Better in their words…

Trump fires DEI Fed governor who resists; signs crime orders killing cashless bail, sending Times reeling; flag-burning EO stirs social media; Epstein files trickle becomes more floodlike; more.

Source: CAUSATION ☙ Tuesday, August 26, 2025 ☙ C&C NEWS

WORLD NEWS AND COMMENTARY

🔥🔥🔥

Cue the classic line from Trump’s reality TV show, with a twist. Yesterday, Axios ran the widely covered story under the headline, “Fed governor Cook responds to Trump firing: “I will not resign.”” Now, cue up another historic showdown.

Since the Federal Reserve Act first passed in 1913, no president has ever formally removed one of the Federal Reserve’s governors. The Act expressly permits removal “for cause,” but nobody’s ever tried it, and the Supreme Court has never weighed in on what those two words mean.

Those words could mean the president can’t remove governors for “no reason.” Is politics “cause?” Is speaking in Ebonics “cause?” Being an Epstein client? Polydactyly? Your guess is as good as anyone else’s, for now. But it looks like we might find out soon.

Yesterday, President Trump quietly notified Fed Governor Lisa Cook of the bad news— via Truth Social. The public termination letter explained that Cook is subject to an ongoing mortgage fraud investigation, that the allegations are credible, and that fed governors must stand above reproach. So: bye, Felicia.

Like everyone else caught in Trump’s crosshairs since he resumed office —USAID, Harvard, and the “Institute for Peace,” for three examples— Ms. Cook knee-jerked by promptly denying that Trump is allowed to fire her. Resist!

In other words, and ironically, Ms. Cook now insists that the Federal Reserveis her primary residence.

On the other hand, “cause” is a fairly well-defined term in the commercial employment context. Mortgage fraud fits neatly within that definition; it’s not particularly controversial, especially if your job affects mortgage rates. I once had a case involving a state judge who was removed from office because he’d allegedly lied about his principal residence on a county form, to get his kids into a more conveniently located public school. He denied the accusations, which came from his disgruntled ex-wife, but ultimately agreed to step down rather than keep fighting the Bar.

So, I don’t know what Ms. Cook could be thinking, if she is thinking. If she fights this in court, she has two bad options. She could dispute the charges, which means Trump’s lawyers get to have a field day proving her mortgage fraud in court. Or, she could admit she lied, but attempt to argue that it doesn’t affect her job.

She’s ‘cooked’ either way. Chance she files suit: 50/50.

🔥 Yesterday, and even worse for Ms. Cook, her list of lies lengthened. Conservative education activist Chris Rufo (former multiplier recipient), accused Cook of stealing other people’s work in her handful of published works as a U. Mich. professor— nearly all of which were race-hustling nonsense. (Ignore my shocked face.)

How could this happen? Rufo risks a ripe defamation lawsuit if he’s wrong. He wasn’;’t wrong about former Harvard president Claudia Gay.

Now, I realize this new academic dishonesty makes Ms. Cook look like the latest Biden DEI hire, someone having zero business infesting one of the most politically powerful appointed offices in the world, but don’t jump to conclusions. It could be worse. It’s not like she wrote “attorney expenses” on a check stub or anything.

At her appointment, Lisa Cook was trumpeted as the first black woman on the Fed board. (Cue claims of racism.) But as far as I can tell, that’s where her accomplishments end. Cook’s sparse academic record has produced no widely cited papers. She’s written no economic books. She never worked in finance. She never won any significant awards that weren’t based on race hustling.

Now she’s saddled with serious credibility problems: alleged mortgage misstatements and new plagiarism claims. For a Fed governor, whose currency is integrity, that’s a devastating liability.

In other words, Trump picked the perfect governor to fry first. Keep cooking.

🔥🔥🔥

Yesterday, President Trump signed five new executive orders. Three were focused on Democrat kryptonite: crime— both in DC and the rest of the country. The New York Times reported the story under a headline subjected to the editorial shrink-ray: “Trump Signs Orders Aiming to End Cashless Bail.” They weren’t just about cashless bail, but whatever.

To be fair, two of the President’s three crime orders did relate to so-called “cashless bail,” one of the dumbest euphemisms that crime-happy Democrats have ever squirted into the public’s tired eyes. One of Trump’s orders ended the practice in DC, the other ordered agencies to cancel federal grants going to any jurisdiction still using “cashless bail.”

It is politically brilliant. “Cashless bail” is the least defensible and most destructive criminal justice concept since the country’s founding. Trump’s practically daring Democrats to defend cashless bail.

Based on the Times article, they are taking the bait.

🔥 In its historic sense, ‘bail’ is a contract between an accused and the state. The practice reaches back to medieval England. In that time period’s version of ‘criminal justice reform,’ sheriffs and courts generously allowed arrested defendants to pledge money or property in exchange for freedom, on the condition that they return to face justice or lose their stake.

The previous alternatives were: wait in prison. Thus, bail became an early compromise between the presumption of innocence and the public’s interest in ensuring dangerous offenders did not vanish into the countryside.

The idea endured for centuries: bail let the accused go free while giving the court a tangible guarantee of return, the necessary “skin in the game” that made the system work. In recent years, though, progressives argued bail was conceptually unfair, since people who can afford bail can “buy liberty,” but people who spent all their money on their last fentanyl hit just languished in jail.

Missing from the discussion is anything about fairness to victims. After all, victims are also promised their day in court. But “cashless bail” makes that promise optional, depending on whether the perpetrator feels like showing up that day.

Many Democrat-run jurisdictions either deleted bail altogether or for broad categories of crimes, without providing any equally binding substitute. Criminal defendants often walk free, despite repeated arrests, without posting any collateral. So there is no real penalty for skipping court besides a future warrant to appear in court.

In short, progressives stripped away the incentive structure that since medieval times had ensured appearances, claiming that compliance could reliably flow from goodwill alone.

What was once a functional trade —freedom for security— has been hollowed out, leaving a system that virtually guarantees absenteeism. The term “cashless bail” falsely implies some new-fangled kind of non-cash bail, like Venmo or bitcoin, but that’s wrong. Progressives replaced bail with nothing. Their new policy is really just “no bail.”

In other words, they told poor Dog the Bounty Hunter that his services were no longer required.

🔥 By targeting “cashless bail,” Trump picked the weakest possible hill for Democrats to die on. Polling consistently shows Americans are uneasy with the notion of repeat offenders walking free without any stakes in the game. Nowadays, everyone has stories about criminals being arrested in the morning and back on the street by afternoon. Even people generally sympathetic to criminal-justice reform instinctively recoil from that, which is why they play all the word games.

So when the Times dutifully wrote that “studies do not support Trump’s claims that cashless bail leads to more crime” —studies!— they walked right into the trap. Instead of shifting the debate to fairness or systemic inequality, they’re forced to defend a weak phrase — “cashless bail” — that already sounds unserious and soft.

It’s an argument framed entirely on Trump’s terms: crime, safety, victims, repeat arrests.

That’s the brilliance: Trump is daring Democrats to argue for cashless bail, knowing the public hears that as for criminals, and against victims. And the Times, by editorial shrink-raying and hair-splitting over crime statistics, just amplified the invitation.

🔥🔥🔥

Burn, baby, burn. Speaking of people taking the bait, one of the most absurd friendly-fire debates I have ever seen burst into flame on social media yesterday. Even many conservatives fell for the media’s stupid narrative. The Times ran the story headlined, “Despite Trump’s Tough Talk, Flag Burning Is Protected Speech.”

Let’s just end the debate right now. All anyone would have had to do was read Trump’s short executive order about flag burning for themselves. Look what it says:

In English, it directs the Attorney General to prosecute, to the fullest extent possible, existing laws related to flag burning when combined with other crimes “unrelated to expression,” and only where it would be consistent with the First Amendment.

In other words, it was just a nice sentiment, properly decrying flag burning, that only told the AG to uphold the existing laws and also, mind the Constitution. But because the media framed it as some kind of dark, authoritiarian, unconstitutional overreach, even many conservatives ran with that— without checking.

All day yesterday, in post after post, alleged conservatives cried that while they agreed with Trump on everything else, this was too much. I’ll burn any flags I want to! Don’t worry, I won’t embarrass anyone by screen-shotting them into today’s post.

(On the other hand, it did generate a lively discussion around laws in various locales outright banning burning Pride flags or enhancing sentences as “hate crimes” when gay flag burning is involved. So, that was welcome.)

Personally, I suspect the Founders would’ve tarred and feathered flag burners, or stuffed them in a sack. But in 1989, the Supreme Court found flag frying to be protected First Amendment political speech, so that pretty much ended the debate. Trump’s order did nothing to change or even challenge the 1989 decision. So it was mostly just hot air.

In reality, Trump’s flag order was even more bait, and a bunch of people swallowed it right off the hook.

Yesterday must have been a slow news day. What can I tell you?

🔥 🔥🔥

Epstein watchers! Prepare for more disclosures. Yesterday, a pair of articles painted a very provocative picture. The first ran in Politico, simply headlined “Epstein files land on Capitol Hill.” The sub-headline explained, “Now comes the waiting game as congressional Republicans and the DOJ coordinate on redactions.”

I find it simply incredible how the Epstein scandal has, within a couple months, managed to captivate nearly everyone’s attention. Before Trump’s return, it was mostly a MAGA issue. Now, even Democrats perch on their seats’ edges, obsessively rereading Ghislaine Maxwell’s interview transcript, and waiting impatiently for the next episode to drop.

“The Epstein saga,” Politico drily noted, “has brought together strange bedfellows in Congress.”

One wonders how this could’ve happened accidentally.

Anyway, earlier this month James Comer (R-Ky.), chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, subpoenaed Epstein records from DOJ, and DOJ promptly responded, delivering a tranche of records now requiring redaction to remove victims’ identifying information and XXX CSAM content. The Committee has promised to promptly release them once redactions have been made.

The contrast with Biden’s DOJ shouldn’t be overlooked. Merrick Garland flat refused a congressional subpoena to turn over materials related to Biden’s brain. But Bondi’s DOJ is actually responding to House subpoenas— without raising objections, delaying until 2127, or quibbling over word choices.

According to Politico’s source, it’s not just a small binder this time. It’s “more than 33,000 pages of documents.”

That’s about 16 banker’s boxes. Nobody will ever be satisfied, of course, but you have to admit it’s a pretty good start, given what we’ve seen so far. Predictably, Democrats already complained that the documents don’t contain anything not already public, but Politico didn’t say how they knew that, or where the “public” documents supposedly are.

The article reported that Representatives Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) intend to request a bipartisan floor vote on their resolution to compel the full release of the entire DOJ Epstein files. It’s astonishing that Democrats are joining in this effort.

I’ll just note that, while Democrats would’ve never trusted documents produced by Trump’s DOJ, they might believe stuff that comes from a bipartisan effort in the House. I’m only saying.

🔥 The second, and arguably even more interesting story appeared in yesterday’s Washington Post, headlined “House Oversight subpoenas Epstein estate, including for any ‘client list.’” The sub-headline explained, “Comer requested ‘any document or record that could be reasonably construed to be a potential list of clients involved in sex, sex acts or sex trafficking” facilitated by Epstein.’”

Now, in 2025, everybody is demanding to see that client list. Last year, Democrats called it a conspiracy theory. Be honest— did you ever see thisturnaround coming?

The WaPo article described a new subpoena. This one is directed to Epstein’s estate lawyers, and is due by September 8th. One suspects the international man of mystery’s lawyers might not be as helpful or forthcoming as the DOJ has been. We’ll see.

In addition to any ‘client lists,’ among other things, the Committee demanded that Epstein’s estate attorneys cough up the leather-bound “wishes book” that Ghislaine Maxwell allegedly compiled for Jeffrey’s 50th birthday party. Comer also requested all nondisclosure agreements, the addresses and contacts in Epstein’s “Black Book,” flight logs, bank statements, the September 2007 non-prosecution agreement, and all video and CCTV footage from the plane and Epstein’s various residences.

All those requested documents are potentially explosive.

A dramatic sense of mounting inevitability suffuses the Epstein scandal. Not that long ago, it was the exclusive jurisdiction of conservative firebrands. Now, like an oil slick slowly spreading around a tanker collision, it is oozing far beyond the MAGA perimeter. The long-dormant story now hogs the headlines, soaks social media, and percolates throughout the podcast communities.

I wouldn’t dare try to predict where this story is headed. But wherever it’s headed, it’s traveling at SpaceX speed.

Have a terrific Tuesday! Blast back here tomorrow morning, for another delivery of essential news and commentary.

Give a gift subscription

Share

Don’t race off! We cannot do it alone. Consider joining up with C&C to help move the nation’s needle and change minds. I could sure use your help getting the truth out and spreading optimism and hope, if you can:☕ Learn How to Get Involved 🦠