4 ms·

There was a guy in the comments of the first article on this topic, who claimed to be an expert on this law and was adamant that the decision by the Trump admin

There was a guy in the comments of the first article on this topic, who claimed to be an expert on this law and was adamant that the decision by the Trump admin was perfectly legal. Not just for accountability sake, but if that gentleman could come back in here and outline what he thinks is going on that would be quite interesting.

swingboy 1mo ago
It’s possible this could go before multiple judges who won’t all agree with this particular one.
- goatlover 1mo ago
  It's also possible the Trump admin has people commenting online.
  - bruce511 1mo ago
    They don't need to be part of the administration. More than 50% of voters voted for Trump. Even today >30% (of everyone) think he's doing a good job. (Ie about equal to the voters in absolute number terms). Lots of people believe eat he is doing is legal simply because he is doing it.
    - inigyou 1mo ago
      Well it is. They literally made a law saying whatever the president does is legal because he's the president.
      - abjhn 1mo ago
        [dead]
    - jcranmer 1mo ago
      > More than 50% of voters voted for Trump. Only 49.8% voted for Trump in the 2024 US election.
- protocolture 1mo ago
  Yeah but this was supposedly "Cut and dry" and no one familiar with the law could possibly mistake it, and it was all media manipulation that made it seem like there was a case where there wasnt one.
RoloBaron 1mo ago
You can hear the Department of War's pov on this controversy from the All-In Podcast here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzwRflcLPAA&t=2479s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzwRflcLPAA&t=2479s Super interesting pov from the person who recommended the supply risk designation.