Law be damned, Trump asserts unilateral control over executive branch, federal service (15 Viewers)

[superchuck500]

Following the Project 2025 playbook, in the last week, Trump and his newly installed loyalists have moved to (1) dismiss federal officials deemed unreliable to do his bidding (including 17 inspectors general) - many of which have protections from arbitrary dismissal, (2) freeze all science and public health activity until he can wrest full control, (3) freeze all federal assistance and grant activity deemed inconsistent with Trump's agenda, and (4) moved to terminate all federal employee telework and DEI programs.

The problem is much of this is controlled by federal law and not subject to sudden and complete change by the president through executive order. Most notably is the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 that simply codifies what is the constitutional allocation of resources where Congress appropriates money to the executive branch for a specific purpose, the executive branch must carry out that statutory purpose. This is indeed a constitutional crisis and even if Congress abdicates to Trump by acquiescing, the courts must still apply the law - or rule it unconstitutional.

And meanwhile the architect of much of this unlawful action is Russell Vought, Trump’s OMB nominee who the Senate appears ready to confirm.

120. The Impoundment Crisis of 2025

The Trump administration's Monday spending freeze is likely to provoke a crisis over the constitutionality of "impoundment"—one that the justices could well have to resolve *very* soon.

www.stevevladeck.com

 

[Optimus Prime]

There isn't anyway to blame Democrats. They are completely out of power.

You’re selling the GOP short

They’ll absolutely find a way

It won’t make any sense and will fall apart under any scrutiny

But they’ll push it, Fox News will promote it and their base will buy it

 

[DaveXA]

It's wild, because the security officials were absolutely in the right. The DOGE folks didn't have the proper security clearances to access the information. Seems like a simple enough fix for the admin... ok, get those folks the right clearance or change who is asking for the info.

Chuck, what's the recourse for violating access to sensitive information? Isnt it criminal?

There absolutely can be criminal penalties for accessing classified documents without the proper clearances. It depends on the level of security clearance, how the rules were violated, and the motive. Also, how much it damages national security is a key component.

Also, you don't just have to have the commensurate level of security clearance, you also must have a need to know.

I doubt these idiots at DOGE have a clue what they're doing, and rules don't matter to them.

 

[DaveXA]

The President can grant a security clearance to anyone.

No sheet Sherlock. Tell us something we don't already know.

 

[DaveXA]

There absolutely can be criminal penalties for accessing classified documents without the proper clearances. It depends on the level of security clearance, how the rules were violated, and the motive. Also, how much it damages national security is a key component.

Also, you don't just have to have the commensurate level of security clearance, you also must have a need to know.

I doubt these idiots at DOGE have a clue what they're doing, and rules don't matter to them.

And of course, as SC stated, it's all moot if violators aren't prosecuted.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

The President can grant a security clearance to anyone.

A process that POTUS doesn't have a hands-on say on who or how an individual is granted a security clearance, is now being handed out by decree and that doesn't even concern you.

No wonder 4th Amendment Rights are being violated on a daily basis in this country.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

No sheet Sherlock. Tell us something we don't already know.

Just because he can do it, doesn't mean he should! But hey, I'm just a naïve, law abiding citizen that expect our leaders to abide by those same laws!

I guess they'll not even worry about the "need to know" clause that come along with their "security clearances".

 

[DaveXA]

No sheet Sherlock. Tell us something we don't already know.

And let's be clear, he's doing it by way of executive fiat, not any sort of actual following the law and doing due diligence. SCOTUS was clear, they won't hold him accountable for stuff like that.

 

[DaveXA]

Just because he can do it, doesn't mean he should! But hey, I'm just a naïve, law abiding citizen that expect our leaders to abide by those same laws!

I guess they'll not even worry about the "need to know" clause that come along with their "security clearances".

No doubt.

 

[superchuck500]

Just because he can do it, doesn't mean he should! But hey, I'm just a naïve, law abiding citizen that expect our leaders to abide by those same laws!

I guess they'll not even worry about the "need to know" clause that come along with their "security clearances".

It also doesn’t mean that he actually did it in this case.

 

[DaveXA]

It also doesn’t mean that he actually did it in this case.

That was my first thought. Did he actually go through the trouble of granting the clearances first? I'm skeptical.

 

[superchuck500]

 

[MT15]

Only if one of his lackey’s prepared the paperwork and pushed it at him. And it doesn’t seem to me he has anyone around him this time who cares or knows about proper procedures.

He admitted he didn’t know they had taken down websites didn’t he? He just plays golf and flaps his jaws. Nothing further than that.

 

[Sendai]

That was my first thought. Did he actually go through the trouble of granting the clearances first? I'm skeptical.

I doubt he followed any procedure. When musk was stymied then he acted. And musk and company got access. It’s definitely shoot from the hip. Definitely not what I prefer. But, not surprised. And not going to loose sleep.

 

[DaveXA]

I doubt he followed any procedure. When musk was stymied then he acted. And musk and company got access. It’s definitely shoot from the hip. Definitely not what I prefer. But, not surprised. And not going to loose sleep.

You're not gonna lose sleep over the worst Constitutional crisis since I don't even know when. What compares to an unelected-unappointed oligarch taking over the US Treasury? Man you're naive af.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Definitely not what I prefer. But, not surprised. And not going to loose sleep.

They are counting on you!

 

[MT15]

You're not gonna lose sleep over the worst Constitutional crisis since I don't even know when. What compares to an unelected-unappointed oligarch taking over the US Treasury? Man you're naive af.

It’s not naïveté, IMO. It’s most likely alignment with the goals.