On Monday night, Donald Trump exercised a power he does not appear to have when he claimed that he was firing Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook, effective immediately. The president’s action was based on mortgage fraud allegations raised by one of his partisan appointees, although Cook hasn’t been charged with any wrongdoing.

It was a radical White House power grab — or more accurately, the latest in a series of radical White House power grabs — and it didn’t take long before Cook’s attorney announced plans to challenge the president’s move in court.

For its part, the Fed appeared to side with Cook. The New York Times reported:

In its first public comments since President Trump moved to fire Lisa Cook, a governor on the Federal Reserve Board, the Fed on Tuesday sought to defend its structure and independence. In a statement, a spokesperson for the central bank noted that governors have ‘long tenures and removal protections,’ describing those features as a ‘vital safeguard, ensuring that monetary policy decisions are based on data, economic analysis, and the long-term interests of the American people.’

The statement didn’t explicitly criticize Trump’s attempt, though it did implicitly question the validity of the president’s claim, noting that “Congress, through the Federal Reserve Act, directs that governors serve in long, fixed terms and may be removed by the president only ‘for cause.’”

Or put another way, as far as the Fed is concerned, Cook is still a Fed governor, whether Trump likes it or not.

Recommended

Maddowblog

Trump’s case against the Fed’s Lisa Cook goes from bad to worse

Steve Benen

Deadline: Legal Blog

The Supreme Court’s travel ban ruling could help Trump fire Lisa Cook from Federal Reserve

Jordan Rubin

A day later, CNBC reported:

President Donald Trump’s top economic adviser, Kevin Hassett, said Wednesday that Federal Reserve Board of Governors member Lisa Cook should go on leave from the central bank even as she plans to file a lawsuit challenging her removal by Trump. ‘If I were her in her circumstance, I would take leave,’ Hassett told reporters outside the White House. ‘I think it’s the honorable thing to do,’ he continued.

Putting aside the absurdity of anyone associated with this White House using the word “honorable,” and putting aside the bizarre proposition that a Federal Reserve official should take a leave of absence based on unproved allegations from a dubious partisan, there was another key point implicit in Hassett’s comments: He seemed to acknowledge that Cook remains in her position, the president’s gambit notwithstanding. (If she’s been fired, she wouldn’t need to go on “leave.”)

For his part, Trump argued at his latest White House Cabinet meeting that Cook “seems to have had an infraction, and she can’t have an infraction.”

To the extent that reality has any bearing on the debate, between Trump and Cook, only one of these officials has been charged and convicted of crimes — and I’ll give the president a hint: Cook isn’t the one with a record of “infractions.”