[Hackers]

I do not care if it takes four years, the people cheering on Musk are ignorant to the fact that 1) Trump has no jurisdiction to dismantle USAID, making it an unofficial request outside of the powers of the White House, 2) unofficial acts are not protected by immunity, and 3) we will definitely fuck these bastards up in 2028.

Info on how presidential immunity doesn’t apply for actions not within their constitutional rights (of which many executive orders and other demands are not):
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/511...-test/amp/

The thought that triggered this post:



Y’all are TRIPPING if you think millions of people won’t rally behind a new trial for Trump and a new one for Musk the second we can, even as early as 2026 depending on House/Senate.

I’m not going to respond to anyone disagreeing because I listen to the lawyers and bipartisan politicians that have spoken on what’s constitutional and what’s not. This thread is just news, not a debate.

[jane]

everyone just needs a fat doink to smoke

[Hackers]

everyone just needs a fat doink to smoke

I think most of us are good

If Trump had a bourbon and Musk stopped taking ketamine then things might be better

[Epic]

He is rattled by drugs, and completely dissociated from reality. He is a man child, I don't consider him intelligent anymore. I suspect he will slip up and get himself in trouble, Trump too. Neither of them care anything about the average American.

[Hackers]

He is rattled by drugs, and completely dissociated from reality. He is a man child, I don't even consider him intelligent anymore. I suspect he will slip up and get himself in trouble, Trump too. Neither of them care anything about the average American.

Yeah i was thinking about this a lot last night.

Technically they’re just hanging themselves with their own rope.

What’s that saying about don’t warn your enemy when you see them making a mistake?
- rack up the felonies Musk, rack em up Trump! We comin lol

I know some users on here won’t agree with me, but I know based on conversations with prior big Dem donors that there is a concerted effort to 1) pick up the cases against Trump again in 2028 , 2) bring new cases against Trump based on his first month let alone what else he does, and 3) identify all employees who knowingly broke the law while responding to an unconstitutional request, because they won’t easily receive a pardon if Trump himself isn’t immune for specific acts.

Regardless of whether they are successful, that’s the plan!

This is why in my title I say he’ll be prosecuted, but don’t say if our gov will find him guilty. I don’t know how corrupt we’ll be in 4 years, but I do know there is a lot of chatter in some pretty important circles for how to consequence the Trump admin once they leave office. I think that’s fair and correct.

At end of the day, Trump and Musk are overstepping their constitutional rights, and breaking multiple laws to dismantle government programs.

[Flan.]

It'll be interesting to see how things unfold in the coming years. Lots of potential for change on the horizon.

[Foxxy Proxies Ltd]

I do not care if it takes four years, the people cheering on Musk are ignorant to the fact that 1) Trump has no jurisdiction to dismantle USAID, making it an unofficial request outside of the powers of the White House, 2) unofficial acts are not protected by immunity, and 3) we will definitely fuck these bastards up in 2028.

Info on how presidential immunity doesn’t apply for actions not within their constitutional rights (of which many executive orders and other demands are not):
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/511...-test/amp/

The thought that triggered this post:



Y’all are TRIPPING if you think millions of people won’t rally behind a new trial for Trump and a new one for Musk the second we can, even as early as 2026 depending on House/Senate.

I’m not going to respond to anyone disagreeing because I listen to the lawyers and bipartisan politicians that have spoken on what’s constitutional and what’s not. This thread is just news, not a debate.

Spoken like a tried and true Democrat. AOC is the opposite party and she's playing partisan politics here. She simply doesn't like oversight, which is typical of a democrat. Look at how Joe Biden raided the treasury like it was his personal piggy bank. And now a member of his own party is on the trail condemning the republican president. If this is not partisan politics Nodes, then what is?

[Hackers]

Spoken like a tried and true Democrat. AOC is the opposite party and she's playing partisan politics here. She simply doesn't like oversight, which is typical of a democrat. Look at how Joe Biden raided the treasury like it was his personal piggy bank. And now a member of his own party is on the trail condemning the republican president. If this is not partisan politics Nodes, then what is?

1. Not a democrat, somewhere closer to the middle than either side overall.

2. This is about law and order, not about politics.

3. Joe Biden didn't illegally raid the treasury, but you are free to cite your source on that.

4. Yes, condemning someone for illegal acts is bipartisan.

5. What's partisan about this post?

[Foxxy Proxies Ltd]

1. Not a democrat, somewhere closer to the middle than either side overall.

2. This is about law and order, not about politics.

3. Joe Biden didn't illegally raid the treasury, but you are free to cite your source on that.

4. Yes, condemning someone for illegal acts is bipartisan.

5. What's partisan about this post?

It is NOT an illegal act when it is an executive order. And as president, Trump does have the authority to audit the U.S. Government. Not sure where you went to school, but this is basic economics and fiscal accountability. And as president, Trump can appoint anyone he wants to perform that audit. And AOC is a democrat. Again, look up who these people are before commenting. She is playing partisan politics like she always does. This is nothing new from her and she's always been an attention seeker to try and further her own political career. But thank God she's only in the House and not in the Senate.

[Hackers]

It is NOT an illegal act when it is an executive order. And as president, Trump does have the authority to audit the U.S. Government. Not sure where you went to school, but this is basic economics and fiscal accountability. And as president, Trump can appoint anyone he wants to perform that audit. And AOC is a democrat. Again, look up who these people are before commenting. She is playing partisan politics like she always does. This is nothing new from her and she's always been an attention seeker to try and further her own political career. But thank God she's only in the House and not in the Senate.

1. Trump has 0 jurisdiction over USAID.

2. No executive order changes that.

3. It's a congress approved budget and program.

4. They need to push a law and have it passed / ratified if they want to do this.

5. This is what makes it an illegal act, not protected by presidential immunity as it's not a presidential act.

6. For many other issues you are correct.

7. But for USAID you are incorrect.

8. These are bipartisan statements from me. I don't write the laws.

[Foxxy Proxies Ltd]

1. Trump has 0 jurisdiction over USAID.

2. No executive order changes that.

3. It's a congress approved budget and program.

4. They need to push a law and have it passed / ratified if they want to do this.

5. This is what makes it an illegal act, not protected by presidential immunity as it's not a presidential act.

6. For many other issues you are correct.

7. But for USAID you are incorrect.

What part of being president do you not understand? It may be congress-funded like every other program in existence, but the president has the right to shut it down. How in the fuck do you consider this illegal? Just because a program is federally funded by congress does not mean the president cannot shut down departments deemed detrimental to the federal budget. Just as a president can create new departments, he can shut them down as well. Go back to school Nodes.

[Hackers]

What part of being president do you not understand? It may be congress-funded like every other program in existence, but the president has the right to shut it down. How in the fuck do you consider this illegal? Just because a program is federally funded by congress does not mean the president cannot shut down departments deemed detrimental to the federal budget. Just as a president can create new departments, he can shut them down as well. Go back to school Nodes.

I understand a lot.

Do you think being president gives you the right to do anything?
News flash: it does not.

This is as bipartisan as I can get man, nothing I've said is remotely democrat or republican.
It's just the law man.

Feel free to debunk me, but being ignorant to what the President can't do or can do is not my flaw, it's yours.
The US President does not have power over 100% of the country or government.

We have 3 branches of government. Go back to school kid, you clearly didn't pass 6th grade civics.

[Foxxy Proxies Ltd]

I understand a lot.

Do you think being president gives you the right to do anything?
News flash: it does not.

This is as bipartisan as I can get man, nothing I've said is remotely democrat or republican.
It's just the law man.

Feel free to debunk me, but being ignorant to what the President can't do or can do is not my flaw, it's yours.
The US President does not have power over 100% of the country or government.

We have 3 branches of government. Go back to school kid, you clearly didn't pass 6th grade civics.

Hmm, can you cite one written law that prohibits Trump from doing this?

[Hackers]

Hmm, can you cite one written law that prohibits Trump from doing this?

Sure

Here's the law passed by Congress in 1961 which can only be undone by a new law being passed, and is 100% not under the jurisdiction of any president:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMP...S-1071.pdf

Not sure what else to say.

They're just trying to dismantle something that they don't have the legal power for.

It's as simple as that.

----
Don't believe me?

You can believe the Supreme Court justice that was supported by Trump then:

“A combination of Article One and Article Two powers of the Congress have been interpreted very clearly by the US Supreme Court and by all of the congressional mandates that have come since then to understand that it is Congress’ ability to create and to abolish agencies and offices,” Kavanagh said.

It's so easy to Google for this to be honest, and I could keep going if you need some more help, but I'm not misleading anyone here.

Congress is protected by articles 1 & 2, giving them the sole power to create or abolish agencies and offices.
Trump does not have that power.

We have 3 branches:
- Trump runs the Executive branch
- He does not run the Legislative branch
- He does not run the Judicial branch

Trump can try to convince Congress to back his idea, and abolish USAID, but he cannot do it for them.
Any steps taken to forcefully dismantle USAID prior to Congressional approval is unconstitutional and not protected by presidential immunity.

This is why this is a bipartisan issue.
It's set in stone in the laws, and set in stone with the division of powers between the 3 branches of gov.
There's no debate, it's just news.

[Foxxy Proxies Ltd]

Sure

Here's the law passed by Congress in 1961 which can only be undone by a new law being passed, and is 100% not under the jurisdiction of any president:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMP...S-1071.pdf

Not sure what else to say.

They're just trying to dismantle something that they don't have the legal power for.

It's as simple as that.

----
Don't believe me?

You can believe the Supreme Court justice that was supported by Trump then:

It's so easy to Google for this to be honest, and I could keep going if you need some more help, but I'm not misleading anyone here.

Congress is protected by articles 1 & 2, giving them the sole power to create or abolish agencies and offices.
Trump does not have that power.

We have 3 branches:
- Trump runs the Executive branch
- He does not run the Legislative branch
- He does not run the Judicial branch

Trump can try to convince Congress to back his idea, and abolish USAID, but he cannot do it for them.
Any steps taken to forcefully dismantle USAID prior to Congressional approval is unconstitutional and not protected by presidential immunity.

This is why this is a bipartisan issue.
It's set in stone in the laws, and set in stone with the division of powers between the 3 branches of gov.
There's no debate, it's just news.

I didn't hear you bitching and moaning when Joe Biden used an executive order to clear his cracking smoking son from going to jail when it was clearly visible Hunter Biden was guilty as fuck and daddy used the office of the president to save his bastard son from going to jail. You weren't bitching about that injustice at all because it suited your agenda. You seem to only attack the republican side as an opportunist. What Trump is doing is trying to get federal spending under control because the United States is buried ass deep in debt and our currency is backed by nothing more than a fairy tale. There is no solvency in U.S. dollars. But you want to sit here and bitch and moan about USAID not going to your precious Ukraine when it is not the responsibility of U.S. taxpayers to pay for political wars started by politicians. I'm glad the Ukraine war is not being funded the way Joe Biden was doing it. The U.S. gets nothing out of that war except more debt added to our tally. And Joe Biden did nothing to rein in Russia. The woman running the Russian Central Bank outsmarted U.S. sanctions and therefore, the only thing the U.S. can do is try to threaten Russia some more, and add even more worthless sanctions that haven't done anything to stop the Ukraine war.

And Trump just did shut down USAID. And no one is gonna do anything about it either. Whatcha gonna do about it Nodes? Better start writing your congressman now.