Latest news with #revolt
Yahoo
24-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Immunity for me, not for thee: Trump's flip on prosecuting former presidents
As they seek to quell a revolt in their base over the Jeffrey Epstein files, President Donald Trump and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard have offered MAGA voters some tantalizing alternate programming: The prospect of charging Barack Obama with orchestrating a treasonous plot to undermine Trump's first presidency. The biggest problem with that is the sheer lack of evidence of any wrongdoing by Obama and other former officials. But even if the Trump administration produced a smoking gun, they'd have to contend with the issue of immunity for former presidents. Backing up a second, the idea Gabbard has promoted is that Obama pushed for manufactured intelligence about Russia's interference in the 2016 election to undercut Trump before he took office. The whole thing rests on a series of conflations and misleading claims. And the biggest findings in that intelligence have been affirmed over and over again, including by Republicans and including by Trump's now-Secretary of State Marco Rubio in a major 2020 Senate report. If people who said this stuff engaged in a coup, wasn't Rubio also complicit? But again, even if we set all that aside, there's the problem that Obama might well be immune from any such prosecution — thanks in no small part to Trump himself. Trump and Co. spent much of 2024 arguing that presidents should be immune from virtually any criminal charges. And they succeeded in large enough part at the Supreme Court that it seems unlikely their allegations — even if merited — could result in criminal prosecution for Obama. Despite Trump's and Gabbard's suggestions that Obama could be charged, Trump's own lawyers argued that such threats of prosecution were unthinkable because they would so hamstring a president. 'Without presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, there can be no presidency as we know it,' D. John Sauer, then Trump's personal lawyer and now his solicitor general, told the Supreme Court. Sauer even left open the idea that a president could order his political opponents to be assassinated and not face charges, because that act would be an official act of the president. The Supreme Court didn't go quite that far, but it did give the presidency a broad new grant of immunity. So would that immunity apply to Obama? The Supreme Court said actions taken under a president's core executive powers are immune. Beyond that, a president has the presumption of immunity for any actions that are 'within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility' — that is, actions that are 'not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority.' That's just the presumption, not actual immunity. But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. in the opinion set a high bar for when immunity wouldn't apply. He said that, at a minimum, the president's 'outer perimeter' official acts must be immune unless the government proving its case 'would pose no 'dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.'' Precisely what all this means has been the subject of plenty of debate. It wasn't clear what it meant for Trump's Jan. 6-related prosecutions, which were the impetus for the ruling. Prosecutors and judges scrambled to reckon with what evidence and charges remained valid, but the cases never reached trial after Trump was elected. 'Assuming this nonsense is true, if Obama were acting in his official capacity in merely communicating with his intelligence folks about Russian interference, clear immunity,' Harvard University law professor Richard Lazarus said. 'But if the allegation is that Obama was stepping outside that role and acting in his personal capacity to help Clinton's campaign, then not so clear.' Still, it would be easier for Obama to argue that the actions in question were part of his official duties than it was for Trump to assert his efforts to overturn election results were presidential acts. Elections are largely conducted by the states and the president doesn't have a defined role. In Obama's case, the basis of Trump's and Gabbard's allegations is that he was participating in manufacturing intelligence reports. But would asking for intelligence not be part of his core (and theoretically immune) powers? And even if it's somehow not, wouldn't it be in the 'outer perimeter' of his official duties, where the bar for getting past immunity is higher? 'Communicating with intelligence officials would seem to fall into the scope of official duties,' UCLA law professor Rick Hasen said. Hasen also noted that any theoretical charges would have to overcome a major problem stemming from the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. United States: They couldn't use official acts as evidence to prove the crime. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt was asked repeatedly about this Wednesday at a briefing, and she punted multiple times on whether immunity applied to Obama. 'I'll leave that to the Department of Justice,' Leavitt eventually said. All of this might seem academic. It still seems a distant possibility that Trump and his Justice Department would ever press forward with trying to prosecute Obama. Trump makes these claims a lot and they tend to fall away. Judging by how his media allies are covering the Obama allegations much more than the saga over the Jeffrey Epstein files, it would seem this served as a temporary distraction. But it's also just so discordant. Trump and his lawyers argued that presidents had to be fully immune because it was absolutely essential to the executive job. Then he turns around and, just more than a year later, suggests those standards shouldn't be applied to his predecessor for actions that appear much more official than Trump's own. By the logic of Trump's lawyers, Obama in 2016 could have done much more than just massage intelligence reports; he could have put out a hit on Trump, and still possibly have been immune. It's almost like Trump's view was always: Immunity for me, not for thee.
CNN
23-07-2025
- Politics
- CNN
Immunity for me, not for thee: Trump's flip on prosecuting former presidents
As they seek to quell a revolt in their base over the Jeffrey Epstein files, President Donald Trump and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard have offered MAGA voters some tantalizing alternate programming: The prospect of charging Barack Obama with orchestrating a treasonous plot to undermine Trump's first presidency. The biggest problem with that is the sheer lack of evidence of any wrongdoing by Obama and other former officials. But even if the Trump administration produced a smoking gun, they'd have to contend with the issue of immunity for former presidents. Backing up a second, the idea Gabbard has promoted is that Obama pushed for manufactured intelligence about Russia's interference in the 2016 election to undercut Trump before he took office. The whole thing rests on a series of conflations and misleading claims. And the biggest findings in that intelligence have been affirmed over and over again, including by Republicans and including by Trump's now-Secretary of State Marco Rubio in a major 2020 Senate report. If people who said this stuff engaged in a coup, wasn't Rubio also complicit? But again, even if we set all that aside, there's the problem that Obama might well be immune from any such prosecution — thanks in no small part to Trump himself. Trump and Co. spent much of 2024 arguing that presidents should be immune from virtually any criminal charges. And they succeeded in large enough part at the Supreme Court that it seems unlikely their allegations — even if merited — could result in criminal prosecution for Obama. Despite Trump's and Gabbard's suggestions that Obama could be charged, Trump's own lawyers argued that such threats of prosecution were unthinkable because they would so hamstring a president. 'Without presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, there can be no presidency as we know it,' D. John Sauer, then Trump's personal lawyer and now his solicitor general, told the Supreme Court. Sauer even left open the idea that a president could order his political opponents to be assassinated and not face charges, because that act would be an official act of the president. The Supreme Court didn't go quite that far, but it did give the presidency a broad new grant of immunity. So would that immunity apply to Obama? The Supreme Court said actions taken under a president's core executive powers are immune. Beyond that, a president has the presumption of immunity for any actions that are 'within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility' — that is, actions that are 'not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority.' That's just the presumption, not actual immunity. But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. in the opinion set a high bar for when immunity wouldn't apply. He said that, at a minimum, the president's 'outer perimeter' official acts must be immune unless the government proving its case 'would pose no 'dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.'' Precisely what all this means has been the subject of plenty of debate. It wasn't clear what it meant for Trump's Jan. 6-related prosecutions, which were the impetus for the ruling. Prosecutors and judges scrambled to reckon with what evidence and charges remained valid, but the cases never reached trial after Trump was elected. 'Assuming this nonsense is true, if Obama were acting in his official capacity in merely communicating with his intelligence folks about Russian interference, clear immunity,' Harvard University law professor Richard Lazarus said. 'But if the allegation is that Obama was stepping outside that role and acting in his personal capacity to help Clinton's campaign, then not so clear.' Still, it would be easier for Obama to argue that the actions in question were part of his official duties than it was for Trump to assert his efforts to overturn election results were presidential acts. Elections are largely conducted by the states and the president doesn't have a defined role. In Obama's case, the basis of Trump's and Gabbard's allegations is that he was participating in manufacturing intelligence reports. But would asking for intelligence not be part of his core (and theoretically immune) powers? And even if it's somehow not, wouldn't it be in the 'outer perimeter' of his official duties, where the bar for getting past immunity is higher? 'Communicating with intelligence officials would seem to fall into the scope of official duties,' UCLA law professor Rick Hasen said. Hasen also noted that any theoretical charges would have to overcome a major problem stemming from the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. United States: They couldn't use official acts as evidence to prove the crime. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt was asked repeatedly about this Wednesday at a briefing, and she punted multiple times on whether immunity applied to Obama. 'I'll leave that to the Department of Justice,' Leavitt eventually said. All of this might seem academic. It still seems a distant possibility that Trump and his Justice Department would ever press forward with trying to prosecute Obama. Trump makes these claims a lot and they tend to fall away. Judging by how his media allies are covering the Obama allegations much more than the saga over the Jeffrey Epstein files, it would seem this served as a temporary distraction. But it's also just so discordant. Trump and his lawyers argued that presidents had to be fully immune because it was absolutely essential to the executive job. Then he turns around and, just more than a year later, suggests those standards shouldn't be applied to his predecessor for actions that appear much more official than Trump's own. By the logic of Trump's lawyers, Obama in 2016 could have done much more than just massage intelligence reports; he could have put out a hit on Trump, and still possibly have been immune. It's almost like Trump's view was always: Immunity for me, not for thee.
CNN
23-07-2025
- Politics
- CNN
Immunity for me, not for thee: Trump's flip on prosecuting former presidents
As they seek to quell a revolt in their base over the Jeffrey Epstein files, President Donald Trump and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard have offered MAGA voters some tantalizing alternate programming: The prospect of charging Barack Obama with orchestrating a treasonous plot to undermine Trump's first presidency. The biggest problem with that is the sheer lack of evidence of any wrongdoing by Obama and other former officials. But even if the Trump administration produced a smoking gun, they'd have to contend with the issue of immunity for former presidents. Backing up a second, the idea Gabbard has promoted is that Obama pushed for manufactured intelligence about Russia's interference in the 2016 election to undercut Trump before he took office. The whole thing rests on a series of conflations and misleading claims. And the biggest findings in that intelligence have been affirmed over and over again, including by Republicans and including by Trump's now-Secretary of State Marco Rubio in a major 2020 Senate report. If people who said this stuff engaged in a coup, wasn't Rubio also complicit? But again, even if we set all that aside, there's the problem that Obama might well be immune from any such prosecution — thanks in no small part to Trump himself. Trump and Co. spent much of 2024 arguing that presidents should be immune from virtually any criminal charges. And they succeeded in large enough part at the Supreme Court that it seems unlikely their allegations — even if merited — could result in criminal prosecution for Obama. Despite Trump's and Gabbard's suggestions that Obama could be charged, Trump's own lawyers argued that such threats of prosecution were unthinkable because they would so hamstring a president. 'Without presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, there can be no presidency as we know it,' D. John Sauer, then Trump's personal lawyer and now his solicitor general, told the Supreme Court. Sauer even left open the idea that a president could order his political opponents to be assassinated and not face charges, because that act would be an official act of the president. The Supreme Court didn't go quite that far, but it did give the presidency a broad new grant of immunity. So would that immunity apply to Obama? The Supreme Court said actions taken under a president's core executive powers are immune. Beyond that, a president has the presumption of immunity for any actions that are 'within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility' — that is, actions that are 'not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority.' That's just the presumption, not actual immunity. But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. in the opinion set a high bar for when immunity wouldn't apply. He said that, at a minimum, the president's 'outer perimeter' official acts must be immune unless the government proving its case 'would pose no 'dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.'' Precisely what all this means has been the subject of plenty of debate. It wasn't clear what it meant for Trump's Jan. 6-related prosecutions, which were the impetus for the ruling. Prosecutors and judges scrambled to reckon with what evidence and charges remained valid, but the cases never reached trial after Trump was elected. 'Assuming this nonsense is true, if Obama were acting in his official capacity in merely communicating with his intelligence folks about Russian interference, clear immunity,' Harvard University law professor Richard Lazarus said. 'But if the allegation is that Obama was stepping outside that role and acting in his personal capacity to help Clinton's campaign, then not so clear.' Still, it would be easier for Obama to argue that the actions in question were part of his official duties than it was for Trump to assert his efforts to overturn election results were presidential acts. Elections are largely conducted by the states and the president doesn't have a defined role. In Obama's case, the basis of Trump's and Gabbard's allegations is that he was participating in manufacturing intelligence reports. But would asking for intelligence not be part of his core (and theoretically immune) powers? And even if it's somehow not, wouldn't it be in the 'outer perimeter' of his official duties, where the bar for getting past immunity is higher? 'Communicating with intelligence officials would seem to fall into the scope of official duties,' UCLA law professor Rick Hasen said. Hasen also noted that any theoretical charges would have to overcome a major problem stemming from the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. United States: They couldn't use official acts as evidence to prove the crime. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt was asked repeatedly about this Wednesday at a briefing, and she punted multiple times on whether immunity applied to Obama. 'I'll leave that to the Department of Justice,' Leavitt eventually said. All of this might seem academic. It still seems a distant possibility that Trump and his Justice Department would ever press forward with trying to prosecute Obama. Trump makes these claims a lot and they tend to fall away. Judging by how his media allies are covering the Obama allegations much more than the saga over the Jeffrey Epstein files, it would seem this served as a temporary distraction. But it's also just so discordant. Trump and his lawyers argued that presidents had to be fully immune because it was absolutely essential to the executive job. Then he turns around and, just more than a year later, suggests those standards shouldn't be applied to his predecessor for actions that appear much more official than Trump's own. By the logic of Trump's lawyers, Obama in 2016 could have done much more than just massage intelligence reports; he could have put out a hit on Trump, and still possibly have been immune. It's almost like Trump's view was always: Immunity for me, not for thee.
The National
21-07-2025
- Politics
- The National
Syria's Druze count the toll of another deadly episode in long struggle for survival
The once invincible Sweida in southern Syria, the epicentre of a revolt against French colonial rule, was counting its dead on Monday after a week of fighting that left its mostly Druze inhabitants bowed, but not defeated. A ceasefire appeared to hold as Monday was the first day without clashes in a week. Authorities were moving Bedouin civilians out, but aid convoys were still to enter. Local branches of the Health Ministry sent teams to count the dead and take bodies to hospitals, where mortuaries were full after three waves of incursions by government forces and auxiliaries in the past week. Last year, Sweida was a centre of a non-violent uprising against the Assad regime when peaceful protest in Syria had long been crushed. The Druze are an offshoot of Islam, whose history is defined by struggles for survival. US diplomatic pressure on Syrian authorities, and Israeli raids, halted the offensive on Sunday. However the area, comprising the heartland of the ancient sect, remains under siege by the central authorities. Damascus said Druze militias killed hundreds of Sunnis in Sweida during the clashes in the provincial capital, which were sparked by sectarian abductions. Khaldoun, a Druze surgeon at the main Sweida National Hospital, told The National Syrian military and Interior Ministry forces who arrived in the city last week 'supposedly to stop clashes and spread security, turned out to be monsters.' Women were among dead, felled by snipers and other government triggermen. Dr Khaldoun said 'medical teams were shot dead while trying to save people.' He said at least the bodies of 500 people have been brought to the hospital or died while receiving treatment there since government attacks on Sweida began. Jiryes al Ishaq, a Christian who lived on a farmland on the western outskirts of Sweida, said he fled the government advance to the Greek Orthodox parish in the centre of the city. 'Pillage has been widespread but I don't know what happened to my land,' he said. 'We are provided for at the parish, because the authorities have vowed not to harm [the compound], but the rest of the city is devastated,' he said, pointing out unconfirmed reports that government militants had killed a Christian family of a dozen members in Sweida. The government had said during the offensive that killings would result in prosecutions. Fighting in Sweida - in pictures Sweida, with its basalt rock landscape, is home to 270,000 Druze who comprise most members of the sect left in Syria after waves of migration, particularly during the 2011 to 2024 civil war. There are an estimated one million Druze worldwide, mainly in Syria, Lebanon, Israel and a diaspora in Latin America. From 1925 to 1927, the Druze, led by Sultan Basha Al Atrash, mounted a revolt against French rule. The revolt failed but it was instrumental in projecting the image of the Druze as being Syrians first in a predominantly Sunni country. Sultan Al Atrash became a figure in the narrative of Arab nationalists across the Middle East. Bedouin tribes, some of whom have been attacking Sweida, had joined him in the revolt. Sunni merchants in Damascus, who later supported former leader Bashar Al Assad and the post Assad order, financed the Druze armed struggle against the French as thousands of Druze fighters were killed with superior French firepower. Sultan Al Atrash died in 1982. However, one of his daughters, Muntaha, led peaceful resistance in Sweida when the March 2011 protest movement broke out. In the last 15 months of Mr Al Assad's rule, Sweida renewed the civil disobedience movement demanding the removal of the regime. Among its leaders was Sheikh Hikmat Al Hijri, the most senior of a triumvirate comprising the Druze spiritual leadership. Suhail Tebian, a prominent Druze civil figure who had opposed an increased arming of the Druze under Mr Al Hijri since the regime fell, said the community has had no choice but to resist government forces comprising religious extremists, although the cost has been high. 'Sweida has become a disaster zone,' Mr Thebian said. There is nothing more I can tell you. I have survived, for now'. Mr Al Hijri resisted attempts by the new authorities – formerly Hayat Tahrir Al Sham – to control Sweida, saying that new security forces should be drawn from residents of the province. He labelled the government as extremists and undemocratic, pointing out the lack of any independent branches in the new political system. So, when clashes began in Sweida last week between Druze and Sunni residents of Bedouin origins, Mr Al Hijri refused government security forces in the city. This set the scene for a week of incursions in which the government recruited rural Sunnis on its side, from Sweida and nearby Deraa. The authorities also taken by bus in more Sunnis, this time Bedouin, from the province of Deir Ezzor, in the eastern fringes of Syria, and from the governorate of Aleppo. But even Druze who have been critical of Mr Al Hijri's handling of the crisis said the blood shed by the government forces and its auxiliaries have robbed it of credibility. 'They have cut the internet to make it difficult to know and document the size of the atrocities they committed,' said Nawaf, another Druze doctor. An engineer in Sweida said the city and nearby villages 'have been devastated'. 'We can't even reach them,' he said. 'Bodies are still lying in open fields. There is no [transport] vehicles. No gasoline. I went to see the [main] hospital, it can't receive anyone. It is out of service.'
CNN
16-07-2025
- Business
- CNN
Markets could freak out if Trump tries to fire Powell
There could be a revolt in global markets, including a possible collapse in the dollar and US bonds, if President Donald Trump were to take the unprecedented step of removing Federal Reserve Chair Powell from the helm of the central bank, as the president has suggested he could do. The US dollar index, which measures the dollar's strength against six major foreign currencies, dropped as much as 0.8% Wednesday morning after reports that Trump was moving closer to removing the Fed chair. CBS News first reported the news. Trump later Wednesday told reporters at the White House it is unlikely he would fire Powell, pushing back on media reports. 'We're not planning on doing anything,' Trump said. 'I don't rule out anything, but I think it's highly unlikely, unless he has to leave for fraud.' The dollar index pared its losses after Trump's remarks and was down just 0.3% as of midday. The Fed's independence is a cornerstone of US financial markets, and perceptions of an erosion of that independence could spark a sharp sell-off in the dollar and US government bonds that could have lasting damage for America's markets and its economy — along with its international reputation. US markets have been volatile this year as Trump has ramped up his criticisms of Powell, demanding the central bank lower interest rates. But Wall Street has maintained that the likelihood of the president actually moving to oust the Fed chair remains low, due to legal uncertainties and awareness of officials like Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent that markets would reject the move. 'Trump wants lower interest rates: He thinks ousting Powell will make a difference, but most market analysts think it would send a signal that the Fed has lost its independence,' Greg Valliere, chief US policy strategist at AGF Investments, said in a note. The Fed's independence is paramount. Financial markets favor independent central banks that can focus on inflation and the labor market without concerns of political interference. Investors perceive the United States as a great place to invest specifically because of the nation's strong institutions. A breakdown in the perception of Fed independence is the equivalent of enormous reputation damage that could be almost impossible to repair. Markets in recent days have not been 'pricing in' the possibility of Powell's removal, analysts say, which leaves room for a severe reaction in markets if Trump catches investors off-guard and goes forward with a legally contentious move to assert control over the Fed. George Saravelos, global head of FX strategy at Deutsche Bank, said in a Friday note that the removal of Powell is 'one of the largest under-priced event risks' for markets. 'It is stating the obvious that investors would likely interpret such an event as a direct affront to Fed independence, putting the central bank under extreme institutional duress,' Saravelos said. 'With the Fed sitting at the pinnacle of the global dollar monetary system it is also stating the obvious that the consequences would reverberate far beyond US borders.' Saravelos said he expects the dollar would drop 3% to 4% in 24 hours if Powell were fired, which is an enormous move in currency markets. 'The empirical and academic evidence on the impact of a loss of central bank independence is fairly clear: In extreme cases, both the currency and the bond market can collapse as inflation expectations move higher, real yields drop and broader risk premia increase on the back of institutional erosion,' Saravelos said. Bets on Polymarket on Wednesday showed traders expect a 24% chance Trump will fire Powell this year, which is the highest percentage since the bet was created at the end of last year. An assault on the Fed's independence could cause a flight from American assets. The US dollar's strength and premier status could be jeopardized if investors lose the perception that the Fed is independent, according to Francesco Pesole, an FX strategist at ING. 'An independent Fed is a key foundation of the dollar's reserve currency appeal,' Pesole said. 'Markets hold a currency as reserve when they have long-term expectations that inflation will be under control and the bond market will work smoothly. In the case of the dollar this is fundamentally guaranteed by the Fed being independent from politics.' 'So should markets interpret any changes at the helm of the Fed as a loss of that independence, the incentive to hold dollars will be diminished,' Pesole said. The dollar in May hit a three-year low after Trump levied a flurry of criticisms against Powell. Bond markets could also be rocked by an erosion of Fed independence. The 30-year Treasury yield on Tuesday rose above 5% for the first time since June. A sustained, continued rise in yields could send a signal that markets are pushing back on the Trump administration's attacks on Powell. Bond prices and yields trade in opposite direction. A rise in yields could signal investors are selling or refusing to buy US bonds and demanding higher rates to compensate for the perceived added risk of holding US debt. 'At a minimum, we would expect a sustained and persistent risk premium to be subsequently embedded in both the US dollar and the Treasury market, with exceptionally high sensitivity to both the mix of data and the conduct of monetary policy in the subsequent months,' Deutsche Bank's Saravelos said. Damage to the Fed's credibility could make inflation a more persistent issue. A Fed that is perceived to lower rates prematurely to meet political demands could ignite concerns about inflation and cause bond holders to demand higher yields. Trump, who favors lower rates and has even proposed a rate cut of three points — which would be an unprecedented step and in itself a market-moving event — has long talked about removing Powell for not lowering borrowing costs quickly enough. But legal safeguards protect the Fed chair from an attempt by the president to fire him. Investors think members of Trump's own Cabinet would even advise against such a move. 'We doubt that Trump will actually try to fire Powell on this basis with Bessent likely warning of the mayhem this would cause in markets, and serious doubts the Supreme Court would uphold the decision,' Krishna Guha, vice chairman at Evercore ISI, said in a note. The Supreme Court thus far has signaled it would uphold the Fed chair's position other than a 'for cause' removal, 'which is interpreted in legal terms as narrowly related to misconduct,' and not 'policy disagreements,' according to Guha. The White House in recent days has been ramping up its criticisms of the Fed's ongoing construction project to renovate the central bank's headquarters in Washington, DC, effectively building a potential 'for cause' case for firing Powell. Senior Trump administration officials Director of the Office of Management and Budget Russell Vought and Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency Bill Pulte have turned up the heat on criticizing the Fed's building renovation. A reporter on Tuesday asked Trump if Powell's handling of the renovation was a fireable offense. 'I think it sort of is,' Trump said. Powell has asked the central bank's inspector general to conduct an additional review of the ongoing renovation, CNN previously reported. The Fed also published a lengthy FAQ on its website, detailing the minutiae of the renovations and clarifying that cost overruns were due to factors including 'more asbestos than anticipated' and 'a higher-than-expected water table,' along with rising costs due to inflation and necessary changes to the building designs. 'We have not the slightest doubt that Powell will resist this line of attack as firmly as he has resisted others to date,' Guha said. While it remains to be seen whether Trump would fire Powell, the very suggestion that he might could send jitters through markets. The Fed is a unique institution. Repeated affronts to the central bank's independence could cause short-term mayhem and continued turmoil in the long-term. It could create unnecessary distraction for other Fed officials as they debate monetary policy and undermine the credibility of the Fed — even after Powell is no longer Fed chair. 'The effort by Vought and Pulte to use the building project to undermine Powell is also unhelpful to those who might succeed him,' Guha said. Jamie Dimon, chief executive at JPMorgan Chase, told reporters in a Tuesday conference call that moving to fire the Fed chair could have unintended consequences. 'The independence of the Fed is absolutely critical, and not just for the current Fed chairman, who I respect, but for the next Fed chairman,' he said. 'Playing around with the Fed can often have adverse consequences, absolutely opposite of what you might be hoping for.'
