Law be damned, Trump asserts unilateral control over executive branch, federal service (3 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]

The GOP has killed Democracy in broad daylight and its voters will rejoice...for a little while.

 

[Sendai]

They basically did it without even doing it. As Kagan points out, you don’t overturn established stare decisis in a shadow docket ruling.

I expect they will cobble a protection for the Federal Reserve based on the power of the commerce clause and the power to coin money.

 

[superchuck500]

I expect they will cobble a protection for the Federal Reserve based on the power of the commerce clause and the power to coin money.

They’re already suggesting a basis (not those things) - but not particularly persuasive.

 

[Sendai]

They’re already suggesting a basis (not those things) - but not particularly persuasive.

Well, they’re gonna have to cobble something.

 

[coldseat]

-------------------------
This case will bring the right-wing legal world closer than it ever could have imagined to a unitary executive, a previously unconceivably muscular presidency where the occupant of the Oval Office can reshape the entire executive branch in his image. Coupled with the Trump administration’s annihilation of the civil service, the executive branch will become something much closer to a fiefdom, an extension of presidential power with few institutional guardrails. This was a guiding light of Project 2025, a plan realized in the aftermath of the first administration, when civil servants and non-toadies in the executive branch proved frustrating obstacles to Trump’s vision.
------------------------

All I'm saying is that since the Supreme Court is allowing this to stand, the next Democratic president better go on a rampage to expel every MAGA sympathizer from government. Tit for tat bitches! Then look to do the same with the judiciary. As well as bring criminal charges against every MAGA administrator, MAGA state and MAGA organization they can. And also overturn every MAGA law that was passed. They want a war, lets go to forking war. I don't want any of this "let's work together" bullshirt. Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck the Republicans!!!!!

 

[DaveXA]

-------------------------
This case will bring the right-wing legal world closer than it ever could have imagined to a unitary executive, a previously unconceivably muscular presidency where the occupant of the Oval Office can reshape the entire executive branch in his image. Coupled with the Trump administration’s annihilation of the civil service, the executive branch will become something much closer to a fiefdom, an extension of presidential power with few institutional guardrails. This was a guiding light of Project 2025, a plan realized in the aftermath of the first administration, when civil servants and non-toadies in the executive branch proved frustrating obstacles to Trump’s vision.
------------------------

All I'm saying is that since the Supreme Court is allowing this to stand, the next Democratic president better go on a rampage to expel every MAGA sympathizer from government. Tit for tat bitches! Then look to do the same with the judiciary. As well as bring criminal charges against every MAGA administrator, MAGA state and MAGA organization they can. And also overturn every MAGA law that was passed. They want a war, lets go to forking war. I don't want any of this "let's work together" bullshirt. Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck the Republicans!!!!!

Pretty much where we're at now. They drove us to this point. What's good for the goose and all that.

 

[Optimus Prime]

-------------------------
This case will bring the right-wing legal world closer than it ever could have imagined to a unitary executive, a previously unconceivably muscular presidency where the occupant of the Oval Office can reshape the entire executive branch in his image. Coupled with the Trump administration’s annihilation of the civil service, the executive branch will become something much closer to a fiefdom, an extension of presidential power with few institutional guardrails. This was a guiding light of Project 2025, a plan realized in the aftermath of the first administration, when civil servants and non-toadies in the executive branch proved frustrating obstacles to Trump’s vision.
------------------------

All I'm saying is that since the Supreme Court is allowing this to stand, the next Democratic president better go on a rampage to expel every MAGA sympathizer from government. Tit for tat bitches! Then look to do the same with the judiciary. As well as bring criminal charges against every MAGA administrator, MAGA state and MAGA organization they can. And also overturn every MAGA law that was passed. They want a war, lets go to forking war. I don't want any of this "let's work together" bullshirt. Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck the Republicans!!!!!

We'll see if the Dems have the will, nerve and stomach for a full out war

 

[DaveXA]

We'll see if the Dems have the will, nerve and stomach for a full out war

MAGA definitely does. They've been hoping for it for a while now.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Amid “first buddy” Elon Musk’s ongoing public war against Media Matters for America, the Federal Trade Commission has opened an investigation into the liberal media watchdog over what it says could be illegal collusion with advertisers.

Essentially piggybacking on Musk’s lawsuits against Media Matters over the group’s research into hateful and antisemitic content on the mega-billionaire’s social media platform X, the FTC sent a letter to the organization requiring it to share communications and documents related to its research, as well as copies of its budgets.

“This demand is issued pursuant to Section 20 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 57b-1, in the course of an investigation to determine whether there is, has been, or may be a violation of any laws administered by the Federal Trade Commission by conduct, activities, or proposed action as described in Item 3,” the letter states.

Media Matters president Angelo Carusone said the formal government probe was an escalation of President Donald Trump’s efforts to punish his critics, which have resulted in executive orders against law firms, investigations into Democratic-aligned groups, and threats against media outlets.

“The Trump administration has been defined by naming right-wing media figures to key posts and abusing the power of the federal government to bully political opponents and silence critics,” Carusone said in a statement.

“It’s clear that’s exactly what’s happening here, given Media Matters’ history of holding those same figures to account. These threats won’t work; we remain steadfast to our mission,” he added.

The FTC declined to comment.

Earlier this spring, the president dismissed the last two remaining Democrats on the FTC, calling into question the commission’s independence. While the commission is supposed to be made up of five commissioners who serve seven-year terms, with no more than three from any political party, the FTC currently has just three members – all Republican.………

Elon Musk’s vendetta against Media Matters morphs into Trump administration probe

‘It’s clear that’s exactly what’s happening here, given Media Matters’ history of holding those same figures to account,’ Media Matters president Angelo Carusone said in reaction to the probe

www.independent.co.uk

 

[zztop]

going to put this here

Trump seeking $230 million from Justice Department over investigations into him, report says

Trump has submitted two complaints seeking compensation through an administrative claims process, according to the New York Times.

www.usatoday.com

 

[Sendai]

“In an unprecedented twist, Trump now leads the same federal government that formerly investigated him over the false election-loss claims.
The New York Times said Trump has filed two administrative claims, a step often taken before suing, seeking damages for alleged violations of his rights.
The first, submitted in late 2023, challenges the probe by the FBI and U.S. special counsel into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and possible links between the Trump campaign and Russia.”

“The second, filed in mid-2024, accuses the FBI of violating Trump's privacy during a search of Mar-a-Lago and accuses the Justice Department of malicious prosecution over classified documents.
Asked whether DOJ officials would face conflicts in reviewing such claims, Justice Department spokesman Chad Gilmartin said, "In any circumstance, all officials at the Department of Justice follow the guidance of career ethics officials."

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/trump-says-justice-department-owes-him-money-vows-donate-any-payout-charity-2025-10-21/

If this goes forward it definitely needs to end up in court.

 

[TampaJoe]

“In an unprecedented twist, Trump now leads the same federal government that formerly investigated him over the false election-loss claims.
The New York Times said Trump has filed two administrative claims, a step often taken before suing, seeking damages for alleged violations of his rights.
The first, submitted in late 2023, challenges the probe by the FBI and U.S. special counsel into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and possible links between the Trump campaign and Russia.”

“The second, filed in mid-2024, accuses the FBI of violating Trump's privacy during a search of Mar-a-Lago and accuses the Justice Department of malicious prosecution over classified documents.
Asked whether DOJ officials would face conflicts in reviewing such claims, Justice Department spokesman Chad Gilmartin said, "In any circumstance, all officials at the Department of Justice follow the guidance of career ethics officials."

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/trump-says-justice-department-owes-him-money-vows-donate-any-payout-charity-2025-10-21/

If this goes forward it definitely needs to end up in court.

He says it isn’t about the money. Well great. He should drop the claims and be about fashioning laws that actually and effectively prevent the weaponization of government institutions for political purposes.

 

[J-DONK]

“In an unprecedented twist, Trump now leads the same federal government that formerly investigated him over the false election-loss claims.
The New York Times said Trump has filed two administrative claims, a step often taken before suing, seeking damages for alleged violations of his rights.
The first, submitted in late 2023, challenges the probe by the FBI and U.S. special counsel into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and possible links between the Trump campaign and Russia.”

“The second, filed in mid-2024, accuses the FBI of violating Trump's privacy during a search of Mar-a-Lago and accuses the Justice Department of malicious prosecution over classified documents.
Asked whether DOJ officials would face conflicts in reviewing such claims, Justice Department spokesman Chad Gilmartin said, "In any circumstance, all officials at the Department of Justice follow the guidance of career ethics officials."

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/trump-says-justice-department-owes-him-money-vows-donate-any-payout-charity-2025-10-21/

If this goes forward it definitely needs to end up in court.

The first is investigation which the FBI is allowed to conduct, and the second was charges. He wasn't found not-guilty so I have no idea what innocent he can proclaim. The suit simply went away after the judge, and SC slow walked the case until the election.

It's just another drop in the bucket of the rampant corruption in his admin, and him personally.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

If this goes forward it definitely needs to end up in court.

It will go forward, but it it will NEVER end up in court because that is the last thing Trump and Bondi would like to see! If it would go to court, he will have to show that these cases were not warranted and the Government would have to defend its position. Bondi would have to display, for all to see, that she's more Trump's lawyer than the United States Attorney General. I foresee Bondi making multiple right-wing TV appearances falsely claiming misconduct against The United States and then giving trump his money.

Not that any of it would matter to GOP voters.

 

[Lapaz]

He says it isn’t about the money. Well great. He should drop the claims and be about fashioning laws that actually and effectively prevent the weaponization of government institutions for political purposes.

I agree that government weaponization should be illegal, but most of the indictments against Trump were justified, unlike the nonsense he is indicting upon. In particular, the Federal government indictments against Trump were justified and weren't weaponized against Trump. He could've been indicted at the beginning of the Biden administration for his involvement in the activities surrounding January 6th, but Merrick Garland didn't indict him until Trump forced Garland to take appoint Jack Smith since Trump kept lying about the classified document retention. Michael Cohen went to jail for the same thing Alvin Bragg indicted Trump for, so even if he had to stretch the use of the statute of limitation, I think it was justified to indict Trump for this. This was also a state prosecution.

The only one that I think could be justifiably called weaponization is the Leticia James' civil prosecution, even though he was guilty, but that is state, not federal. She was stupid to say she would go after Trump, and Trump was guilty, but I think that's the only one that shouldn't have been prosecuted.

There should be a law that if the government at any level (federal, state or local) loses a case, it should be required to pay the legal fees, up to a reasonable amount, of the defendant, which would dissuade governments from weaponized indictments.

 

[TampaJoe]

I agree that government weaponization should be illegal, but most of the indictments against Trump were justified, unlike the nonsense he is indicting upon. In particular, the Federal government indictments against Trump were justified and weren't weaponized against Trump. He could've been indicted at the beginning of the Biden administration for his involvement in the activities surrounding January 6th, but Merrick Garland didn't indict him until Trump forced Garland to take appoint Jack Smith since Trump kept lying about the classified document retention. Michael Cohen went to jail for the same thing Alvin Bragg indicted Trump for, so even if he had to stretch the use of the statute of limitation, I think it was justified to indict Trump for this. This was also a state prosecution.

The only one that I think could be justifiably called weaponization is the Leticia James' civil prosecution, even though he was guilty, but that is state, not federal. She was stupid to say she would go after Trump, and Trump was guilty, but I think that's the only one that shouldn't have been prosecuted.

There should be a law that if the government at any level (federal, state or local) loses a case, it should be required to pay the legal fees, up to a reasonable amount, of the defendant, which would dissuade governments from weaponized indictments.

I will agree that the NY cases against Trump were weaponization. I also think the documents case was weaponization. I think the case against Adam Schiff is political. The case against James would normally be political but Inguess what is good for the goose is good for the gander. She claimed Trump lied in a RE transactions. That is the charge against her.

 

[Booker]

The documents case? When he made off with boxes and boxes of classified materials he had no right to, that he repeatedly lied about not having, then finally gave some back saying it was everything while having knowingly moved and retained the rest before a warrant was issued to collect the the boxes? Good grief.

 

[MT15]

He says it isn’t about the money. Well great. He should drop the claims and be about fashioning laws that actually and effectively prevent the weaponization of government institutions for political purposes.

Why would he ever do that? Weaponizing the government is the only thing he has really done since his second term started. It’s all he cares about.

How could you type that without your fingers burning????