In arguing that Trump can fire Lisa Cook from the Fed, John Yoo and Robert J. Delahunty left some important questions about presidential power unaddressed. 

Last week, National Review ran an article in which John Yoo and Robert J. Delahunty made the case that President Trump can fire the Fed’s Lisa Cook. Unfortunately, it left some important questions about presidential power unaddressed.

First, they argue that Cook can be removed on the basis of three unproved and unexamined allegations about her mortgage applications in the past. The charges were made by Bill Pulte, a Trump appointee who directs the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Given Pulte’s position, there is more than a little reason to doubt his charges. The opportunity to curry favor with Trump is just too clear. Cook has denied the charges, and in turn filed a lawsuit against Trump for attempting to oust her from her office without any investigation of the truth or falsity of the allegations against her.

Yoo and Delahunty do not even say they have reason to believe the charges are true. Nevertheless, they are willing to accept both Pulte’s and President Trump’s unproven allegations as sufficient for removing Cook from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. Wouldn’t it be prudent to say: “If these allegations are true, Ms. Cook could be removed from office”? At least this would recognize that what clearly seems like a pretextual, retributive move could have a valid predicate.

But it’s painful to see that Yoo and Delahunty not only accept what appears to be a gross and typical political hatchet job as a reasonable act, but also use it as a predicate for claiming that Cook should be immediately removed from office.

Then we get to the legal issues. Here Yoo and Delahunty say that “Trump’s decision to fire Cook does not launch a frontal attack on the independence of the Fed.” No. It’s that, but it’s worse than that. Even if the allegations are true, what is the legal basis for concluding that, without anything but an allegation, the president can remove someone from a major public office?

Much of the article seems to assume that someone merely charged with any kind of personal error can simply be removed from the Board of the Federal Reserve instantly, without proof, without details, without an opportunity to defend herself.

This seems particularly ill-suited to occur in the case of the Federal Reserve, understanding the interests of President Trump — or probably any president — in gaining control of that important government financial institution for his own political purposes. For these reasons, an allegation that, say, she cheated at poker before becoming a member of the Fed would not ordinarily be grounds for removal, or at the very least before the cheating was even proved.

The importance of the Fed in maintaining the stability and integrity of the nation’s financial system does not mean, as Yoo and Delahunty seem to think, that there is greater reason to remove her without proof than if the Fed were, say, responsible for examining the safety of amusement park roller coasters.

No, the very fact that the Fed was established to prevent the president from gaining control of monetary policy whenever he wants cuts against the kind of removal that occurred here — with no evidence, no investigation, no proof, but solely the word of a person likely to be eager to win praise (or more) from President Trump. It warrants more, not less, care in assessing its accuracy.

When this matter gets to the Supreme Court, which it must, those of us who value the rule of law will cheer what will almost certainly be the president’s loss. If it does not, we should all immediately go out to buy gold.