4 ms·

Serious question - it seems that many of this Administrations activities are illegal in some way or the other. I know that government officials are shielded fro

Serious question - it seems that many of this Administrations activities are illegal in some way or the other. I know that government officials are shielded from a lot of actions so they can not be prosecuted. What actions that have been taken could actually be prosecuted? For example, I would have to assume that the ballroom demolition and build-out is illegal, there were $0 appropriated from Congress for this, and it doesn't seem like direct donations would be legal either. They are donations to the government and Congress has to appropriate that money too. NOTHING is going to happen while the Republicans control congress, period. What could be done when the next administration comes in? Not just about the ballroom, but the various other things like this pardon. What of these actions are prosecutable?

ksherlock 1y ago
"Well, when the president does it ... that means that it is not illegal" -- Richard Nixon (1977) "Well, when the president does it ... that means that it is not illegal" -- SCOTUS (2024) That leaves impeachment as the only legal remedy, which you've correctly identified as not a possibility with the current congress.
- shoemakersteve 1y ago
  His two previous impeachments don't seem to have slowed him down, so it seems unlikely that a third would be any different. Not to mention his felony conviction.
  - stetrain 1y ago
    The actual legal remedy is impeachment + conviction by the senate. That hasn't happened yet and seems unlikely unless he actually loses the support of his own party.
JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> it seems that many of this Administrations activities are illegal Many are. This one is not. The President has sweeping pardon powers. The solution is to strike the final phrase in Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution: “and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” [1]. There isn’t a place for one-man pardons in a republic. If the courts overreach, address it through legislation. (Even the imperium-obsessed Romans didn’t give their dictators, much less consuls, automatic pardon power. Caesar had to get special legislation to overrule the law.) With Presidents of both parties having so recently abused pardons, we may be in a place where a wave could pass a Constitutional amendment at the federal level, allowing it to be punted to the states. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_1:_Command_of_military;_Opinions_of_cabinet_secretaries;_Pardons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_Stat...
- thijson 1y ago
  It seems like whatever party gets into power, suddenly doesn't want to change the system they inherited. I remember Trudeau talking about eliminating first past the post in Canadian elections. But once he got into power he forgot about it. We need a way to vote for popular ideas via referendum at the federal level. That might get it through.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > seems like whatever party gets into power, suddenly doesn't want to change the system “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution” [1]. No President. No courts. Partisanship may work to our advantage in a divided government. What you would need, however, to reach two thirds is some members of the President’s party signing on. That could happen if the President is taking a dump in the polls, and the opposition looks likely (but isn’t yet assured) to gain the Presidency next term. > We need a way to vote for popular ideas via referendum at the federal level We need a plebiscite institution. But that can be done at state level for Constitutonal amendment approval. What we don’t want is direct democracy proposing amendments. California is a modern example of why republics are more stable than pure democracies, for anyone who forgot about Athens.
    - GuinansEyebrows 1y ago
      > What we don’t want is direct democracy proposing amendments. California is a modern example of why republics are more stable than pure democracies, for anyone who forgot about Athens. speak for yourself. the proof of the pudding is in the eating, as evidenced by the current political climate in the US.
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > the proof of the pudding is in the eating, as evidenced by the current political climate in the US We're not a direct democracy. You can't find proof of a pudding in a taco bowl. Direct democracies fail in self-reinforcing factionalism. "When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government...enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens." This has consistently happened across history, even in small direct democracies, it's one of the essential takeaways from the Athenian experiment [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Socrates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Socrates
onlyrealcuzzo 1y ago
> For example, I would have to assume that the ballroom demolition and build-out is illegal, there were $0 appropriated from Congress for this, and it doesn't seem like direct donations would be legal either. Maybe it's funded by the $230M he's demanding from the Department of Justice?
anigbrowl 1y ago
Assuming a normal election where the pendulum swings back and a normal transfer of power (no certain things), the outgoing President could pardon everyone from his chiefs of staff and cabinet officers to low-level federal law enforcement on the way out, and then the Democrats would wring their hands and say there's nothing they can do, bar some large scale political realignment where Republicans lost control of numerous state legislatures and governorships by a large margin, as well as in Congress. The best opportunity for a major restructuring of the legal environment would bea Constitutional Convention, but because Republicans have pursued this as a strategic goal for a while, Democrats invested all their relevant energies in being against it rather than developing any kind of strategy of their own, guaranteeing that they would get rolled if one actually took place because they went in with wholly defensive mindset and no plan to win. The fundamental flaw of the modern Democratic party is that it sees itself as a vehicle for competent management of the status quo, not a force for implementation of its voters' political aspirations. Thus is pays lip service of what its supporters want but operates to dampen and delay those same supporters whenever it gets into office in the name of continuity and responsibility. It operates on a combination of political rent seeking and fundamental conflict aversion. This is why I find myself increasingly impatient with self-styled moderates. Wanting to talk things out and compromise is good, but it only works when there is mutuality between counterparties. When the political opposition is indifferent to questions of truthfulness or corruption, moderation degrades into appeasement; moderates will sell out their own supporters in the name of peace and quiet, while giving away the strategic initiative over and over. The previous Trump administration engineered a mob overrunning Congress in an attempt to stay in power, and only failed because the Vice President declined to aid the scheme; a mistake the current one surely doesn't intend to repeat. The incoming administration spent a great deal of energy prosecuting every footsoldier they could find who set foot inside the Capitol, but shied away from going after the people who actually organized it. The results speak for themselves.
- garaetjjte 1y ago
  Why it is even accepted that pardons can be issued before conviction?
  - 1y ago
iLemming 1y ago
> NOTHING is going to happen while the Republicans control congress, period For anyone interested, for the past 30 years, Republicans dominated for 22 years in total, while Democrats only 8.
TrackerFF 1y ago
Some problems: Trump has already argued that if what he does falls under official acts, it's essentially absolute immunity. Trump also tried to argue that everything he did while during his presidency, was official acts. The supreme court agreed that if something is and official act, it is protected by absolute immunity. So my guess is that whatever Trump is doing now, he'll later argue was done as a president. Second, should be convicted of anything, the best shot is if it's a state law violation. I'm going to bet everything I own that Trump will either pardon himself, all his cronies, and/or when the time comes, step down and have Vance pardon him. So with that all federal crimes become pardoned. The supreme court has been very frank about this: The only, and I do mean the only mechanism is a successful impeachment. And even if Trump by some miracle is successfully impeached, we have no way of knowing how that will play out. The current supreme court majority are seemingly true believers of the unitary executive theory, so I'm guessing that with time - we'll just see Trump get more and more unchecked power. And since it's going to be done via the shadow docket, it'll likely be valid for Trump only. I think for all intents and purposes - and I don't mean to sound defeatist when I'm saying this - people should just accept the fact that Trump will be untouchable for the rest of his life.
WheatMillington 1y ago
This is not "good guys versus bad guys", the democratic party are not going to wash all this badness away. They have been guilty of basically the same things, even if at a lesser scale. Biden tried to appropriate billions outside of congress for student loan forgiveness. Political pardons have been a factor since the beginning of the US experiment. Pelosi has been using her position for self-enrichment in the open for decades now.
- covercash 1y ago
  We need them all gone. Anyone who makes "politician" a career is precisely the wrong type of person to be an elected official. It should never be about personal gain. Wipe them all out, implement campaign finance reform, set term limits, prioritize election security & availability... We need a reset.
9dev 1y ago
What about the acts of piracy (in the classic, seafaring way) and coldblooded murder of foreign citizens, carried out by US soldiers, claimed to be "drug dealers" (like that was a capital offence anyway)? I’m curious if any of the involved personell will ever be tried for that.
jpadkins 1y ago
> What of these actions are prosecutable? The President must first be impeached by both parts of Congress. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_Stat... The Senate runs a trial for the "high crimes" with the supreme court justice presiding. They can sentence a sitting president IIRC (or just remove him from office in which the DOJ can then prosecute normally).

ksherlock 1y ago

"Well, when the president does it ... that means that it is not illegal" -- Richard Nixon (1977) "Well, when the president does it ... that means that it is not illegal" -- SCOTUS (2024) That leaves impeachment as the only legal remedy, which you've correctly identified as not a possibility with the current congress.

shoemakersteve 1y ago
His two previous impeachments don't seem to have slowed him down, so it seems unlikely that a third would be any different. Not to mention his felony conviction.
- stetrain 1y ago
  The actual legal remedy is impeachment + conviction by the senate. That hasn't happened yet and seems unlikely unless he actually loses the support of his own party.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> it seems that many of this Administrations activities are illegal Many are. This one is not. The President has sweeping pardon powers. The solution is to strike the final phrase in Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution: “and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” [1]. There isn’t a place for one-man pardons in a republic. If the courts overreach, address it through legislation. (Even the imperium-obsessed Romans didn’t give their dictators, much less consuls, automatic pardon power. Caesar had to get special legislation to overrule the law.) With Presidents of both parties having so recently abused pardons, we may be in a place where a wave could pass a Constitutional amendment at the federal level, allowing it to be punted to the states. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_1:_Command_of_military;_Opinions_of_cabinet_secretaries;_Pardons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_Stat...

thijson 1y ago
It seems like whatever party gets into power, suddenly doesn't want to change the system they inherited. I remember Trudeau talking about eliminating first past the post in Canadian elections. But once he got into power he forgot about it. We need a way to vote for popular ideas via referendum at the federal level. That might get it through.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > seems like whatever party gets into power, suddenly doesn't want to change the system “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution” [1]. No President. No courts. Partisanship may work to our advantage in a divided government. What you would need, however, to reach two thirds is some members of the President’s party signing on. That could happen if the President is taking a dump in the polls, and the opposition looks likely (but isn’t yet assured) to gain the Presidency next term. > We need a way to vote for popular ideas via referendum at the federal level We need a plebiscite institution. But that can be done at state level for Constitutonal amendment approval. What we don’t want is direct democracy proposing amendments. California is a modern example of why republics are more stable than pure democracies, for anyone who forgot about Athens.
  - GuinansEyebrows 1y ago
    > What we don’t want is direct democracy proposing amendments. California is a modern example of why republics are more stable than pure democracies, for anyone who forgot about Athens. speak for yourself. the proof of the pudding is in the eating, as evidenced by the current political climate in the US.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > the proof of the pudding is in the eating, as evidenced by the current political climate in the US We're not a direct democracy. You can't find proof of a pudding in a taco bowl. Direct democracies fail in self-reinforcing factionalism. "When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government...enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens." This has consistently happened across history, even in small direct democracies, it's one of the essential takeaways from the Athenian experiment [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Socrates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Socrates

onlyrealcuzzo 1y ago

> For example, I would have to assume that the ballroom demolition and build-out is illegal, there were $0 appropriated from Congress for this, and it doesn't seem like direct donations would be legal either. Maybe it's funded by the $230M he's demanding from the Department of Justice?

anigbrowl 1y ago

Assuming a normal election where the pendulum swings back and a normal transfer of power (no certain things), the outgoing President could pardon everyone from his chiefs of staff and cabinet officers to low-level federal law enforcement on the way out, and then the Democrats would wring their hands and say there's nothing they can do, bar some large scale political realignment where Republicans lost control of numerous state legislatures and governorships by a large margin, as well as in Congress. The best opportunity for a major restructuring of the legal environment would bea Constitutional Convention, but because Republicans have pursued this as a strategic goal for a while, Democrats invested all their relevant energies in being against it rather than developing any kind of strategy of their own, guaranteeing that they would get rolled if one actually took place because they went in with wholly defensive mindset and no plan to win. The fundamental flaw of the modern Democratic party is that it sees itself as a vehicle for competent management of the status quo, not a force for implementation of its voters' political aspirations. Thus is pays lip service of what its supporters want but operates to dampen and delay those same supporters whenever it gets into office in the name of continuity and responsibility. It operates on a combination of political rent seeking and fundamental conflict aversion. This is why I find myself increasingly impatient with self-styled moderates. Wanting to talk things out and compromise is good, but it only works when there is mutuality between counterparties. When the political opposition is indifferent to questions of truthfulness or corruption, moderation degrades into appeasement; moderates will sell out their own supporters in the name of peace and quiet, while giving away the strategic initiative over and over. The previous Trump administration engineered a mob overrunning Congress in an attempt to stay in power, and only failed because the Vice President declined to aid the scheme; a mistake the current one surely doesn't intend to repeat. The incoming administration spent a great deal of energy prosecuting every footsoldier they could find who set foot inside the Capitol, but shied away from going after the people who actually organized it. The results speak for themselves.

garaetjjte 1y ago
Why it is even accepted that pardons can be issued before conviction?
- 1y ago

iLemming 1y ago

> NOTHING is going to happen while the Republicans control congress, period For anyone interested, for the past 30 years, Republicans dominated for 22 years in total, while Democrats only 8.

TrackerFF 1y ago

Some problems: Trump has already argued that if what he does falls under official acts, it's essentially absolute immunity. Trump also tried to argue that everything he did while during his presidency, was official acts. The supreme court agreed that if something is and official act, it is protected by absolute immunity. So my guess is that whatever Trump is doing now, he'll later argue was done as a president. Second, should be convicted of anything, the best shot is if it's a state law violation. I'm going to bet everything I own that Trump will either pardon himself, all his cronies, and/or when the time comes, step down and have Vance pardon him. So with that all federal crimes become pardoned. The supreme court has been very frank about this: The only, and I do mean the only mechanism is a successful impeachment. And even if Trump by some miracle is successfully impeached, we have no way of knowing how that will play out. The current supreme court majority are seemingly true believers of the unitary executive theory, so I'm guessing that with time - we'll just see Trump get more and more unchecked power. And since it's going to be done via the shadow docket, it'll likely be valid for Trump only. I think for all intents and purposes - and I don't mean to sound defeatist when I'm saying this - people should just accept the fact that Trump will be untouchable for the rest of his life.

WheatMillington 1y ago

This is not "good guys versus bad guys", the democratic party are not going to wash all this badness away. They have been guilty of basically the same things, even if at a lesser scale. Biden tried to appropriate billions outside of congress for student loan forgiveness. Political pardons have been a factor since the beginning of the US experiment. Pelosi has been using her position for self-enrichment in the open for decades now.

covercash 1y ago
We need them all gone. Anyone who makes "politician" a career is precisely the wrong type of person to be an elected official. It should never be about personal gain. Wipe them all out, implement campaign finance reform, set term limits, prioritize election security & availability... We need a reset.

9dev 1y ago

What about the acts of piracy (in the classic, seafaring way) and coldblooded murder of foreign citizens, carried out by US soldiers, claimed to be "drug dealers" (like that was a capital offence anyway)? I’m curious if any of the involved personell will ever be tried for that.

jpadkins 1y ago

> What of these actions are prosecutable? The President must first be impeached by both parts of Congress. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_Stat... The Senate runs a trial for the "high crimes" with the supreme court justice presiding. They can sentence a sitting president IIRC (or just remove him from office in which the DOJ can then prosecute normally).