Sauer
(Photo
by
Chip
Somodevilla/Getty
Images)
Yesterday
Solicitor
General
John
Sauer
tried
to
convince
five
Supreme
Court
justices
to
let
President
Trump
burn
down
the
Federal
Reserve.
It
did
not
go
well.
Nota
bene:
Conservative
justices
can
do
real
law
when
they
actually
have
skin
in
the
game.
The
oral
argument
was
fascinating,
not
least
because
it
proved
once
again
that
the
entire
executive
branch
is
brain-poisoned
by
social
media
and
can’t
distinguish
between
online
and
real
life.
There
were
literally
eight
mentions
of
Truth
Social!
The
question
was
whether
a
social
media
post
accusing
Federal
Reserve
Governor
Lisa
Cook
of
mortgage
fraud
and
calling
for
her
resignation
counted
as
official
notice
prior
to
termination.
Under
12
USC
§
242,
members
of
the
Board
of
Governors
can
only
be
removed
“for
cause,”
giving
Cook
a
due
process
right
to
contest
her
removal.
But
Sauer
argued
that
tagging
Cook
and
giving
her
a
chance
to
clap
back
was
process
enough.
The
“notice”
came
on
August
20,
when
Trump
posted
a
Bloomberg
story
detailing
allegations
by
Bill
Pulte,
director
of
the
Federal
Housing
Finance
Agency,
that
Cook
made
false
claims
on
a
mortgage
application
to
score
a
lower
rate.
“Cook
must
resign,
now!!!”
he
screeched
on
Truth
Social.
The
government
says
the
post
put
the
onus
on
Cook
to
come
forward
and
clear
her
name.
And
since
she
failed
to
throw
down
in
the
comment
section
or
slide
into
Trump’s
DMs,
he
was
justified
in
firing
her
five
days
later
for
“deceitful
and
potentially
criminal
conduct
in
a
financial
matter.”
On
Truth
Social
of
course.
“Our
contention
is
that
there
already
has
been
a
process.
There
was
a
social
media
post
that
said,
look,
these
two
documents
contradict
each
other.
And
the
response
was
defiance,”
Sauer
wheedled.
“So
there
was
a
chance
to
tell
…
her
side
of
the
story.
It
just
wasn’t
adopted.”
Neither
of
these
arguments
persuaded
Judge
Jia
Cobb,
the
trial
judge,
who
scoffed
that
a
social
media
post
could
not
possibly
constitute
actual
notice.
“At
no
point
did
President
Trump
indicate
that
Cook
would
be
provided
an
opportunity
to
argue
that
the
allegations
were
untrue
or
did
not
merit
removal,
or
invite
Cook
to
submit
such
evidence,”
she
noted.
The
DC
Circuit
majority
treated
the
argument
as
functionally
abandoned,
writing
that
“the
government
does
not
dispute
that
it
provided
Cook
no
meaningful
notice
or
opportunity
to
respond
to
the
allegations
against
her.”
But
Sauer’s
back,
baby,
and
he’s
hanging
his
hat
on
the
claim
that
tagging
someone
on
the
socials
totally
counts
as
due
process.
“We
believe
that
was
provided
in
the
five-day
window
between
the
Truth
Social
post
and
the
removal
letter,”
he
told
the
justices
yesterday,
insisting
that
anything
more
would
be
an
“intrusion
on
the
executive
branch.”
And
what
was
the
procedure
for
Cook
to
assert
her
objections?
She
was
supposed
to
post
through
it!
JUSTICE
JACKSON:
Was
Ms.
Cook
given
the
opportunity
in
some
sort
of
formal
proceeding
to
contest
that
evidence
or
explain
it?GENERAL
SAUER:
Not
a
formal
proceeding.
She
was
given
an
opportunity
in
public
because
she
was
notified
—JUSTICE
JACKSON:
In
the
world?GENERAL
SAUER:
Yes.JUSTICE
JACKSON:
Like,
she
was
supposed
to
post
about
it
and
that
was
the
opportunity
to
be
heard
—
that
you’re
saying
is
—
was
afforded
to
her
in
this
case?GENERAL
SAUER:
Yes
…
Gosh,
why
wouldn’t
a
federal
official
facing
potential
criminal
liability
pop
off
about
the
details
of
her
case
on
a
commercial
website
owned
by
the
president
of
the
United
States?
As
Justice
Sotomayor
noted,
Cook
did
respond;
but
she
did
it
through
her
lawyers,
not
online.
“If
the
president
can
go
by
social
media
and
one
believes
that
that
is
adequate
notice
under
law,
I’m
hard
pressed
to
think
a
letter
from
a
lawyer
is
not
notice
from
the
adversary,”
she
observed
tartly.
Does
it
even
count
if
you
don’t
post
it?
Or,
conversely,
doesn’t
posting
substitute
for
literally
every
other
thing?
Sauer
wasn’t
even
sure
whether
the
supposed
smoking
gun
evidence
that
Cook
was
fired
“for
cause”
had
ever
been
docketed
anywhere
but
the
high
court
of
Truth
Social.
“I
know
that
the
text
of
the
social
media
post
that
screenshots
the
mortgage
applications
is
in
the
record.
But
I
don’t
recall
if
the
—
the
paperwork
itself
is
in
the
record,
in
the
district
court’s
record,”
he
said
to
an
uncharacteristically
unfriendly
(to
the
government)
Justice
Alito.
Former
solicitor
general
Paul
Clement,
who
argued
for
Cook,
was
substantially
faster
on
his
feet
than
his
successor.
He
doggedly
refused
to
get
cornered
on
the
issue
of
whether
social
media
posts
could
constitute
notice.
Instead
he
argued
that
this
supposed
notice
was
categorically
defective
“because
it’s
also
indisputable
evidence
that
the
President
prejudged
the
matter.”
Demanding
someone’s
resignation
is
different
from
posting
“I’m
going
to
convene
a
hearing
at
the
Roosevelt
Room
at
4pm
tomorrow,
please
bring
all
your
evidence,”
he
insisted.
Having
dodged
the
culture
war
ragebait
trap,
Clement
was
then
free
to
parry
with
Justices
Alito
and
Gorsuch
about
whether
conduct
before
the
official
takes
office
is
grounds
for
termination
for
cause.
It’s
amazing
what
a
decent
lawyer
can
do
if
he
LOGS
OFF
once
in
a
while.
Subscribe
to
read
more
at
Law
and
Chaos….
Liz
Dye produces
the
Law
and
Chaos Substack and podcast. You
can
subscribe
by
clicking
the
logo:
