UNBIASED - What We Know About the Minneapolis School Shooting, Trump Attempts to Fire Fed Governor and Wants the Death Penalty for All D.C. Murders, "Neighborhood Checks" are Back for Naturalization, and More.

Episode Date: August 29, 2025

SUBSCRIBE TO JORDAN'S FREE NEWSLETTER. Get the facts, without the spin. UNBIASED offers a clear, impartial recap of US news, including politics, elections, legal news, and more. Hosted by lawyer Jordan Berman, each episode provides a recap of current political events plus breakdowns of complex concepts—like constitutional rights, recent Supreme Court rulings, and new legislation—in an easy-to-understand way. No personal opinions, just the facts you need to stay informed on the daily news that matters. If you miss how journalism used to be, you're in the right place. In today's episode: What We Know About the Minneapolis School Shooting (0:27) Trump Fires Fed Governor; Fed Governor Sues Arguing Unlawful Termination (6:55) Dept. of Transportation to Reclaim Control of Union Station in D.C. Here's What It Means (14:56) Trump Wants Death Penalty for All Murders in DC, But Can He Do It? (19:35) "Neighborhood Checks" Are Back for Naturalization Process After USCIS Ends 30+ Year Waiver (22:54) Judge Says Abrego Garcia Can't Be Deported Until At Least October; Abrego Garcia Files New Asylum Claim (26:39) Critical Thinking Segment (32:05) SUBSCRIBE TO JORDAN'S FREE NEWSLETTER. Watch this episode on YouTube. Follow Jordan on Instagram and TikTok. All sources for this episode can be found here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Wendy's most important deal of the day has a fresh lineup. Pick any two breakfast items for $4. New four-piece French toast sticks, bacon or sausage wrap, biscuit or English muffin sandwiches, small hot coffee, and more. Limited time only at participating Wendy's Taxes Extra. Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. Today is Friday, August 29th. Let's talk about some news. Before we do, though, I just want to give you a heads up. There will be. be no episode on Monday due to the holiday. So don't worry when you don't see a new episode pop up on your podcast or YouTube feed on Monday night. I will be back with you on Thursday.

Let's start today's episode talking about what we know about the awful, terrible, tragic shooting at the Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis. And by the way, if you are listening with kids, I would just recommend maybe skipping past this first story for now. I just think that's for the best. There are some expletives. and obviously just the nature of the story is not great. Of course, we know that on Wednesday, a shooter opened fire at Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis during morning mass. Now, the Annunciation Catholic School is a pre-K through eight school that had just started its school year on Monday, and there was an all-school mass scheduled for 8.15 that Wednesday morning.

Authorities say that shortly before 8.30 a.m. is when the shooter approached the side of the the school's church. The particular side that the shooter approached has two doors, and the shooter reportedly placed two by four wooden planks outside those doors to barricade them from the outside. At that point, once the shooter was set up, the shooter began firing through the church window towards the children who were sitting in the pews. I did see a few reports that said the shooter did eventually enter the church and continued to fire once inside, but I have not seen that reported everywhere, so I'm just taking it with a grain of salt for now. Two children, ages eight and ten, were tragically killed. 17 others were injured. 14 of those injured were

children. The other three were parishioners at the church. Officials have said that all injured victims are expected to survive despite still being in the hospital. The shooter, who has since been identified as 23-year-old Robin Westman died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound. Robin Westman was born Robert Westman in 2002. In 2019, Westman's parents filed a petition for a legal name change to change Robert's name to Robin M. Westman. That application was granted in 2020 when Westman was 17. Because Westman was a minor at the time, Westman needed parental consent. Authorities say Westman had no prior criminal history, but did have a connection to the school. Westman graduated from Annunciation Catholic school in 2017, and Westman's mother worked at the school

until 2020. Prior to the shooting, Westman released a very disturbing 11-minute video on YouTube, which showed firearms and ammo on a bed, pages of handwritten notes, and various other things. The handwritten notes include various apologies, some one apology to Westman's parents, another to Westman's siblings, and another two Westman's friends. Part of the note reads, quote, I've wanted this for a long time. I'm not well. I'm a sad person haunted by these thoughts that don't go away. I know this is wrong, but I can't seem to stop myself.

I am severely depressed and have been suicidal for years. Only recently have I lost all hope and decided to perform my final action against this world. And quote, in other excerpts, Westman described a fascination with violence and an obsession with mass shootings, particularly those who attacked schools. There was also a handwritten sketch of an interior layout of a church. However, it is unclear whether the church was the one at Annunciation Catholic School. After previewing the various handwritten notes, Westman proceeds to throw a handful of bullets onto the bed. Again, this is in that video that was posted to YouTube. And then Westman shows more bullets on his dresser and says, quote, I'm sorry to my family, but that's it.

That's who I'm sorry to fuck those kids, end quote. Westman then chose a picture of Jesus attached to a shooting target, multiple rifles, a handgun, a pistol, and multiple magazines, which all had various writings on them. So one magazine said, where is your God? Another said, suck on this. Another said, for the children. Another said, kick a spick. And another said kill Donald Trump. As Westman was showing all of the various weapons, Westman showed the pistol specifically and said, quote, and this one is for me just in case I need it, end quote. Westman then showed a gas canister, which also had writing on it, some of which read, eat shit, and Jew gas. Everything had writing on it, by the way. I think I did briefly say that, but even the guns, too, all of the guns and the magazines, everything was black.

So there was silver or white Sharpie on almost everything and Westman had written these various writings on everything. As other examples, one of the rifles said things like Israel must fall and like a phoenix we rise from the ashes and no remorse. Toward the end of the video, Westman showed another canister of quote unquote Jew gas, which Westman said would be for the emergency exit. So that's sort of a brief recap of the video. It has since been taken down from YouTube by the FBI, but there are, of course, downloaded versions of it available on platforms like X, which is where I saw it. I did include a link to the video in the sources section of this episode. You can always go watch it. I do just want to warn you that it is obviously

very disturbing. FBI director Cash Patel said the FBI is investigating the as an act of domestic terrorism and a hate crime targeting Catholics. As part of that investigation, search warrants are being executed at the church and three nearby residences associated with Westman, where additional firearms have been recovered. Authorities have also said since that Westman had a, quote, deranged fascination, end quote, with past mass shooters and left behind hundreds of pages of writing, expressing hate toward, quote, almost every group imaginable. Just an absolutely awful story.

Let's switch gears a bit. On Monday, President Trump wrote a letter to governor of the Federal Reserve Lisa Cook, removing her from her position on the basis of alleged mortgage fraud. Cook has since sued Trump. Trump's letter cited a criminal referral from the director of the federal housing finance agency to Attorney General Pam Bondi. and says, as set forth in that criminal referral, there is, quote, sufficient evidence to believe you may have made false statements on one or more mortgage agreements. For example, you signed one document

stating a property in Michigan would be your primary residence for the next year. Two weeks later, you signed another document for a property in Georgia stating that it would be your primary residence for the next year. It is inconceivable that you are not aware of your first commitment when making the second. And quote, the letter continues a bit further down and says, quote, the American people must be able to have full confidence in the honesty of the members entrusted with setting policy and overseeing the Federal Reserve. In light of your deceitful and potentially criminal conduct in a financial matter, they cannot and I do not have such confidence in your integrity. And quote, so there's a lot to unpack here. You're probably

wondering a few things. Who is Lisa Cook? What is the Fed governor's role? And what does alleged mortgage fraud have to do with her termination? Well, first, so let's talk about the Fed first. The Fed is split up into three entities, the 12 national banks located across the country, the 12 voting members of the Fed system who vote on actions to be taken by the Fed, and the Board of Governors. Those three entities make up the Federal Reserve. The Board of Governors is the governing body of the Federal Reserve System, which oversees the operation. of 12 reserve banks and guides policy actions and decisions. The board is made up of seven governors.

Two of those governors are designated as the vice chair and the chair. The Fed chair is Jerome Powell. We hear about him a lot. Lisa Cook is one of the seven governors on the board. So Cook's job along with the six other governors is to lead the operations of the Federal Reserve and to determine its actions with respect to monetary policy and open market operations. Now, there are certain positions within the federal government that can be the individuals in those positions can be terminated without cause, meaning they can be fired for no

reason at all. Then there are other positions that are more protected and individuals in those positions can only be removed for cause. There has to be some justification for the removal of the individual that holds that position. Per the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, members of the board of governors can only be fired by the president for cause. So specifically when the law discusses the term length of governors, it states, quote, each member shall hold office for a term of 14 years from the expiration of the term of his predecessor unless sooner removed four cause by the president. And quote, notably though, the law does not define for cause. Typically, when Congress in acts laws that require four cause termination by the president, the law will also include the

phrase for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office, or something similar, something along those lines. And that's typically what for cause is taken to mean. So although the Federal Reserve Act does not further define four cause, it's usually taken to mean either inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance, or misconduct while in office. In this case, neither inefficiency nor neglect of duty really apply. Malfeasance or misconduct, while an office is typically understood to mean dishonest or wrongful conduct that otherwise undermines public trust. Because alleged mortgage fraud goes beyond just a policy or political conflict

and instead puts the issue in the realm of dishonesty or potential criminal behavior, it's something courts would typically recognize as valid cause. Now, with that said, these are just allegations, right? Nothing has been proven. So the legal defensibility here will depend on one, is the mere existence of a criminal referral sufficient cause or does misconduct have to actually be established? Two, there are certainly going to be due process concerns here. was her removal premature? Should there have been a completed investigation or a conviction? Should she have been given a chance to respond to the allegations? So those are all due process concerns. And then three, is the cause cited to here genuine or is this just a pretext for

political removal? Those are all things that the court is going to look at now that Cook has filed a lawsuit. Cook's lawsuit alleges that she was unlawfully removed. and asks the judge to reinstate her position, essentially. More specifically, she alleges that Trump's move violated her due process rights under both the Constitution and federal law, which she says include receiving proper notice of her alleged wrongdoing and a hearing through which she can respond to the allegations. She also argues that Trump is attempting to redefine the meaning of cause in a way that would allow him to fire any board member, quote, with whom he disagrees about policy based on chalked-up

allegations. And quote, her attorneys wrote, quote, President Trump does not have the power to unilaterally redefine cause, completely unmoored to case law history and tradition and conclude without evidence that he has found it. And quote. So there was an initial hearing today at 10 a.m. where the judge considered Cook's preliminary injunction. If that injunction is granted, Cook will remain an active member on the board while the court further considers the case.

If the injunction is denied, Cook can still proceed with her case against the president, but she won't be an active member on the board while she does so. Finally, the last thing I want to talk about here is how Cook's termination, if it goes through, might affect monetary policy going forward. As I mentioned earlier, the Fed Board of Governors is designed to have. seven members, but there is one seat that is currently vacant. That is following the resignation of Adriana Coogler on August 8th of this year. The current members are Chair Jerome Powell, a Republican, though very much at odds with President Trump, Vice Chair Philip Jefferson, who's a Democrat, Michelle Bowman, a Republican, Michael Barr, a Democrat, Lisa Cook, a Democrat, and Christopher Waller, a Republican.

This creates a 3-3 split between Democrats and Republicans. It is highly likely that the already existing vacancy will be filled by Republican economist Stephen Mirren, whose Senate confirmation hearing is expected next week. If Lisa Cook is also removed and replaced by a Republican, that would shift the balance to 5-2 in favor of Republicans. Such a shift could influence monetary policy, right? potentially pushing it closer to Republican-aligned priorities, lowering interest rates, reducing the Fed's regulatory oversight of the financial sector, and potentially narrowing the institution's independence from the executive branch. So those are all things we could see if the board does become majority Republican with the current vacancy that is about to be filled and then also

potentially Cook's termination. Of course, time will tell what happens here, as with everything. So let's move on to the next story. The next couple of stories have to do with some things happening in Washington, D.C. The Trump administration announced that the Department of Transportation will reclaim management of D.C.'s union station. Union station is a major transportation hub, but it's also now a landmark. It's also a shopping, dining, and event spot. So it's a little bit of everything. But a little bit of history for you.

It was built in 1907 to serve as the Grand Central Train Terminal for the Capitol. Today, it serves as the primary Amtrak station in D.C., one of the busiest in the country. It's also a hub for the Maryland commuter rail and the Virginia commuter rail. It's also a main stop on the Washington Metro Red Line and numerous inner city bus lines. It's located just a few blocks north of the Capitol building. Now, the station has always been owned by the Department of Transportation through the Federal Railroad Administration. The DOT manages that ownership through a non-prison. profit called the Union Station Redevelopment Corporation. The DOT also has historically

leased commercial operations to private companies like Union Station Investco. It also, the DOT, gave Amtrak control of rail operations, so control of the tracks and the platforms. However, here's what happened. So Amtrak ended up suing Union Station Investco, which was the private company that was leasing commercial operations out of the station. I believe this lawsuit was filed in 2022. And in short, the federal government owned the station, but USAI held the lease and Amtrak wanted control. Amtrak argued that union station was deteriorating and it needed control of the whole station, not just the tracks and the platforms, to make improvements and better serve its passengers. It also argued that under federal law, it already had special rights at union

station, including first priority over leases, if needed for rail operations. USA, on the other hand, argued that Amtrak was trying to unlawfully seize control of commercial property and revenue streams, and that USA had invested heavily in developing the retail portion of the station and should retain its control. The case played out in federal district court in D.C. And in July 2022, a judge ruled in Amtrak's favor. The judge cited Amtrak's statutory rights under the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act, as well as the Union Station Redevelopment Act.

And the judge gave Amtrak authority to assume control of the station's operations from U.S.I. U.S.I ended up appealing that ruling, but eventually Amtrak settled the dispute. So Amtrak ended up paying U.S.I. about $500 million to essentially buy out U.S.I's lease rights. This gave Amtrak uncontested control of the station, right? So now it didn't just control the rails and the platforms. it controlled everything, the commercial operations as well, until, of course, this week when the DOT reclaimed operations. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said the move is part of President Trump's broader

campaign to address crime and beautify the capital, noting that the station has faced homelessness, crime incidents, and billions of dollars in deferred maintenance. Now, I'm sure you're wondering, well, if Amtrak just paid $500 million to buy USI's lease rights, how can the DOT come in less than a year later and reclaim control? control. And the answer is that because the DOT owns the station, they can reclaim control at any time. The DOT has ultimate legal authority over how the station is managed. So now Amtrak will still control what it always did by law, that being the tracks, platforms, and rail operations, but now the DOT is managing the commercial side. So the thought is that now the DOT has control

over the commercial aspects of the station, the money generated from the commercial side will be reinvested into the station. Per the press release, quote, under President Trump and Secretary Duffy's leadership, USDOT will now leverage the valuable commercial aspects of Union Station under the direct management of USRC to reinvest in Union Station. The capital needs of Union Station include improvements to elevators, lighting, and security, along with enhancements to the passenger experience and replacing the roof and other major systems. USDOT anticipates that reinvestment and improved security will dramatically improve

the income from the station, which should unlock opportunities for private investment as part of potential expansion of the station. And quote, Ontario, the weight is over. The gold standard of online casinos has arrived. Golden Nugget online casino is live. Bringing Vegas-style excitement and a world-class gaming experience right to your fingertips. Whether you're a season player or just starting. Signing up is fast and simple. And in just a few clicks, you can have access to our exclusive library of the best slots and top tier table games. Make the most of your downtime with unbeatable promotions and jackpots that can turn any mundane moment into a golden opportunity at Golden Nugget Online Casino. Take a spin on the slots, challenge yourself

at the tables, or join a live dealer game to feel the thrill of real-time action, all from the comfort of your own devices. Why settle for less? When you can go, for the gold at Golden Nugget Online Casino. Gambling problem call connects Ontario 1866-531-260, 19 and over, physically present in Ontario, eligibility restrictions apply, see Golden Nuggetcassino.com for details. Please play responsibly. It's Rona Week. Now until Wednesday, rain or shine, you can always be building yourself a better summer. So head on over to Rona and save 35% on cans of 3.78-liter Rona Interior Paint. Give that room you keep saying needs a fresh coat of paint, a fresh coat of paint. Build it right. Build it Rona. Conditions apply, details in store and more offers at rona.com.

We sell buckets too. Okay. Speaking of Washington, D.C., during a cabinet meeting earlier this week, President Trump said he intends to pursue the death penalty in all murder cases in D.C., D.C. saying, quote, anybody murders something in the capital, capital, capital, capital, capital. If somebody kills somebody in the capital, Washington, D.C., we are going to be seeking the death penalty. And that's a very strong preventative. I don't know if we're ready for it, but we have no choice. So in D.C., in Washington, states are going to have to make their own decision, but in D.C., if somebody kills somebody, it's the death penalty, okay? And quote, before we talk about the feasibility of this plan, I want to discuss the history of, of the death penalty in D.C. because that plays a big role here. The death penalty was abolished by the D.C. Council in 1981. Those convicted of crimes that would otherwise warrant the death penalty would instead receive a life without parole. Roughly 16 years later in 1997, the mayor proposed a bill to permit the death penalty for murders of public safety officials. However, that bill was struck down

by the D.C. Judiciary Committee. Consequently, the death penalty policy in D.C. has remained unchanged since 1981 when it was abolished. Given that, per current law, people who violate D.C. laws cannot be punished by death. The only exception here is if a person in D.C. kills someone in violation of federal law. If an individual violates federal law, terrorism, killing a federal official, carjacking, resulting in death, et cetera, then federal punishments apply, including the death penalty. However, the caveat here is that there are only certain federal crimes that warrant the death penalty, right?

Regular murder does not warrant the death penalty under federal law. It has to be a certain violation of federal law. So those crimes I just mentioned, terrorism, killing a federal officer, carjacking resulting in death, et cetera. To be clear, let's just recap this, no murder prosecuted under D.C. law. can carry the death penalty. The maximum punishment is life without parole. The only exception is when the killing violates a certain federal law like terrorism or the murder of a federal official. In those cases, the DOJ can seek the federal death penalty in a DC federal court.

If Trump wanted to impose the death penalty more broadly, that would require congressional action to override DC law and reintroduce capital punishments for local murders. but the president does not have the authority himself to do that. Now here's the last thing I want to mention. The Supreme Court struck down mandatory death sentences in 1972. This means that neither the federal government nor Congress can require the death penalty in all murder cases. Instead, capital punishment has to be decided case by case.

So even if President Trump wanted everyone convicted of murder in D.C. to receive the death penalty, each case would still need to go before a jury, and the jury would have to unanimously agree to impose the death penalty. So that's another little caveat here, if you will. Let's move on to some immigration-related stories. The Trump administration is bringing back neighborhood checks for citizenship applications. First and foremost, neighborhood checks are a type of field investigation that U.S. citizenship and immigration services officers use as part of the naturalization process. Now, these checks can involve interviewing and applicant's neighbors, co-workers or employers. It can also include reviewing testimonial letters to

evaluate whether the applicant meets the legal requirements for U.S. citizenship, like showing good moral character, adhering to the Constitution, and being, quote, well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States. The practice of neighborhood checks has historical roots going back to the very, very early days of immigration here in the United States. Back in the late 1700s, Congress required that courts take testimony from U.S. citizen witnesses who could vouch for an applicant's residency and good moral character. This witness requirement became standard practice throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.

In 1981, Congress then amended the law to eliminate the mandatory to witness requirement for naturalization and instead shifted the burden toward official background checks and documentation. During this time period, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which was the USCIS predecessor, still had the authority to conduct field investigations or neighborhood checks if it needed more information about an applicant's elsewhere. eligibility. And these checks did still happen occasionally, but what happened is NIS found them to be not only labor intensive, but also inconsistent and not worth much. Like they didn't really have much value compared to other checks like FBI name checks, fingerprint databases, official records,

things like that. So in 1991, NIS issued what was known as the general waiver of neighborhood checks. And this effectively suspended the practice nationwide. And from that point forward, officers no longer had to order these field investigations unless there were unusual circumstances that justified it. That 1991 waiver became the default policy for more than 30 years until, of course, this month when the USCIS formally rescinded the waiver. Supporters of the revival argue that bringing back neighborhood checks, strengthens the integrity of the naturalization process, and contend that the additional vetting helps prevent things like fraud and ensures that only applicants of good moral character gains citizenship. Critics, however, argue the policy is more symbolic than practical,

and they point out, as the NIS did in the 80s, that the checks are labor intensive, they can be inconsistent, and they rarely produce useful information compared to other official background checks and information, which is why they were dropped in the first place, of course. The revival of neighborhood checks is already in effect. The 1991 waiver was officially ended when USCIS released the policy memo on August 22nd. To be clear, this means that officers, again, have the authority to decide on a case-by-case basis whether an applicant's file requires a neighborhood check. If it's decided that a neighborhood check is required, USCIS officers,

can interview an applicant's neighbors, co-workers or employers. They can also review testimonial letters to evaluate whether that applicant meets the legal requirements for U.S. citizenship. So that is what is meant by bringing back neighborhood checks. Okay, last story also immigration related, and this one is actually a quick update to Monday's episode. So on Monday, we talked about Kilmar-Abrego-Garcia possibly facing deportation again. He was released from custody last Friday after being indicted on human smuggling charges. And then that next Monday, he was taken into custody by ICE when he went to an ICE check-in appointment. Ice notified Abrago Garcia's lawyers that he could be deported to Uganda by the middle of the week. So his lawyer went ahead and filed a lawsuit

attempting to slow his deportation process and give him an opportunity to challenge his removal. If you want more on that, tune into Monday's episode. I went into much more detail. The update here is that on Wednesday, the federal judge overseeing the case decided, to extend a previously issued temporary restraining order, which blocks the Trump administration from deporting Abrago Garcia until at least October. Specifically, the order requires Abrago Garcia to be kept in the U.S. and within 200 miles of the court in Greenbelt, Maryland. The judge said that she issued this ruling to prevent Abrago Garcia's imminent deportation until she was able to fully consider the petition against his removal.

The judge also noted that Uganda had failed to provide assurances that Abrago-Garcio would not be harmed if he was deported there. She set a federal law, which prohibits the government from removing someone to a country where their life or freedom would be threatened on protected grounds or where they would likely be tortured. A DOJ attorney told the judge that the Trump administration objected to the court extending the temporary restraining order until October, but confirmed that they would voluntarily comply. The judge went ahead and set an evidentiary hearing for October 6th, so at that point, she'll make a more final determination on his deportation proceedings. On a related note, though, Abrago Garcia has also filed a petition to reopen and seek asylum in a Maryland immigration court. There are a few things to talk about here. So, number one, there are two main types of asylum. Asylum, by the way, is a form of protection for people escaping persecution in their home country.

country. The two main types are affirmative and defensive. The affirmative asylum process is for individuals who are already in the U.S. but are not facing removal proceedings. Defensive asylum is for individuals facing removal proceedings and are at risk of being deported. That's obviously the situation that Abrago Garcia is in. But here's the other thing. Those who are eligible for asylum can apply for asylum within one year of their last arrival in the United States by submitting an asylum application known as a Form I-589. Importantly, Abrago-Garcia's original asylum request back in 2019 was denied because he waited more than a year to apply after he came to the U.S. However, a judge still issued a withholding of removal, or in other words, barred his

removal to El Salvador because the judge did find gang-related risk. Obrigo Garcia had adequately shown that the gang back in El Salvador was threatening him and his family. So although Abrago Garcia was not granted full asylum because he filed his petition late after that one-year period, he did get a withholding of removal. This time, the reason his attorneys have moved to reopen his asylum claim is because they argue that Abrago Garcia's last arrival in the United States was in June when the government brought him back from El Salvador. So his lawyers are essentially arguing that the new last

arrival date after his June return makes him timely now for purposes of seeking asylum. So we'll see what happens with that. That's just typical, you know, it's typical legal procedure. You work with the words that are in the law and you just, you form your arguments, accordingly. So that's sort of an interesting thing that's playing out. We'll have to see what a judge decides to do with that. Even if the immigration court finds, though, that his last arrival date was June and he is timely for purposes of seeking asylum, Abrago Garcia does still have to show that he has a genuine fear of persecution if he's deported and that his fear is related to either race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or belonging to a social group. Okay, so we're actually

skipping quick hitters today. It's okay, though, because I did release a newsletter today. And for those of you who are not subscribed to my newsletter, I highly recommend it. I dive into more than just politics. It's also pop culture, business, health, and international news. And it's all quick hitters. So it's a very quick read, super informative. Those who are subscribed, absolutely love it. So if you're missing quick hitters after today's episode, go check out the newsletter. I always link it in the episode show notes. It's really easy to find. mind, you just need to put in your email address. And the thing is, even if you, you know, go to the newsletter after it's already released for the day, you can still read it because it's housed

on substack. So even if it doesn't hit your inbox because you're not subscribed in time, you can still read it after the fact on substack. So just head to the episode show notes, click that link, the free newsletter link, and you can get plenty of quick hitters there. Okay, let's do critical thinking. For today's questions, I want to revisit the story about the firing of the Fed governor. So the first question will be a general question for everyone. And then I'll challenge those who oppose Trump's move to fire the Fed governor and those who support Trump's move. First question. In your opinion, should four cause be limited to on-the-job misconduct or can private life actions like alleged mortgage fraud qualify? And if private life

actions qualify, where does that line get drawn? Because if dishonesty is sufficient, does that mean that a person can be removed from their position for cheating on their spouse? Or should the dishonest conduct have some sort of legal nexus like falsifying tax returns or insider trading, something like that? For those that support Trump's decision to fire, Cook, if the criminal referral that Trump referenced in his letter proves to be weak, proves to be, you know, there's not a ton of evidence. What remedy should exist for Cook and what accountability should exist for the White House? Now, for those that oppose Trump's decision, if it turns out that credible evidence of financial dishonesty does exist, what level of misconduct would justify Cook's removal from the Fed without an actual criminal

conviction? And does your threshold change if the conduct is material and or, I should say, job relevant to a monetary policymaker? That's what I have for you today. I hope you have a great weekend. Don't forget that there will not be an episode on Monday. I hope you have a great long holiday weekend, but I will be back with you on Thursday. Thank you.