Trump / Musk (other than DOGE)

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 12K
  • Views: 598K
  • Politics 
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.
 
ZenMode said:
No court has ruled that Elon is doing anything unconstitutional or illegal.
Click to expand...
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.
 
ZenMode said:
"Maybe we just want an unelected self seeking moron and his crew of misfits out of our government?"
Click to expand...
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.
 
ZenMode said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
sringwal said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
superrific said:
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.
Click to expand...
@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.
 
sringwal said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
@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 said:
@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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
ZenMode said:
@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.
Click to expand...
Its not fair!
 
ZenMode said:
@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.
Click to expand...
chris crocker crying GIF
 
superrific said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Lando said:
Are we talking intimidation like shooting cans of Bud Light to let trans people know you will murder them?
Click to expand...
Buying cans of Bud Light and shooting them on your own property does not compare to firebombing Teslas you don’t own, firebombing showrooms (putting lives in danger)or randomly keying private property. At least four of the Tesla Terrorists are trans btw.
 
Ramrouser said:
Buying cans of Bud Light and shooting them on your own property does not compare to firebombing Teslas you don’t own, firebombing showrooms (putting lives in danger)or randomly keying private property. At least four of the Tesla Terrorists are trans btw.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Shooting cand of Bud Light also isn't threatening the lives of transgender people. :rolleyes:

" At least four of the Tesla Terrorists are trans btw."
Weighing Options Are You Sure GIF
 
ZenMode said:
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.
Click to expand...
Ah! You've got it, by Jove! Well, almost. You're getting there.

1. So you've more or less correctly stated the legal standard: Elon has no authority. It's not quite that simple, because Elon could be given authority to do ministerial tasks. For instance, if Trump said, "we're having a cabinet meeting. I want you to go to Dunkin and get donuts for the meeting. You can charge it to the government," and Elon asks, "what kind of donuts," and Trump says, "your choice" -- that is a ministerial decision. Trump can delegate those types of decisions to anyone. But obviously the ministerial duties are not at issue, so we'll go with "Elon has no authority."

2. The next step is to determine whether Elon has in fact acted consistent with having no authority. To continue your analogy, Elon has no authority to make me wash his car. But what if he shows up with the US Marshals and says, "wash my car," he is wielding an authority he does not have. That's what is illegal. Indeed, most people, faced with the prospect of imminent arrest if they don't follow Elon's orders, would probably wash his car. And that's why Elon has to be enjoined from doing that.

3. So the list of areas where Elon/DOGE appears to have exercised authority that they do not have:

A. The five things email. That's analogous to showing up with the US Marshals for the car wash. Government employees are not in a position to stand up to Elon and say, "no, I will not obey" because that's not their jobs. It's why the government employee union sued. For some reason, the judge said the union didn't have standing -- which appears to be based on a weird quirk of the law, probably because nobody prepared for this situation -- but on the merits, Elon's actions were illegal.

B. Bullying his way into federal buildings. Clearly illegal on your theory.

C. Threatening people with consequences if they don't allow Elon's people to access the computing systems. Again, illegal. Now, if Elon brandishes an order from the president saying, "SSA, you shall give Elon Musk and his team of people access to the systems so that he can gather information to advise me," that illegality would be avoided. Think he has such a document? It also doesn't answer some of the other illegality, like laws that prohibit anyone from accessing tax returns. Or laws committing the operation of agencies to a board that doesn't answer to the president. But anyway, that's all downstream.

D. Directing the firings of all those employees. Here the standard is arguably higher (though again the case law here is underdeveloped), because showing up to Trump with a huge readout of all the employees to hire and getting ratification is not an advisory task. That's like a cabinet member sending a proposed rule making to OMB for ratification. If the cabinet member doing that has not been confirmed by the Senate (or is lawfully acting as an interim head), then it is illegal, unconstitutional and it should be voided.

We good now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top