Law be damned, Trump asserts unilateral control over executive branch, federal service (8 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

 

[cuddlemonkey]

As I said, I have NO problem with someone questioning government spending. I have NO problem with it being done by someone outside of government. I DO think that Congress has oversight responsibility over the process so I have NO problem with Musk testifying under oath as to the process and the controls around the process.

I have done this kind of work in business. Rarely is it done where the folks who benefit from the process under the microscope don’t raise some objections. It is unnerving to have someone question what you do. But it needs to be done.

Yet the party you support and vote for is the one abdicating their duties to perform this oversight, and you are still in here carrying water for them. You are either the single most clueless person in the country or you are a liar. There is no other option.

 

[TampaJoe]

I don't believe that for a second.

I didn't claim to be. Reading is hard I guess.

This is your post word for word.

“And obviously you don't care who I work for. Seems you'd rather follow an idiot than an expert.”

So which are you? If I misinterpreted this comment I withdraw my remark. I’m not sure what you meant and now I no longer care.

 

[Sendai]

We have been presenting reasonable objections - the young guys haven’t been vetted or investigated, there are massive conflicts of interest when Musk has all this access to his competitor’s information, Musk himself boasted that he canceled payments to a Lutheran Charity in retaliation.

Musk has also just publicly called for the WSJ reporter who discovered his young guy’s racist past to be fired. If he is a special government employee, that violates the First Amendment.

And yet, you and Sendai are still defending this as somehow normal. What would it take for you to be concerned about what is happening?

I’m not defending this as normal. First time I’ve seen anything like this. I’ve yet to see anything that says it’s not permitted and I’m curious as to what this deep dive will yield.

A reply to Ron Widen from Treasury.

https://prod-i.a.dj.com/public/resources/documents/treasury-doge-letter-02-04-2024.pdf

Seems that there is vetting.

 

[DaveXA]

This is your post word for word.

“And obviously you don't care who I work for. Seems you'd rather follow an idiot than an expert.”

So which are you? If I misinterpreted this comment I withdraw my remark. I’m not sure what you meant and now I no longer care.

You misinterpreted my comment. The experts I was referring to just a few posts earlier are the people I work with who are in positions of oversight. You know, the ones who take their jobs seriously.

But since you no longer care...

 

[TampaJoe]

I’m not defending this as normal. First time I’ve seen anything like this. I’ve yet to see anything that says it’s not permitted and I’m curious as to what this deep dive will yield.

A reply to Ron Widen from Treasury.

https://prod-i.a.dj.com/public/resources/documents/treasury-doge-letter-02-04-2024.pdf

Seems that there is vetting.

Sounds about right. Still I have no problem with people questioning the process. I still think testimony and oversight by the legislature is warranted. If someone has evidence to the contrary, perhaps they should obtain sworn affidavits and present evidence to the appropriate committee or under the whistleblower statutes.

 

[DaveXA]

Sounds about right. Still I have no problem with people questioning the process. I still think testimony and oversight by the legislature is warranted. If someone has evidence to the contrary, perhaps they should obtain sworn affidavits and present evidence to the appropriate committee or under the whistleblower statutes.

We don't agree on much, but I'm with you that we all should be questioning the process. This is unprecedented, and to have the richest person in the world, a ketamine addict and a bigger narcissist than Trump running around from agency to agency under the guise of DOGE should make everyone, regardless of conservative or liberal very nervous.

Someone with that kind of power along with the power of the President behind him makes pushing back very risky. You're putting your career and even life on the line by exposing what would be a perceived threat to their power.

 

[MT15]

What we see here is your failure in reading comprehension. From time to time is not “all the time”. And I said that ethical complaints or conflict of interest complaints were either normal or happened all the time. So either you have trouble reading or you are deliberately distorting what I post.

Having done this sort of work as a professional representing both debtors and creditors and working from the inside, I can tell you from experience what gets reported in the press and on the internet is often inaccurate. I have seen it more than once. So until you start getting people on the record under oath, I view much of this as heresay and unreliable. I don’t minimize anything but if you distort what I post why should I believe you would be anymore accurate on anything else?

Because I provide links and quotes.

So you are telling me that in the business world, when a company has an audit - they hire an outside firm to look at their books - they hire people without vetting them, people with ethical issues or a conflict of interest such as ownership of direct competitors?

I don’t believe you. You will need to provide me an example of this happening. Otherwise, IMO, you’re just minimizing what is going on.

For example - agencies created by legislation cannot be closed by executive decree, the way I understand it. This is an egregious overstep in authority. But in this case we don’t even have executive decree - just an unelected billionaire and flunkies who are unvetted and could quite possibly be national security risks - doing whatever the hell they want to do, law be damned.

Quit pretending this is merely some sort of audit and that any rules are being followed.