Hacker News Reader

Comment by phendrenad2 | Hacker News Reader

Obviously Trump wants more control over the Fed, but the backlash against this is also obviously propaganda. If she committed a felony, she shouldn't be in charge of anything. I don't think that's a controversial opinion. All of the reporting saying that the firing isn't being done in the proper manner is just hiding behind technicalities. At some point people have to accept that throwing out all laws so your side "wins" just benefits wannabe-dictators, and I don't see many of those on the left.

View on HN

> If she committed a felony, she shouldn't be in charge of anything. I don't think that's a controversial opinion.

Given the players involved, that honestly seems to be quite controversial.

“If she committed a felony…”

This has been asserted but not proven to be true.

“…she shouldn't be in charge of anything.“

Even if sensible, this is clearly not a heuristic that is being applied universally.

I saw a video where someone visited a house she claims to live at, and there was a tenant there. Proven to be true yet? Or no?

> If she committed a felony, she shouldn't be in charge of anything.

She should be the POTUS if she's really a felon.

Having studied history a bit more than most people, I have a gut reaction to the kind of "lawlessness escalation vortex" where lawlessness by one group is used to excuse lawlessness of an opposing group. I've seen how this ends in history, and it's not good. Essentially, the strongest side wins, takes all of the power, and becomes totalitarian, because who wants to re-institute laws once you're king? Oh, it might be Trump. Or it might be some Bernie Sanders bro. Does it matter in the end, if the laws are gone and we all live as loyal subjects of the crown? But sure, downvote me, shoot the messenger. This is a lesson, I fear, we must learn at the point of the despot's guards spears every 200 or so years, so perhaps there's no avoiding it. But someday, you'll say "damn you phendrenad2, why couldn't you be more convincing, you tried to warn me but not hard enough!"

How is due process a technicality?

I heard "lawfare" a lot when allegations against prominent Republicans were proven in court.

> If she committed a felony, she shouldn't be in charge of anything. I don't think that's a controversial opinion.

When Al Franken resigns because of allegations of sexual misconduct, it proves Democrats are evil. When Donald Trump is convicted of dozens of felonies, it proves Republicans are victims of politically motivated witch hunts. It shouldn't be a controversial opinion that being a felon should disqualify you from public service, but because of that very opinion, labeling someone as a felon as been weaponized to the point where the label can be dismissed by supporters

In my country, she would be put on leave, then investigated, then tried, then let go, then hidden away if the felony was big or forgotten if it was minor (because white collar crime almost always pays, it's better to go hard).

> If she committed a felony,

It is not proven. Trump is merely alleging - it is a manufactured allegation.

> If she committed a felony, she shouldn't be in charge of anything

Apply the same logic to the 34 count felon in the office of the President. Until you apply the harshest standard to the President, none of your other complaints hold any value.

If the allegation turns out to be true, which seems to be incredibly likely now, will you learn from this? Or will you continue to believe the news outlets that led you to this mistaken belief?

>If she committed a felony

Big if, especially since she hasn't been formally charged with anything. In any case, even if she has, Trump and Pulte's authority to fire her is questionable. It would be like a mayor attempting to fire a private security guard that's contracted with the city, pending an investigation.

A couple of points: if it were a LEO, they would generally be put on leave, not fired. But, again, officer of a private entity (which the Fed) is; the mayor/president's ability to influence that entity's activity ends at the contracts/relevant statutes's stipulations - and if there's a dispute, it gets hashed out in civil court. Of course, if a felony has been committed, one could just wait for the conviction, which would likely lead to termination by one of several exigencies.

But, again, big if.

> Trump and Pulte's authority to fire her is questionable

So you agree that if she did it, she should be fired, but not by Trump. But the effect is the same. Seems like you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

And by the way, if she did it, and whomever is (in your eyes) responsible for firing her chooses not to, would you consider that a direliction of duty, I.E. would that person deserve to be fired? And would it eventually get to the president's responsibility to fire someone if people kept deciding no to, all theh way up the chain? I'm really curious to know what your thoughts are on this, if any.

What are the chances that suddenly half the people in power that Trump wants to get rid of have committed a felony? And what are the chances that the people that Trump has put into power have committed the same felonies (or much worse) and are getting a pass? If that doesn't worry you then you have to stop statements like 'having studied history more than most' or something to that effect and realize that you are in uncharted territory. You are still applying normal standards to a blatant power grab and slide into a form of government that does not have a happy ending.

> What are the chances that suddenly half the people in power that Trump wants to get rid of have committed a felony?

What? Name three please. You're just needlessly generalizing because you don't know anything.

"If" being a keyword here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com