Trump / Musk (other than DOGE)

[sringwal]

Illegal and unconstitutional is up for debate.

The intent of the actions doesn't change based on how successful they are.

Please clarify

 

[ZenMode]

I never said that intent and success are directly related. I asked if you believed that people THINK Musk can be intimidated by such actions. I do not. Therefore I don't believe at all the intent is to intimidate or coerce.

And no, illegal and unconstitutional really isn't up for debate. Musk's power grab has clearly violated the plain text of the constitution in several ways.

I understand that you may not believe the intent is to intimidate. I think it's very likely that it is. Other posters on this forum, when talking about the goal of the vandalism, have have said:

"Maybe we just want an unelected self seeking moron and his crew of misfits out of our government?"

 

[ZenMode]

Please clarify

No court has ruled that Elon is doing anything unconstitutional or illegal. Elon is only making suggestions. Trump has to approve them. I don't see any blatantly unconstitutional or illegal, so far.

As far as the vandalism/terrorism goes....it seems very likely that those involved, as was mentioned by an posted, are trying to intimidate Elon to get him to stop what he's doing. The intent of the terrorists can be to intimidate Elon, even if he isn't actually intimidated.

The intent of the shooter in Philadelphia was to kill Trump. That is true despite the fact that he was unsuccessful.

 

[finesse]

No matter how often you misstate it, it's not terrorism. It's a crime but not against the general public, the government or the nation. It's more like Robin Hood trying to free the people from a malign influence from outside. Interesting that the Normans were Germanic also.

 

[Healing]

We're hurtling towards a day when folks get thrown in prison or "temporary detention facilities", under terrorism charges, for slapping a swastika sticker on a Tesla. magabots will absolutely rationalize it.

 

[bassydude77]

brings you to the part talking about why Teslas are not great.

Watched this with my son last weekend. Definitely surprising how poorly the Tesla performed.

 

[wmheel1287]

No court has ruled that Elon is doing anything unconstitutional or illegal. Elon is only making suggestions. Trump has to approve them. I don't see any blatantly unconstitutional or illegal, so far.

As far as the vandalism/terrorism goes....it seems very likely that those involved, as was mentioned by an posted, are trying to intimidate Elon to get him to stop what he's doing. The intent of the terrorists can be to intimidate Elon, even if he isn't actually intimidated.

The intent of the shooter in Philadelphia was to kill Trump. That is true despite the fact that he was unsuccessful.

Nobody has any intent to intimidate Elon Musk. Nobody. The man owns planet earth. Nobody has the power to intimidate him, control him, or direct him. That includes POTUS.

What's insane about you is that you're willing to see some attempt intimidate Elon when he's totally insulated but unwilling to recognize Trump's very real, very successful, and very blatant intimidation of everyone with whom he disagrees.

 

[farce©]

It seems the word “terrorism” is being tossed around pretty loosely, and frequently by the same people who never used the term to describe the Jan 6 insurrectionists.

This is dangerous since Trump and his cabal will label anyone they don’t like a “terrorist” and attempt to deal with them extrajudicially.

 

[superrific]

No court has ruled that Elon is doing anything unconstitutional or illegal.

This is patently untrue. Have you noticed all the decisions requiring employees to be reinstated? Money released? Etc. There are at probably half a dozen courts that have found Elon to have been doing illegal things.

The only reason that number isn't higher is that DOJ has been lying to the courts as to DOGE's structure. That will be coming to an end soon, as the courts are getting sick of the stalling act.

 

[superrific]

"Maybe we just want an unelected self seeking moron and his crew of misfits out of our government?"

Which is actually not intimidation. By your definition, everything is intimidation. Don't renew your season tickets? Trying to intimidate Hubert or Bubba. All protests are intimidation. I'm not talking about this any more. You've said your piece; you had that right; and what you have been saying has no mooring in the law and barely any mooring in reality. The conversation is over; you can continue to prattle if you choose.

 

[sringwal]

No court has ruled that Elon is doing anything unconstitutional or illegal. Elon is only making suggestions. Trump has to approve them. I don't see any blatantly unconstitutional or illegal, so far.

As far as the vandalism/terrorism goes....it seems very likely that those involved, as was mentioned by an posted, are trying to intimidate Elon to get him to stop what he's doing. The intent of the terrorists can be to intimidate Elon, even if he isn't actually intimidated.

The intent of the shooter in Philadelphia was to kill Trump. That is true despite the fact that he was unsuccessful.

Can you clarify what, specifically, you are referring to be “not unconstitutional”? Because there is a lot of potentially unconstitutional stuff being discussed in this thread regarding Trump and Musk’s actions.

 

[superrific]

Can you clarify what, specifically, you are referring to be “not unconstitutional”? Because there is a lot of potentially unconstitutional stuff being discussed in this thread regarding Trump and Musk’s actions.

I think he's right that the courts haven't *yet* found DOGE to be unconstitutional, but that's in large measure because of stonewalling. I would expect rulings on this coming later this spring. Courts aren't putting in preliminary injunctions that aren't supported by a factual record, so there will be evidentiary hearings and/or trials to determine who is calling the shots and how.

But illegal conduct -- everything DOGE has been doing is illegal, which is why there are so many court orders requiring it (well, technically the cabinet departments) to unwind and reverse.

 

[sringwal]

Which is fine, but he was writing that alongside discussion about Trump claiming he might send American citizens to prisons in El Salvador.

Let’s not lose the script here.

The legality of one of those things is still up for debate. The other should not even remotely be.

 

[ZenMode]

I think he's right that the courts haven't *yet* found DOGE to be unconstitutional, but that's in large measure because of stonewalling. I would expect rulings on this coming later this spring. Courts aren't putting in preliminary injunctions that aren't supported by a factual record, so there will be evidentiary hearings and/or trials to determine who is calling the shots and how.

But illegal conduct -- everything DOGE has been doing is illegal, which is why there are so many court orders requiring it (well, technically the cabinet departments) to unwind and reverse.

@sringwal as superrific mentioned, nothing has been deemed to be unconstitutional as of yet.

My understanding of the claim being made was that DOGE itself is unconstitutional. In other words, it is unconstitutional or illegal for Elon to be hands-on in government operations. Yes, specific actions, which again are approved by Trump and presumably only the responsibility of Trump, not Elon, have been initially determined to be illegal.

 

[superrific]

Which is fine, but he was writing that alongside discussion about Trump claiming he might send American citizens to prisons in El Salvador.

Let’s not lose the script here.

The legality of one of those things is still up for debate. The other should not even remotely be.

I don't think there's much debate over the legality of DOGE (it's illegal; the only debate is whether that can ever be proven).

Obviously extraordinary renditions are grossly illegal, and not just when applied to American citizens. Even in WWII, the government set up tribunals to determine if people qualified as enemies, and there was an appeals process as well. And that was during a period -- internment -- considered among the low points in our country's history.

 

[ZenMode]

@sringwal

I do think the anger directed at Elon is misplaced. He cannot do anything but make suggestions to Trump. He has no authority to enact change. It has to come from the president.

I also believe that the anger toward Elon is at least partially because Democrats, for nearly a decade, have been completely unable to bring down Trump, which includes murdering him, so they've moved on to a new target, hoping to get some traction.

 

[superrific]

@sringwal as superrific mentioned, nothing has been deemed to be unconstitutional as of yet.

My understanding of the claim being made was that DOGE itself is unconstitutional. In other words, it is unconstitutional or illegal for Elon to be hands-on in government operations. Yes, specific actions, which again are approved by Trump and presumably only the responsibility of Trump, not Elon, have been initially determined to be illegal.

Your understanding of the claim is, unsurprisingly, mistaken. It's not wholly mistaken, but the issue is whether Elon is operating as an officer of the US. Whether Trump "approves" in some abstract sense is not relevant. Trump approves of the determinations made by Rubio; but Rubio is still an officer and still has to be Senate confirmed.

If there was evidence that Musk was compiling all this data, presenting it to Trump, and Trump specifically signed off on it, that would be a defense for Musk. Do you really think that evidence exists? Do you really think that Trump is rifling through the wall of receipts? I'm pretty sure he is not. And note: that's only *a* defense. It is not necessarily dispositive. In fact, the law concerning who is and isn't an "officer" is quite confused as of late, because every legal doctrine the Trump court touches dies, and I'm not sure I could answer whether an adviser on steroids function as an officer. I'm quite confident that "presidential ratification" is not a complete defense and is not in itself dispositive.

 

[thebruinbleedstarheelblue]

@sringwal

I do think the anger directed at Elon is misplaced. He cannot do anything but make suggestions to Trump. He has no authority to enact change. It has to come from the president.

I also believe that the anger toward Elon is at least partially because Democrats, for nearly a decade, have been completely unable to bring down Trump, which includes murdering him, so they've moved on to a new target, hoping to get some traction.

Its not fair!

 

[BlooVooDoo]

@sringwal

I do think the anger directed at Elon is misplaced. He cannot do anything but make suggestions to Trump. He has no authority to enact change. It has to come from the president.

I also believe that the anger toward Elon is at least partially because Democrats, for nearly a decade, have been completely unable to bring down Trump, which includes murdering him, so they've moved on to a new target, hoping to get some traction.

 

[ZenMode]

Your understanding of the claim is, unsurprisingly, mistaken. It's not wholly mistaken, but the issue is whether Elon is operating as an officer of the US. Whether Trump "approves" in some abstract sense is not relevant. Trump approves of the determinations made by Rubio; but Rubio is still an officer and still has to be Senate confirmed.

If there was evidence that Musk was compiling all this data, presenting it to Trump, and Trump specifically signed off on it, that would be a defense for Musk. Do you really think that evidence exists? Do you really think that Trump is rifling through the wall of receipts? I'm pretty sure he is not. And note: that's only *a* defense. It is not necessarily dispositive. In fact, the law concerning who is and isn't an "officer" is quite confused as of late, because every legal doctrine the Trump court touches dies, and I'm not sure I could answer whether an adviser on steroids function as an officer. I'm quite confident that "presidential ratification" is not a complete defense and is not in itself dispositive.

Musk has zero authority on his own. Rubio, to some degree, has authority. Anything that is being done quite literally has to come from the executive branch otherwise why would anyone listen? If musk came to your house and told you to wash your car, you would tell him to fuck off because he literally has no authority.