire.

is going to have to charge her and take her to court. Good, rack up another loss for TACO.

Even if it’s proven true, I don’t understand what it has to do with her job performance or how she got the job.

It seems like a separate issue entirely.

Importantly, her mortgage holder has not made the allegation.

Mortgage fraud is the Trump administrations current go-to when they want to accuse someone of something.

I would hope that a baseless allegation will not be found to be "just cause."

The claimed behavior is a felony - and one that is clearly related to her job (since the mortgage(s) would be part of the financial system that she oversees). That would pretty clearly constitute "cause" for her firing (if, ironically, not enough to block someone from the presidency)...

... but she hasn't been indicted (let alone convicted) of that crime. So it's a tougher sell.

But investigations and the inconvenience of answering questions is to intimidate and cause less critical process thinkers to believe it because it is said (on TV, on media). We have to apply more critical thinking in time of misinformation and distraction.

Guilt, an allegation is an accusation.

He wants anyone else that might think they want to oppose him to be worried that Bondi will dredge up a jay walking offense 30 years ago and use it again them.

particularly black women who have the courage so many white men seem to lack.

He just can't abide that fact.

That's the donald's not-so-secret weapon.

as having no merit, she needs to sue him for defamation and for bringing this suit against her for political harrassment.

Chump is guilty of sex crimes.

Cook should sue for slander and defamation.

I don't care if you are the president.

Pot, kettle!

She must have an impeccable record.

She's better than chump who is a (not enough words).

SCOTUS told him a few months ago he can't touch the Fed Reserve

When SCOTUS allowed him to fire two members of the Labor board a few weeks ago they pointed out that the ruling did not mean that he could fire Powell just because he wasn't in line with executive policy preferences.

But that has little to nothing to do with whether or not he can fire a fed governor "for cause"... which is clearly allowable within the law that created the fed in the first place.

The question in this one almost certainly comes down to whether or not "cause" can include an accusation of a crime without charges (let alone conviction)... and whether or not she actually did what she is accused of.