6 ms·

daily stories coming from the US are pretty crazy, FBI being used as a tool to try and revert something from under the previous administration. Feels like what

daily stories coming from the US are pretty crazy, FBI being used as a tool to try and revert something from under the previous administration. Feels like whatever balances and checks that should be in place to stop an autocracy are missing

Terr_ 2y ago
> to try and revert something from under the previous administration More-importantly, it's nowhere close to "normal" try-to-reverts, where one President tries to replace an equally "soft" policy put in place by another President. Here the newly-installed crooks are trying to deny a hard "money shall be spent on X" law passed by Congress, which is an unconstitutional attempt to seize the "power of the purse". Same legal-vibes as if Trump declared people on his Friends List were exempt from taxes.
- pjc50 2y ago
  > as if Trump declared people on his Friends List were exempt from taxes I'll pencil that in for April. After all, the president can direct who is and is not prosecuted..
  - tempodox 2y ago
    I was about to say, “don't give him any ideas”, but it probably wouldn't have mattered anyway.
  - chaos_agent 2y ago
    [dead]
- jagged-chisel 2y ago
  > … as if … This hasn’t happened already?
  - Terr_ 2y ago
    Not precisely: Trump fired so many people that the IRS can't check whether the rich are submitting fake paperwork to cheat on their taxes. Related outcome, but different in mechanics/constitutionality. [0] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/a-hamstrung-irs-is-a-gift-to-rich-tax-cheats-and-a-headache-for-honest-taxpayers/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/a-hamstrung-irs-is-a-gift...
- crypto_is_king 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - burkaman 2y ago
    I searched for a while and haven't been able to figure out what you're referring to, can you explain?
  - tremon 2y ago
    No he didn't. If he had, you would have posted a credible link.
    - kristjansson 2y ago
      I hate that I know this, but he probably half remembered this conservative brainworm[1], the reality of which is “recently founded weirdo groups claiming nonprofit status are sketchy, get audited more, and the right has more of them” [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy
kayodelycaon 2y ago
In theory, congress can remove a president. Start placing your bets! Does he get removed before he dissolves congress? :) I’m only partial joking. The check and balances in the country won’t work if half the population wants to replace democracy with theocracy.
- Alupis 2y ago
  Just because you are unhappy with how things are being governed doesn't mean democracy is failing, etc. We just had an election, and the current administration won. Midterms are just around the corner. This is exactly how things are supposed to work.
  - MostlyStable 2y ago
    Congress voluntarily giving up its powers to the executive branch [0] (unfortunately not new, but worsening), isn't exactly Democracy failing, but it's certainly a breakdown of the system of checks and balances upon which our Federal government was conceived, and is most definitely not "how things are supposed to work". [0] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/house-republicans-block-congress-ability-challenge-trump-tariffs-2025-03-11/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/house-republicans-block-con...
    - Alupis 2y ago
      Your particular article lays out exactly how Congress is approving (ie. balancing) the Executive branch's actions. Which means yes, working as intended. You just happen to disapprove. Majority of the other things people are freaking out about were done via Executive Order, and therefore can be undone by Executive Order. Smart people have been warning about that for nearly two decades. Now that some people happen to not like what's being undone, it's suddenly a crisis. News at 11...
      - cyberax 2y ago
        The money were NOT allocated by an Executive Order. They were properly apportioned through Congress.
accrual 2y ago
I hope it leads to stronger checks and balances.
not2b 2y ago
A president can revert an executive order from the previous administration. But the Inflation Reduction Act is a law, not an executive order. If Trump doesn't like it, he can get Congress to repeal it. But he isn't the king. The constitution requires that the president "take care that the laws be faithfully executed". It isn't fraud when funds that were allocated by the act were distributed according to the act. If someone cheated then by all means they can bring charges if they have any evidence, which they apparently do not.
- caycep 2y ago
  the problem is there has to be credible enforcement. Either a credible threat of impeachment, or a separate branch of Us Marshals that works directly for the judiciary or something.
- roamerz 2y ago
  >>The constitution requires that the president "take care that the laws be faithfully executed". You mean like Biden enforcing our border laws?
  - apical_dendrite 2y ago
    Most of us learn in kindergarten that "but he got to do it" is not a valid excuse for bad behavior. (This should not be taken as accepting your premise)
  - Aloisius 2y ago
    Em. Deportations increased substantially under Biden. That said, laws generally permit some leeway to the executive to set spending priorities/focus. It can be pretty limited since Congress tends to specify what department and sometimes program money must be spent on, but it still it allows for things like deciding you're going to prosecute more drug dealers even though they're long shot cases rather than easier to win fraud causes. This is done at all levels of government. Shifting spending priorities as the law allows, though, is rather different from actively breaking the law.
    - 2y ago
chaos_agent 2y ago
[dead]
salynchnew 2y ago
Yeah, I thought it'd be a cold day in hell before I saw the FBI going after Habitat for Humanity and the United Way.

Terr_ 2y ago

> to try and revert something from under the previous administration More-importantly, it's nowhere close to "normal" try-to-reverts, where one President tries to replace an equally "soft" policy put in place by another President. Here the newly-installed crooks are trying to deny a hard "money shall be spent on X" law passed by Congress, which is an unconstitutional attempt to seize the "power of the purse". Same legal-vibes as if Trump declared people on his Friends List were exempt from taxes.

pjc50 2y ago
> as if Trump declared people on his Friends List were exempt from taxes I'll pencil that in for April. After all, the president can direct who is and is not prosecuted..
- tempodox 2y ago
  I was about to say, “don't give him any ideas”, but it probably wouldn't have mattered anyway.
- chaos_agent 2y ago
  [dead]
jagged-chisel 2y ago
> … as if … This hasn’t happened already?
- Terr_ 2y ago
  Not precisely: Trump fired so many people that the IRS can't check whether the rich are submitting fake paperwork to cheat on their taxes. Related outcome, but different in mechanics/constitutionality. [0] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/a-hamstrung-irs-is-a-gift-to-rich-tax-cheats-and-a-headache-for-honest-taxpayers/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/a-hamstrung-irs-is-a-gift...
crypto_is_king 2y ago
[flagged]
- burkaman 2y ago
  I searched for a while and haven't been able to figure out what you're referring to, can you explain?
- tremon 2y ago
  No he didn't. If he had, you would have posted a credible link.
  - kristjansson 2y ago
    I hate that I know this, but he probably half remembered this conservative brainworm[1], the reality of which is “recently founded weirdo groups claiming nonprofit status are sketchy, get audited more, and the right has more of them” [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy

kayodelycaon 2y ago

In theory, congress can remove a president. Start placing your bets! Does he get removed before he dissolves congress? :) I’m only partial joking. The check and balances in the country won’t work if half the population wants to replace democracy with theocracy.

Alupis 2y ago
Just because you are unhappy with how things are being governed doesn't mean democracy is failing, etc. We just had an election, and the current administration won. Midterms are just around the corner. This is exactly how things are supposed to work.
- MostlyStable 2y ago
  Congress voluntarily giving up its powers to the executive branch [0] (unfortunately not new, but worsening), isn't exactly Democracy failing, but it's certainly a breakdown of the system of checks and balances upon which our Federal government was conceived, and is most definitely not "how things are supposed to work". [0] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/house-republicans-block-congress-ability-challenge-trump-tariffs-2025-03-11/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/house-republicans-block-con...
  - Alupis 2y ago
    Your particular article lays out exactly how Congress is approving (ie. balancing) the Executive branch's actions. Which means yes, working as intended. You just happen to disapprove. Majority of the other things people are freaking out about were done via Executive Order, and therefore can be undone by Executive Order. Smart people have been warning about that for nearly two decades. Now that some people happen to not like what's being undone, it's suddenly a crisis. News at 11...
    - cyberax 2y ago
      The money were NOT allocated by an Executive Order. They were properly apportioned through Congress.

accrual 2y ago

I hope it leads to stronger checks and balances.

not2b 2y ago

A president can revert an executive order from the previous administration. But the Inflation Reduction Act is a law, not an executive order. If Trump doesn't like it, he can get Congress to repeal it. But he isn't the king. The constitution requires that the president "take care that the laws be faithfully executed". It isn't fraud when funds that were allocated by the act were distributed according to the act. If someone cheated then by all means they can bring charges if they have any evidence, which they apparently do not.

caycep 2y ago
the problem is there has to be credible enforcement. Either a credible threat of impeachment, or a separate branch of Us Marshals that works directly for the judiciary or something.
roamerz 2y ago
>>The constitution requires that the president "take care that the laws be faithfully executed". You mean like Biden enforcing our border laws?
- apical_dendrite 2y ago
  Most of us learn in kindergarten that "but he got to do it" is not a valid excuse for bad behavior. (This should not be taken as accepting your premise)
- Aloisius 2y ago
  Em. Deportations increased substantially under Biden. That said, laws generally permit some leeway to the executive to set spending priorities/focus. It can be pretty limited since Congress tends to specify what department and sometimes program money must be spent on, but it still it allows for things like deciding you're going to prosecute more drug dealers even though they're long shot cases rather than easier to win fraud causes. This is done at all levels of government. Shifting spending priorities as the law allows, though, is rather different from actively breaking the law.
  - 2y ago

chaos_agent 2y ago

[dead]

salynchnew 2y ago

Yeah, I thought it'd be a cold day in hell before I saw the FBI going after Habitat for Humanity and the United Way.