6 ms·

If they don't have clearance aren't they committing a number of offences under various acts of national security and computer misuse and thus liable for arrest?

by mathw 2y ago

cdme 2y ago
Yes, but the GOP senate and house members are unwavering sycophants. The Supreme Court has also been stacked.
- gigatexal 2y ago
  It’s a coup many years in the making and we all watched as it happened. The folks behind project 2025 have been plotting this for years and years.
malfist 2y ago
Yes. But who is going to arrest them and charge them?
ramesh31 2y ago
>If they don't have clearance aren't they committing a number of offences under various acts of national security and computer misuse and thus liable for arrest? Arrested by who? The executive branch who ordered his actions? Americans voted for this, and now we have to live with it.
- dartos 2y ago
  No, the judicial branch which is supposed to enforce the law regardless of who was voted for… Yknow… the branch that’s supposed to check the power of the executive branch…
  - tyre 2y ago
    The Justice Department, including the FBI and federal prosecutors, are run by appointees of the president. The president can replace them.
  - ramesh31 2y ago
    >No, the judicial branch which is supposed to enforce the law regardless of who was voted for… The judiciary has zero enforcement power. They make the laws which the executive is meant to enforce. If the executive fails to enforce a law, congress can impeach. That's not happening.
    - dartos 2y ago
      That’s not how it works. The executive branch runs the country. The legislative branch makes the laws. The judicial branch enforces them…
    - SAI_Peregrinus 2y ago
      The legislative branch makes the laws. The Judicial branch judges whether laws were broken. The executive branch has the power to enforce laws (or to not enforce them, as they see fit). The current executive branch will not enforce laws against itself, and nobody else is legally allowed to enforce the laws, so all the courts & congress can do is write strongly worded letters.
      - tsimionescu 2y ago
        You're almost right. The thing is that Congress absolutely has the power to impeach the president and strip them of all legal office. Of course, most of Congress is perfectly happy with what's going on, so this won't happen.
  - dboreham 2y ago
    Those are just...guidelines.
  - 4ndrewl 2y ago
    I'm afraid you let that ship sail. You now have a king and a court with untrammeled power - good luck when a successor needs to be found.
    - taylodl 2y ago
      Seems like we've jumped into the wayback machine and set a course to a year before 1215...
  - taylodl 2y ago
    The judicial branch can't prosecute, that's what the executive branch does, and it's the executive branch that's doing these things. The legislative branch has the power to keep the executive branch in check, but they're not exercising that power - which I'm saying is bordering on criminal. Obviously, the executive branch is unlikely to prosecute the legislative branch for not taking action against the executive branch. Our constitution has the implicit assumption that all three branches wouldn't be in cahoots with one another, and should they be, the electorate was expected to have enough sense to vote out the legislators and replace them with ones that would keep the executive in check. The million dollar question is how much pain and destruction will be endured until that happens?
    - WOTERMEON 2y ago
      4 years of it, if I remember correctly
      - taylodl 2y ago
        Two years - Congress is replaced every two years. 1/3 of the Senate is replaced every two years. Given that they've only been in office for two weeks, two years seems like a long way off.
        pseudalopex 2y ago
        House not Congress. Elected not replaced. It is unlikely enough senators will be replaced in 2026.
    - lazyasciiart 2y ago
      Arrests don’t need prosecutors involved unless they need a warrant.
      - tsimionescu 2y ago
        Arrests need warrants. And if you're thinking about the police, that's also part of the executive, mostly. Judges can't do anything unless some other branch of the government asks them to.
- sundaeofshock 2y ago
  No, we did not vote for this. Show me the campaign ad that said Trump was going to give Musk and his gang of losers complete control over the treasury.
  - epistasis 2y ago
    If you think that a politicians advertisements are the full picture of what they will do, I have a bridge you may be interested in buying. That said, DOGE was well announced and widely publicized prior to the election, by Musk and the media. Musk was up on the stage with Trump quite a bit. Those who did not know this was going to happen are either easily fooled or were paying no attention.
  - exe34 2y ago
    I'm over across the pond - it was pretty obvious to me that Elon was going to take a wrecking ball to the ship of government. if it wasn't clear to you, I'm afraid you can only blame yourself and possibly your diet of information. Trump said Elon would get to run a new department called "department of government efficiency". if you know what he did at Twitter, you can easily join the dots.
  - jethro_tell 2y ago
    It’s all spelled out in the project 2025 doc that was widely publicized as the game plan. Also, trump was impeached last time because he tried to shut down funding approved by congress. So, if you’re surprised it’s happening again, I suppose you can’t be helped
    - FireBeyond 2y ago
      Oh, the one that Trump heavily distanced himself from? Project 2025 was something skeptics pointed out as being the game plan, but Trump denied (or agreed, then denied).
      - jethro_tell 2y ago
        You’re saying that like I’m the gullible one but he’s following it to a t so . . ..
- codingdave 2y ago
  If we are going to discuss this, we should be clear about the details. "Americans voted for this" is a hot take. Some did. Many did not vote at all. Of those who voted, Trump barely won those votes. It was just enough to get the electoral college votes. Even those who did vote for him did not vote for his current Project 2025-based plan. On the contrary, his campaign denied he was going to do all this.
  - 9283409232 2y ago
    > On the contrary, his campaign denied he was going to do all this. People believed the wolf when he said he wasn't going to hurt the sheep.
  - Blackthorn 2y ago
    If you don't vote, you effectively vote for the winner. When the 49ers lost the 2024 Super Bowl, the second and third string players didn't go around saying they didn't really lose because they never hit the field. No, they lost.
    - taylodl 2y ago
      Excellent analogy!
    - subsection1h 2y ago
      > If you don't vote, you effectively vote for the winner. Yes, if the Electoral College wasn't a thing.
      - johnnyanmac 2y ago
        If you didn't vote in a swing state, I don't even know what to say. But you'd also be surprised how many non-swings could swing if they had enough non-voters vote.
  - the_snooze 2y ago
    Trump has been the dominant figure in American politics for almost a decade now. It's quite obvious who he is and what he stands for. And he's more popular now than ever before. That's the reality. Accepting that and planning around it is the first step to countering it. Burying your head in the sand and saying "people don't actually want this!" is unactionable talk.
throw0101c 2y ago
> […] and thus liable for arrest? If these are federal statues they can be pardoned by the President (like the January 6 folks were).
voisin 2y ago
Trump would just pardon them.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
Glyptodon 2y ago
While they are absolutely committing crimes, the complicit Trump administration justice department and Republican congress are happy to let it go, at least thus far.

If they don't have clearance aren't they committing a number of offences under various acts of national security and computer misuse and thus liable for arrest?

by mathw 2y ago

If they don't have clearance aren't they committing a number of offences under various acts of national security and computer misuse and thus liable for arrest?

cdme 2y ago

Yes, but the GOP senate and house members are unwavering sycophants. The Supreme Court has also been stacked.

gigatexal 2y ago
It’s a coup many years in the making and we all watched as it happened. The folks behind project 2025 have been plotting this for years and years.

malfist 2y ago

Yes. But who is going to arrest them and charge them?

ramesh31 2y ago

>If they don't have clearance aren't they committing a number of offences under various acts of national security and computer misuse and thus liable for arrest? Arrested by who? The executive branch who ordered his actions? Americans voted for this, and now we have to live with it.

dartos 2y ago
No, the judicial branch which is supposed to enforce the law regardless of who was voted for… Yknow… the branch that’s supposed to check the power of the executive branch…
- tyre 2y ago
  The Justice Department, including the FBI and federal prosecutors, are run by appointees of the president. The president can replace them.
- ramesh31 2y ago
  >No, the judicial branch which is supposed to enforce the law regardless of who was voted for… The judiciary has zero enforcement power. They make the laws which the executive is meant to enforce. If the executive fails to enforce a law, congress can impeach. That's not happening.
  - dartos 2y ago
    That’s not how it works. The executive branch runs the country. The legislative branch makes the laws. The judicial branch enforces them…
  - SAI_Peregrinus 2y ago
    The legislative branch makes the laws. The Judicial branch judges whether laws were broken. The executive branch has the power to enforce laws (or to not enforce them, as they see fit). The current executive branch will not enforce laws against itself, and nobody else is legally allowed to enforce the laws, so all the courts & congress can do is write strongly worded letters.
    - tsimionescu 2y ago
      You're almost right. The thing is that Congress absolutely has the power to impeach the president and strip them of all legal office. Of course, most of Congress is perfectly happy with what's going on, so this won't happen.
- dboreham 2y ago
  Those are just...guidelines.
- 4ndrewl 2y ago
  I'm afraid you let that ship sail. You now have a king and a court with untrammeled power - good luck when a successor needs to be found.
  - taylodl 2y ago
    Seems like we've jumped into the wayback machine and set a course to a year before 1215...
- taylodl 2y ago
  The judicial branch can't prosecute, that's what the executive branch does, and it's the executive branch that's doing these things. The legislative branch has the power to keep the executive branch in check, but they're not exercising that power - which I'm saying is bordering on criminal. Obviously, the executive branch is unlikely to prosecute the legislative branch for not taking action against the executive branch. Our constitution has the implicit assumption that all three branches wouldn't be in cahoots with one another, and should they be, the electorate was expected to have enough sense to vote out the legislators and replace them with ones that would keep the executive in check. The million dollar question is how much pain and destruction will be endured until that happens?
  - WOTERMEON 2y ago
    4 years of it, if I remember correctly
    - taylodl 2y ago
      Two years - Congress is replaced every two years. 1/3 of the Senate is replaced every two years. Given that they've only been in office for two weeks, two years seems like a long way off.
      - pseudalopex 2y ago
        House not Congress. Elected not replaced. It is unlikely enough senators will be replaced in 2026.
  - lazyasciiart 2y ago
    Arrests don’t need prosecutors involved unless they need a warrant.
    - tsimionescu 2y ago
      Arrests need warrants. And if you're thinking about the police, that's also part of the executive, mostly. Judges can't do anything unless some other branch of the government asks them to.
sundaeofshock 2y ago
No, we did not vote for this. Show me the campaign ad that said Trump was going to give Musk and his gang of losers complete control over the treasury.
- epistasis 2y ago
  If you think that a politicians advertisements are the full picture of what they will do, I have a bridge you may be interested in buying. That said, DOGE was well announced and widely publicized prior to the election, by Musk and the media. Musk was up on the stage with Trump quite a bit. Those who did not know this was going to happen are either easily fooled or were paying no attention.
- exe34 2y ago
  I'm over across the pond - it was pretty obvious to me that Elon was going to take a wrecking ball to the ship of government. if it wasn't clear to you, I'm afraid you can only blame yourself and possibly your diet of information. Trump said Elon would get to run a new department called "department of government efficiency". if you know what he did at Twitter, you can easily join the dots.
- jethro_tell 2y ago
  It’s all spelled out in the project 2025 doc that was widely publicized as the game plan. Also, trump was impeached last time because he tried to shut down funding approved by congress. So, if you’re surprised it’s happening again, I suppose you can’t be helped
  - FireBeyond 2y ago
    Oh, the one that Trump heavily distanced himself from? Project 2025 was something skeptics pointed out as being the game plan, but Trump denied (or agreed, then denied).
    - jethro_tell 2y ago
      You’re saying that like I’m the gullible one but he’s following it to a t so . . ..
codingdave 2y ago
If we are going to discuss this, we should be clear about the details. "Americans voted for this" is a hot take. Some did. Many did not vote at all. Of those who voted, Trump barely won those votes. It was just enough to get the electoral college votes. Even those who did vote for him did not vote for his current Project 2025-based plan. On the contrary, his campaign denied he was going to do all this.
- 9283409232 2y ago
  > On the contrary, his campaign denied he was going to do all this. People believed the wolf when he said he wasn't going to hurt the sheep.
- Blackthorn 2y ago
  If you don't vote, you effectively vote for the winner. When the 49ers lost the 2024 Super Bowl, the second and third string players didn't go around saying they didn't really lose because they never hit the field. No, they lost.
  - taylodl 2y ago
    Excellent analogy!
  - subsection1h 2y ago
    > If you don't vote, you effectively vote for the winner. Yes, if the Electoral College wasn't a thing.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      If you didn't vote in a swing state, I don't even know what to say. But you'd also be surprised how many non-swings could swing if they had enough non-voters vote.
- the_snooze 2y ago
  Trump has been the dominant figure in American politics for almost a decade now. It's quite obvious who he is and what he stands for. And he's more popular now than ever before. That's the reality. Accepting that and planning around it is the first step to countering it. Burying your head in the sand and saying "people don't actually want this!" is unactionable talk.

throw0101c 2y ago

> […] and thus liable for arrest? If these are federal statues they can be pardoned by the President (like the January 6 folks were).

voisin 2y ago

Trump would just pardon them.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

Glyptodon 2y ago

While they are absolutely committing crimes, the complicit Trump administration justice department and Republican congress are happy to let it go, at least thus far.