5 ms·

Is it true to say that in practise there are no laws here? If anyone in DOGE breaks the law, can't the President just issue a blanket pardon? If the President

by femto 2y ago

Is it true to say that in practise there are no laws here? If anyone in DOGE breaks the law, can't the President just issue a blanket pardon? If the President himself breaks the law, he argues that it was in the course of his official duties [1]. [1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

InsideOutSanta 2y ago
I'm assuming this is what they're betting on.
k__ 2y ago
Don't know, but I read somewhere that the president can't pardon breaks of federal law.
- InsideOutSanta 2y ago
  It's the other way around; the presidential pardoning power is limited to federal offenses.
  - yoyoyoyop 2y ago
    Perhaps why yesterday he was saying he should take over the running of DC..
    - nickthegreek 2y ago
      DC is already controlled federally.
  - k__ 2y ago
    Ah, thanks!
- sillyfluke 2y ago
  What I found significant here is that Trump (yesterday) and/or the Whitehouse stated that Elon Musk does not work for Doge and has no authority over it at all, that Elon Musk has no authority regarding anything and is solely an advisor to the president. Of course, in practical terms "in the field" this is obviously not the case. But I wouldn't be surprised if it was Elon's ego that triggered this: that at the end of the day needing a pardon would be an insult and would bruise his ego so he wants to prevent any pathway for him to be charged with a crime. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know if the Doge "interns" would need one regardless.
  - jonstewart 2y ago
    Cynically, Trump and Musk are using each other. They both want huge swaths of the federal government dismantled—Trump found his whims stymied by laws and regulations and the bureaucrats who abide by them in his first administration, while federal regulations are constraining both Tesla (cars should work and be safe) and Space-X (starships blowing up shouldn’t pollute, Starlink shouldn’t clutter space, etc). Musk is stealing the spotlight. At the appropriate time, Trump can fire him and blame him for overstepping his bounds—I have already seen this talking point privately from GOP operatives. They’ll both have gotten what they wanted, and we’ll all be stuck footing the bill.
    - j16sdiz 2y ago
      IMO, this sounds totally like what happened in China. Trump will get his unchallenged power like Xi or Mao did.
  - alistairSH 2y ago
    Not just that, but DoJ lawyers are simultaneously (in different court cases) arguing DOGE both is and is not a federal agency.
throw0101d 2y ago
> Is it true to say that in practise there are no laws here? If anyone in DOGE breaks the law, can't the President just issue a blanket pardon? For federal laws, yes. If you can find a state-level law that's been violated then he has no jurisdiction to pardeon. Trump himself was charged at the state level twice (and already convicted once): * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_in_New_York https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_in... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_election_racketeering_prosecution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_election_racketeering_... See also the civil case against him for rape: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Jean_Carroll_v._Donald_J._Trump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Jean_Carroll_v._Donald_J._T...
- roenxi 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - grobbyy 2y ago
    My experience is that for anyone sufficiently famous and polarizing, there are widespread false allegations. It's hard work to work from primary sources and sort fact from fiction. It's impractical to check everything, do I tend to do deep dives spot checking a small number of things. For readers, I'd suggest the same thing here. Disregard claims on the Internet, or even court rulings, and just look at primary evidence. Pick a small number of issues. I make this statement generically, without prejudice to the outcome here.
    - JKCalhoun 2y ago
      > Pick a small number of issues. I'm not sure what you mean. I generally agree with you — but I think in the case of Trump you have to disregard at least 26 [1] public allegations of rape if you want to give him a pass, blame his fame, or partisanship, or whatever. 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct...
      - 2y ago
mapt 2y ago
There is a principal in democracy that there Should Not Be strong institutions that prevent a majority of the population from harming itself with its choices. We balance that against a Supreme Court in the US, but that court is almost uniquely powerful & active in forming policy relative to its place in the rest of the world, and right now, most of it has been appointed by fascists; Ultimately the population will have its say in the long term. Do you want an extra-democratic body who is capable of telling the population "No"? I think such a body (which exists in some system) would obviously be nice right now, but I am a lot less convinced that it would be a net positive in general. If we want to find our way out of this, I suspect a lot of people are going to need to feel directly harmed by this administration, and are going to need to basically erect a strong protest culture out of whole cloth. Something like 5% of the population in the streets can topple an authoritarian regime in the right circumstances, but not the 0.5% we might expect for a "large" protest.
- sul_tasto 2y ago
  The electoral college was intended to serve this purpose.
  - mrtesthah 2y ago
    The purpose of the electoral college was to protect slavery.
    - p_j_w 2y ago
      For those who tend to fall for right wing talking points: “There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.” James Madison
  - ckozlowski 2y ago
    I really wanted to believe that it would step up to the occasion, but twice now, it didn't. I don't say such lightly. I genuinely believe that up until very recently, all portents of doom aside, none of the prior elected presidents truly threatened the Republic. Not Bush, not Obama, none of them. Trump has been the exception. It the electoral college had been working as intended when it was envisioned by the Founders, it would have said "Yeah, I hear you want Trump, but, no." and voted in someone who might be better suited to implement his (rough) ideas. I'm not completely onboard with the notion of abolishing said college just yet, as I believe that the electoral system prevents a candidate from say, simply winning all of the urban areas, or exploiting some similar demographic divide that would could exist in a pure popular vote system. We're a union of states, not a single monolithic country. And while I might place my bets on a popular vote providing me the results I'd like a majority of the time, I believe broad representation that at least aids towards unity is better than an outright majority. We strive to avoid "tyranny of the majority". I don't have any easy or simple answers as to what might fix all of this. It may not even be something our "system" can fix, but rather just a lesson we as a country have to learn. Let's hope it's not as painful as prior instances.
IncreasePosts 2y ago
In that case, can't the next president just illegally imprison Elon or trump or whoever for their entire administration, ignore supreme court rulings or lawsuits or whatever, and then issue themselves a pardon at the end?
- aredox 2y ago
  Yes, and restrict the 2nd amendment by fiat, etc... But Democrats "play nice" and respect the law. Biden could have ordered Trump assassinated as soon as the Supreme Court invented the new interpretation that puts president on a piedestal, but he was never going to do it.
  - InsideOutSanta 2y ago
    But Democrats "play nice" and respect the law. That's the problem with the argument that Republicans need to be careful about setting precedents that Democrats will then also abuse: no Republican believes that any Democratic president will actually do this. In fact, a lot of Republicans probably don't believe that there will ever be another Democratic president.
- ethagnawl 2y ago
  Based on last year's Supreme Court rulings and what Trump/DOGE have gotten away with thus far, it'd seem so. However, democrats insist on wearing kid gloves to a chainsaw massacre, so don't count on anything like that (or, more realistically, within a lesser order of magnitude) ever happening.
insane_dreamer 2y ago
Trump has explicitly said he is above the law: "He who saves the country cannot break the law" is what he posted. He pardoned people who stormed the capital, threatened gov officials, and killed police officers. Pardoning DOGE employees is child's play -- but it would never get that far because the DOJ and FBI have been purged of those not fully subservient to Trump.
- redeeman 2y ago
  > He pardoned people who stormed the capital you mean "He pardoned people who were guided in by the security staff working the capital building"?
  - insane_dreamer 2y ago
    I hope that's sarcasm, but if not please watch this[0] and explain how this looks like a guided tour [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Z3YBtzwmHk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Z3YBtzwmHk
cryptonector 2y ago
Yes, that is always true. It usually doesn't happen. Mainly because DoJ usually doesn't look. Congress can perform oversight and impeach if need be.

by femto 2y ago

InsideOutSanta 2y ago

I'm assuming this is what they're betting on.

k__ 2y ago

Don't know, but I read somewhere that the president can't pardon breaks of federal law.

InsideOutSanta 2y ago
It's the other way around; the presidential pardoning power is limited to federal offenses.
- yoyoyoyop 2y ago
  Perhaps why yesterday he was saying he should take over the running of DC..
  - nickthegreek 2y ago
    DC is already controlled federally.
- k__ 2y ago
  Ah, thanks!
sillyfluke 2y ago
What I found significant here is that Trump (yesterday) and/or the Whitehouse stated that Elon Musk does not work for Doge and has no authority over it at all, that Elon Musk has no authority regarding anything and is solely an advisor to the president. Of course, in practical terms "in the field" this is obviously not the case. But I wouldn't be surprised if it was Elon's ego that triggered this: that at the end of the day needing a pardon would be an insult and would bruise his ego so he wants to prevent any pathway for him to be charged with a crime. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know if the Doge "interns" would need one regardless.
- jonstewart 2y ago
  Cynically, Trump and Musk are using each other. They both want huge swaths of the federal government dismantled—Trump found his whims stymied by laws and regulations and the bureaucrats who abide by them in his first administration, while federal regulations are constraining both Tesla (cars should work and be safe) and Space-X (starships blowing up shouldn’t pollute, Starlink shouldn’t clutter space, etc). Musk is stealing the spotlight. At the appropriate time, Trump can fire him and blame him for overstepping his bounds—I have already seen this talking point privately from GOP operatives. They’ll both have gotten what they wanted, and we’ll all be stuck footing the bill.
  - j16sdiz 2y ago
    IMO, this sounds totally like what happened in China. Trump will get his unchallenged power like Xi or Mao did.
- alistairSH 2y ago
  Not just that, but DoJ lawyers are simultaneously (in different court cases) arguing DOGE both is and is not a federal agency.

throw0101d 2y ago

> Is it true to say that in practise there are no laws here? If anyone in DOGE breaks the law, can't the President just issue a blanket pardon? For federal laws, yes. If you can find a state-level law that's been violated then he has no jurisdiction to pardeon. Trump himself was charged at the state level twice (and already convicted once): * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_in_New_York https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_in... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_election_racketeering_prosecution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_election_racketeering_... See also the civil case against him for rape: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Jean_Carroll_v._Donald_J._Trump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Jean_Carroll_v._Donald_J._T...

roenxi 2y ago
[flagged]
- grobbyy 2y ago
  My experience is that for anyone sufficiently famous and polarizing, there are widespread false allegations. It's hard work to work from primary sources and sort fact from fiction. It's impractical to check everything, do I tend to do deep dives spot checking a small number of things. For readers, I'd suggest the same thing here. Disregard claims on the Internet, or even court rulings, and just look at primary evidence. Pick a small number of issues. I make this statement generically, without prejudice to the outcome here.
  - JKCalhoun 2y ago
    > Pick a small number of issues. I'm not sure what you mean. I generally agree with you — but I think in the case of Trump you have to disregard at least 26 [1] public allegations of rape if you want to give him a pass, blame his fame, or partisanship, or whatever. 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct...
    - 2y ago

mapt 2y ago

There is a principal in democracy that there Should Not Be strong institutions that prevent a majority of the population from harming itself with its choices. We balance that against a Supreme Court in the US, but that court is almost uniquely powerful & active in forming policy relative to its place in the rest of the world, and right now, most of it has been appointed by fascists; Ultimately the population will have its say in the long term. Do you want an extra-democratic body who is capable of telling the population "No"? I think such a body (which exists in some system) would obviously be nice right now, but I am a lot less convinced that it would be a net positive in general. If we want to find our way out of this, I suspect a lot of people are going to need to feel directly harmed by this administration, and are going to need to basically erect a strong protest culture out of whole cloth. Something like 5% of the population in the streets can topple an authoritarian regime in the right circumstances, but not the 0.5% we might expect for a "large" protest.

sul_tasto 2y ago
The electoral college was intended to serve this purpose.
- mrtesthah 2y ago
  The purpose of the electoral college was to protect slavery.
  - p_j_w 2y ago
    For those who tend to fall for right wing talking points: “There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.” James Madison
- ckozlowski 2y ago
  I really wanted to believe that it would step up to the occasion, but twice now, it didn't. I don't say such lightly. I genuinely believe that up until very recently, all portents of doom aside, none of the prior elected presidents truly threatened the Republic. Not Bush, not Obama, none of them. Trump has been the exception. It the electoral college had been working as intended when it was envisioned by the Founders, it would have said "Yeah, I hear you want Trump, but, no." and voted in someone who might be better suited to implement his (rough) ideas. I'm not completely onboard with the notion of abolishing said college just yet, as I believe that the electoral system prevents a candidate from say, simply winning all of the urban areas, or exploiting some similar demographic divide that would could exist in a pure popular vote system. We're a union of states, not a single monolithic country. And while I might place my bets on a popular vote providing me the results I'd like a majority of the time, I believe broad representation that at least aids towards unity is better than an outright majority. We strive to avoid "tyranny of the majority". I don't have any easy or simple answers as to what might fix all of this. It may not even be something our "system" can fix, but rather just a lesson we as a country have to learn. Let's hope it's not as painful as prior instances.

IncreasePosts 2y ago

In that case, can't the next president just illegally imprison Elon or trump or whoever for their entire administration, ignore supreme court rulings or lawsuits or whatever, and then issue themselves a pardon at the end?

aredox 2y ago
Yes, and restrict the 2nd amendment by fiat, etc... But Democrats "play nice" and respect the law. Biden could have ordered Trump assassinated as soon as the Supreme Court invented the new interpretation that puts president on a piedestal, but he was never going to do it.
- InsideOutSanta 2y ago
  But Democrats "play nice" and respect the law. That's the problem with the argument that Republicans need to be careful about setting precedents that Democrats will then also abuse: no Republican believes that any Democratic president will actually do this. In fact, a lot of Republicans probably don't believe that there will ever be another Democratic president.
ethagnawl 2y ago
Based on last year's Supreme Court rulings and what Trump/DOGE have gotten away with thus far, it'd seem so. However, democrats insist on wearing kid gloves to a chainsaw massacre, so don't count on anything like that (or, more realistically, within a lesser order of magnitude) ever happening.

insane_dreamer 2y ago

Trump has explicitly said he is above the law: "He who saves the country cannot break the law" is what he posted. He pardoned people who stormed the capital, threatened gov officials, and killed police officers. Pardoning DOGE employees is child's play -- but it would never get that far because the DOJ and FBI have been purged of those not fully subservient to Trump.

redeeman 2y ago
> He pardoned people who stormed the capital you mean "He pardoned people who were guided in by the security staff working the capital building"?
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  I hope that's sarcasm, but if not please watch this[0] and explain how this looks like a guided tour [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Z3YBtzwmHk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Z3YBtzwmHk

cryptonector 2y ago

Yes, that is always true. It usually doesn't happen. Mainly because DoJ usually doesn't look. Congress can perform oversight and impeach if need be.