3 ms·

The specific law that Trump is very obviously breaking is the Securing Inspector General Independence Act of 2022, which says Congress must be notified 30 days

The specific law that Trump is very obviously breaking is the Securing Inspector General Independence Act of 2022, which says Congress must be notified 30 days in advance and given "substantive" rationale for dismissing inspectors general. This law was passed specifically in response to Trump breaking the antecedent law, Inspector General Reform Act of 2008, during his first term. Will the "party of law and order" do anything? Nope. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11546 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11546 Good on Ms Fong for refusing to leave.

rokkamokka 2y ago
Ah yes, the little known legal loophole of "nobody is going to stop me". In all seriousness, the situation is very dire. The future does not, currently, bode well for the common man.
rqtwteye 2y ago
The Trump people went extremely well prepared into this. They are spamming with a ton of things, often legally questionable. They know that Congress doesn't have a backbone and lawsuits will take a very long time. It's a brilliant strategy.
- madhadron 2y ago
  Lawsuits take a very long time, but a court injunction can control which way that time is spent.
- nickff 2y ago
  A number of (especially recent) administrations have performed a large number of legally questionable acts which were often structured in such a way as to be difficult to challenge (the CFPB comes to mind). Trump’s innovation seems to be taking this tactic to an extreme, remarkably early in this administration.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    Say more about how the CFPB was illegal? It was created by an act of Congress.
    - nickff 2y ago
      There are/were a number of issues with its structure, some of which are described in the lawsuits mentioned on its Wikipedia page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Financial_Protection_Bureau https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Financial_Protectio...
      - llamaimperative 2y ago
        Its constitutionality was literally upheld in SCOTUS So no, not really. You have a list of complaints from the regulated parties.
        nickff 2y ago
        That’s one of the decisions; on the other hand, the director was made removable at will (by the courts, in response to a challenge, and contrary to the original statute), and there have been other proposed challenges. This change has proved consequential.
Terr_ 2y ago
I'm tired of congressional Republicans being treated as unmentioned bystanders in this. Reporters should be pushing microphones in their faces asking why they approve of the latest thing Trump did, or at least what they think of him breaking laws they passed.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  Absolutely agreed.
- anigbrowl 2y ago
  Reporters are doing that. But politicians in general and Republicans in particular excel at using rhetorical fallacies and other tactics to avoid answering difficult questions. Here's an example from last year where a bunch of Republicans simply booed and abused a reporter whose question they disliked: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4274345-republican-tells-reporter-to-shut-up-johnson-2020-election/ https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4274345-republican-tells-... The media has many shortcomings, but how are reporters supposed to hold accountable people who simply do not care?
amazingamazing 2y ago
[flagged]
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  "Plz explain why you are breaking the law?" - Senators The IGs have already been removed. He already broke the law. Requesting an explanation as to why he did it post facto changes nothing about that, ergo the GOP Senators are doing effectively nothing: the IGs are already gone. The letter doesn't even allude to any consequences whatsoever, neither for the initial illegality nor refusing their request for explanation of the illegality.
- tegiddrone 2y ago
  Thanks for shedding some light on this element of the story. I like to keep references like this when mustering support for action. What does bipartisan even mean? I've seen my state lose a republican congressperson who, while I disagreed with, called out trump on disrespecting branches of gov during first term and since been replaced with a pro-trump congressperson. The checks and balances are eroding and the citizen response has to be strong.
- phonon 2y ago
  Are you serious? A. he already broke the law. The point in notifying in advance is for Congress to push back if they think the reason was inappropriate, as Inspector Generals are the watchdogs that report to Congress. B. Do you really think he had "the substantive rationale, including detailed and case-specific reasons for any such removal or transfer" for 17 simultaneous firings days into his administration?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - amazingamazing 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - 2y ago

rokkamokka 2y ago

Ah yes, the little known legal loophole of "nobody is going to stop me". In all seriousness, the situation is very dire. The future does not, currently, bode well for the common man.

rqtwteye 2y ago

The Trump people went extremely well prepared into this. They are spamming with a ton of things, often legally questionable. They know that Congress doesn't have a backbone and lawsuits will take a very long time. It's a brilliant strategy.

madhadron 2y ago
Lawsuits take a very long time, but a court injunction can control which way that time is spent.
nickff 2y ago
A number of (especially recent) administrations have performed a large number of legally questionable acts which were often structured in such a way as to be difficult to challenge (the CFPB comes to mind). Trump’s innovation seems to be taking this tactic to an extreme, remarkably early in this administration.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  Say more about how the CFPB was illegal? It was created by an act of Congress.
  - nickff 2y ago
    There are/were a number of issues with its structure, some of which are described in the lawsuits mentioned on its Wikipedia page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Financial_Protection_Bureau https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Financial_Protectio...
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      Its constitutionality was literally upheld in SCOTUS So no, not really. You have a list of complaints from the regulated parties.
      - nickff 2y ago
        That’s one of the decisions; on the other hand, the director was made removable at will (by the courts, in response to a challenge, and contrary to the original statute), and there have been other proposed challenges. This change has proved consequential.

Terr_ 2y ago

I'm tired of congressional Republicans being treated as unmentioned bystanders in this. Reporters should be pushing microphones in their faces asking why they approve of the latest thing Trump did, or at least what they think of him breaking laws they passed.

llamaimperative 2y ago
Absolutely agreed.
anigbrowl 2y ago
Reporters are doing that. But politicians in general and Republicans in particular excel at using rhetorical fallacies and other tactics to avoid answering difficult questions. Here's an example from last year where a bunch of Republicans simply booed and abused a reporter whose question they disliked: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4274345-republican-tells-reporter-to-shut-up-johnson-2020-election/ https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4274345-republican-tells-... The media has many shortcomings, but how are reporters supposed to hold accountable people who simply do not care?

amazingamazing 2y ago

[flagged]

llamaimperative 2y ago
"Plz explain why you are breaking the law?" - Senators The IGs have already been removed. He already broke the law. Requesting an explanation as to why he did it post facto changes nothing about that, ergo the GOP Senators are doing effectively nothing: the IGs are already gone. The letter doesn't even allude to any consequences whatsoever, neither for the initial illegality nor refusing their request for explanation of the illegality.
tegiddrone 2y ago
Thanks for shedding some light on this element of the story. I like to keep references like this when mustering support for action. What does bipartisan even mean? I've seen my state lose a republican congressperson who, while I disagreed with, called out trump on disrespecting branches of gov during first term and since been replaced with a pro-trump congressperson. The checks and balances are eroding and the citizen response has to be strong.
phonon 2y ago
Are you serious? A. he already broke the law. The point in notifying in advance is for Congress to push back if they think the reason was inappropriate, as Inspector Generals are the watchdogs that report to Congress. B. Do you really think he had "the substantive rationale, including detailed and case-specific reasons for any such removal or transfer" for 17 simultaneous firings days into his administration?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- amazingamazing 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - 2y ago