4 ms·

Aren't there safeguards against such obvious forms of conflict of interest?

encomiast 1y ago
Safeguards only matter when there are people and institutions to enforce them. Remember all those people they fired? All part of the plan.
- reactordev 1y ago
  This. Everyone is waiting for “the day” to come but they were all laid off back in April. This is why no one is stopping this. Everyone is doing it.
- refurb 1y ago
  Which people specifically. Can you provide a source?
  - encomiast 1y ago
    Here’s a small example. There are more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_dismissals_of_U.S._inspectors_general https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_dismissals_of_U.S._inspec...
    - refurb 1y ago
      Seems like a long history of firing IGs instated in prior administrations. https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/03/watchdog-report-cuffari-biden-00182414 https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/03/watchdog-report-cuf...
      - encomiast 1y ago
        The article you posted is about a truly damning investigation into Joseph Cuffari. Cuffari is STILL the IG at DHS. He was not fired -- sheesh: https://www.oig.dhs.gov/about/MeetTheIG https://www.oig.dhs.gov/about/MeetTheIG
        refurb 1y ago
        So it's only ok for one party to fire IGs?
        encomiast 1y ago
        Who said anything about parties? And who said anything about it being okay to fire IGs (especially illegally). Which IG did anyone say it was okay to fire? The article you posted to support this idea wasn’t even fired! He’s still in the job. It seems that you are primarily interested in polarizing this discussion. I’ll leave you to that. I’m out.
orwin 1y ago
The senate?
globalise83 1y ago
There were, but it turns out that the moral fortitude required to defend them was just a figment of the national imagination.
- heresie-dabord 1y ago
  The mid-term elections will put said moral fortitude to a final test. US exceptionalism and supposed moral superiority are now laid bare for everyone and all of history to see.
  - jimmydoe 1y ago
    Not sure what to see in mid term. American people chose Trump, knowing he’s corrupted. They will do so again and again. The only thing may led to their hesitation is trump and allies are so incompetent that they can’t even pretend the economy is ok, for which I think we are not there yet.
mattmaroon 1y ago
Actually no, not really. The safeguards were mostly customs, not laws, so they can be safely ignored. And what few laws there are, like the emoluments clause, seem to be entirely unenforceable because it’s not clear anyone has standing to bring a suit and the president presumably isn’t going to enforce the law on himself. What we’ve learned in the last twelve years is our democracy was built on the good will of the people we elected, and when we stopped demanding the good will with our votes it was no longer guaranteed.
- kayodelycaon 1y ago
  Congress has the power to remove the President. That’s how this was supposed to work. IF the Supreme Court rules only Congress can impose the current tariffs, Trump will have a much harder time taking over. If the Supreme Court is also complicit, all three branches under control of a single president.
  - mattmaroon 1y ago
    Congress has a lot of power here even outside of impeachment, which was always meant to be the nuclear option. The tariff power is theirs, they delegated it to the President in certain situations willingly, like national emergency. The Supreme Court will not rule that they cannot do that, they surely can, but they may rule that there is not a national emergency. (I think congressional Republicans hope for that, it gets them out of the situation without causing them to be opposed to Trump.) The Supreme Court is never “complicit”, they call balls and strikes. Most complaints about the court are actually really complaints about our laws or constitution. For instance, I am as pro choice as anyone, but the Supreme Court definitely made the right call overturning Roe as the constitution clearly does not have a right to privacy, does not give the federal government the right to regulate abortion, and clearly delegates that power to the state. I do not like that (I’d support a right to privacy amendment wholeheartedly) but it is correct. Congress in this case is also functioning more or less as intended. The whole point of democracy is that the government should reflect the will of the voters. If the voters overwhelmingly chose Trump, to the point where they’ll vote for whatever person he endorses in Congressional primaries, this is the will of the people. I don’t understand it still, but this is the electorate getting what they wanted. (That may change very much in a year.)
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

Safeguards only matter when there are people and institutions to enforce them. Remember all those people they fired? All part of the plan.

reactordev 1y ago
This. Everyone is waiting for “the day” to come but they were all laid off back in April. This is why no one is stopping this. Everyone is doing it.
refurb 1y ago
Which people specifically. Can you provide a source?
- encomiast 1y ago
  Here’s a small example. There are more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_dismissals_of_U.S._inspectors_general https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_dismissals_of_U.S._inspec...
  - refurb 1y ago
    Seems like a long history of firing IGs instated in prior administrations. https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/03/watchdog-report-cuffari-biden-00182414 https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/03/watchdog-report-cuf...
    - encomiast 1y ago
      The article you posted is about a truly damning investigation into Joseph Cuffari. Cuffari is STILL the IG at DHS. He was not fired -- sheesh: https://www.oig.dhs.gov/about/MeetTheIG https://www.oig.dhs.gov/about/MeetTheIG
      - refurb 1y ago
        So it's only ok for one party to fire IGs?
        encomiast 1y ago
        Who said anything about parties? And who said anything about it being okay to fire IGs (especially illegally). Which IG did anyone say it was okay to fire? The article you posted to support this idea wasn’t even fired! He’s still in the job. It seems that you are primarily interested in polarizing this discussion. I’ll leave you to that. I’m out.

orwin 1y ago

The senate?

globalise83 1y ago

There were, but it turns out that the moral fortitude required to defend them was just a figment of the national imagination.

heresie-dabord 1y ago
The mid-term elections will put said moral fortitude to a final test. US exceptionalism and supposed moral superiority are now laid bare for everyone and all of history to see.
- jimmydoe 1y ago
  Not sure what to see in mid term. American people chose Trump, knowing he’s corrupted. They will do so again and again. The only thing may led to their hesitation is trump and allies are so incompetent that they can’t even pretend the economy is ok, for which I think we are not there yet.

mattmaroon 1y ago

Actually no, not really. The safeguards were mostly customs, not laws, so they can be safely ignored. And what few laws there are, like the emoluments clause, seem to be entirely unenforceable because it’s not clear anyone has standing to bring a suit and the president presumably isn’t going to enforce the law on himself. What we’ve learned in the last twelve years is our democracy was built on the good will of the people we elected, and when we stopped demanding the good will with our votes it was no longer guaranteed.

kayodelycaon 1y ago
Congress has the power to remove the President. That’s how this was supposed to work. IF the Supreme Court rules only Congress can impose the current tariffs, Trump will have a much harder time taking over. If the Supreme Court is also complicit, all three branches under control of a single president.
- mattmaroon 1y ago
  Congress has a lot of power here even outside of impeachment, which was always meant to be the nuclear option. The tariff power is theirs, they delegated it to the President in certain situations willingly, like national emergency. The Supreme Court will not rule that they cannot do that, they surely can, but they may rule that there is not a national emergency. (I think congressional Republicans hope for that, it gets them out of the situation without causing them to be opposed to Trump.) The Supreme Court is never “complicit”, they call balls and strikes. Most complaints about the court are actually really complaints about our laws or constitution. For instance, I am as pro choice as anyone, but the Supreme Court definitely made the right call overturning Roe as the constitution clearly does not have a right to privacy, does not give the federal government the right to regulate abortion, and clearly delegates that power to the state. I do not like that (I’d support a right to privacy amendment wholeheartedly) but it is correct. Congress in this case is also functioning more or less as intended. The whole point of democracy is that the government should reflect the will of the voters. If the voters overwhelmingly chose Trump, to the point where they’ll vote for whatever person he endorses in Congressional primaries, this is the will of the people. I don’t understand it still, but this is the electorate getting what they wanted. (That may change very much in a year.)

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]