The Kevin Warsh Fed, which is so committed to restoring price stability as defined by previous Feds that its chairman established a working group to determine if the metrics that definition referenced are still the appropriate benchmarks, left rates on hold Wednesday.

And that makes a lot of sense, doesn’t it? The Fed has a dual mandate they’re obliged by law to balance. One side of that mandate references the labor market, where the unemployment rate sits in the 22%ile going back three quarters of a century. The other side of that mandate references inflation, which sits in the 86%ile going back to 1990.

Reasonable people might argue that in such a scenario — i.e., when the UNR’s 22%ile and PCE inflation 86%ile — it’d make sense to raise rates for a second time in two months, particularly considering that financial conditions on most widely-cited metrics remain accommodative and that notwithstanding some indigestion on the bottom rungs of the credit ladder, risk assets remain well supported.

But what’re you gonna do, right? There’s an election next week, and while an apolitical Fed doesn’t, by definition, factor the political cycle in when it comes to rate-setting deliberations, clever people with an agenda can turn that around and argue that a Fed which doesn’t stay on hold the week before an election is, by definition, an “activist” Fed.

Fortunately, we don’t need to adjudicate that, which is to say we don’t need to debate whether the Warsh Fed’s beholden to Donald Trump. Because we can just ask Trump, who said, of Warsh’s decision to support last month’s rate hike, “I told — I talked to Kevin and I said ‘You might as well vote with the board.'”

It’s (more than a little) amusing to me that the motley constellation of ostensible macro-market contrarians and sundry smart-asses who comprise the financial blogosphere and social media echo chamber, can find every Fed conspiracy except for the one Trump admits to on camera.

Anyway, in keeping with Warsh’s promise to promote transparency and public trust by saying as little publicly as absolutely possible, the new Fed statement was short. But it was at least a bit more forthcoming than the last few.

“Economic activity is expanding at a strong pace,” the Fed said. “While uncertainty remains elevated owing, in part, to geopolitical developments, domestic spending has been resilient, [p]roductivity growth is strong, and capital investment is robust.”

Inflation, the Committee went on, is “elevated.” Still. But don’t worry. “The accumulation of more information will help the Committee determine the policy stance appropriate” to fix the situation.

There were two dissents. One was Beth Hammack, whose hawkish inclinations are well known and who, I assume, is confident in her mortgage docs.

The other was Lisa Cook, who wanted a hike too. That, folks, is hilarious. It’s a middle finger to Trump ahead of next month’s mock trial at The White House.