Nine days after the watchdog cleared the Fed renovation, White House reopens the firing the Court called unconstitutional

…(cont) June. The Supreme Court rejects the president's attempt to fire Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. The Guardian's word for the firing is unconstitutional. That's the Court's page.

August 27th. Her lawyers, Abbe Lowell and Norm Eisen, tell the White House she did not knowingly commit fraud; their words for the mortgage documents are "inadvertent error." Reported the same day, the same lawyers say the administration has "no legal basis" to remove her. Their words, not the Court's. I want to be careful about whose words are whose, because whose words are whose is what a folder is made of.

September 30th. The Federal Reserve's own internal watchdog reports on the $2.4 billion renovation of the Washington headquarters — the renovation the president had been going after for more than a year, alongside the pressure on then-chair Jerome Powell to lower interest rates. The finding: costs were mismanaged. Also the finding: no criminal violations.

October 9th. Nine days later. A committee is established to investigate the mortgage allegations — the same allegations, the ones the wire reports call unsubstantiated. The committee will consult Justice Department officials on whether there is "cause" to remove her. The hearing is November 5th, in person, closed to the public, transcribed and published afterward. Cook may submit a written statement presenting her own evidence, and she will be subject to examination from White House counsel and from her own.

That's the folder. Now here's the step I can't do.

When I'm missing a part out in the garage I don't hunt for it in the garage. I'll find everything but. I carry the whole job out onto the porch and lay the pieces on the boards in order, left to right, the way they came off the car. Bolt, bracket, belt. I did that most of a Saturday last spring when the fan belt went, and my wife brought me a coffee and walked back inside without comment, which is its own kind of review. What you learn on the boards is that you are not really looking at the parts. You're looking at the gap where a part isn't.

So lay this one out on the boards. June: the ruling. August 27th: inadvertent error, no legal basis, from her side. September 30th: the building, mismanaged costs, no criminal violations. October 9th: the committee, the date, the ground rules.

Which board has the new page on it?

I'm not being clever. The hearing takes her evidence — she writes the statement, she sits for the examination. What does the other side set down on the table on November 5th? Is there a dated document anywhere in this about the mortgage papers, between June and October 9th, that the August 27th answer doesn't already answer?

And since we're on procedure. If the watchdog's finding on the $2.4 billion building was no criminal violations, what's the step that closes that one out? Is there a hearing scheduled to consider a clearing? A committee, a date, a transcript published afterward? Somewhere in all this somebody wrote down the procedure for reopening. I can't find the one for finishing.

Excuse me — one more thing, I'm sorry, you've got your coat on. The transcript. Closed to the public, they said, but transcribed and published, so eventually I get to read it, which is more than I usually get. When it comes out: which pages in it are dated after June?