DOJ says presidents should be able to sell secrets on eBay
j / k
|
Down or up a comment |
h / l
|
Previous or next link |
?
|
This help |
Let this serve as a reminder to vote! Removing this dementia addled criminal and his supporters from power is the patriotic thing to do if you care about this country and its future.
... whomever ...
(a) In no case shall information be classified, continue to be maintained as classified, or fail to be declassified in order to:
(1) conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error;
(2) prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency;
(3) restrain competition; or
(4) prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of the national security.
https://www.archives.gov/isoo/policy-documents/cnsi-eo.html
Sure but the actual penalties for violating the EO are based on laws not the EO.
Like the actual penalties for sharing classified information are based on the information not the classification - https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual...
"with Judge Patricia Millett asking: “Can the president then offer on eBay to sell them, all of our national security secrets, to the highest bidder?”
The government’s response was, in short, “yes.”"
Considering Trump's appointees haven't been as loyal as Thomas and Alito, I can only see him nominating absolute simps. He's going to need the pre-emptive self-pardon to hold up after all.
The one question both-siders never ask: which party has more momentum or internal turmoil to cut off the spineless corrupted opportunists. Pretty easy answer to that one...
If there is ever any reconciliation they also need to be held accountable.
However, Trump's case against the BBC has become an interesting one. The judge overseeing this case recently stated that the BBC can call Jack as a witness potentially allowing an end run around Judge Canon's release of Jack's report.
It's a formal term: to officially void, cancel, set aside, or forcefully suppress something.
"Court ruled in a 6–3 decision that presidents have absolute immunity for acts committed as president within their core constitutional purview, at least presumptive immunity for official acts within the outer perimeter of their official responsibility, and no immunity for unofficial acts".
Now, if there was any kind of consistency, there would be a ruling that the president's "personal" White House papers aren't above the law, but I expect another piece of legal Calvinball to happen again.
We simply HAVE to take the Executive's word for whether an action was official or not.
The American system of executive power needs a major rethink. For decades, Congress has given up more and more power to the executive under the assumption that the president will be a careful steward of those powers. This was a dumb decision at the time and it's made quite obvious now that an absolute cretin holds the office.
Unfortunately, I don't imagine we'll get that rethink. Instead, we'll just try to fix it by giving somebody else too much power and hoping they use it better.
It also seems to be a way for Congress to dodge responsibility. If you pass legislation to fix something by giving the president powers, you can claim credit. If it goes wrong, you can blame the president.
The PM has a lot of power, but is very dependent on MP support.
Of course any PM still depends on Parliamentary support, by definition the Prime Minister is the one who can convince the monarch they can form a government which has the confidence of the House of Commons. My complaints of presidentialisation are more in the centralisation of power around Number 10, Blair was particularly known for it but it's been basically all of them in recent history.
I just have to say this makes me so angry.
The Presidency is not a “private” endeavor. Drump comes from the private sector and thinks to run the Office of the President as his private business. Unforgivable.
The Voters want a Trump King. A government cannot ignore it's own people forever.
If the voters reward corrupt and horrific behavior, and punish law and order behavior, what the hell can you do about that?
But we need to do some serious rethink and work on curbing the power of the POTUS.
It's only a matter of time before there is a deal between Trump and Vance for a pardon in return for retirement.
He actually distances himself from a lot of stuff very carefully. Like we all know he was against the Iran war. He said he wasn't going to watch the execution broadcast. Etc.
Hate to burst your bubble, but behind Trump there are quite a few people that are ready to take his place, with no real chance of voting ever being able to stop them. Don't get your hopes up that voting blue matters. Everyone had the chance in 2024, half the eligible population did not vote. Now we get to live with those consequences.
US is done for.
That would give me quite a cramp and I'm not 80.
There are 3 big factors in play
* 2020 attempted coup gave the Republicans valuable information on what to do this time around. Basically, the game is to put US into legal limbo and remain in power. They know nobody on the democrat side is going to think about using armed forces, and they are not going to use armed forces to keep their public image and keep economy from panicking, so they are going to just declare some emergency and keep power under the pretense of fixing that emergency. Reminder that Supreme Court is on his side.
* Trump has shown that he has no issue with having a private army operating with extrajudicial authority in public. Now imagine with what he is ok doing with a non-public army. You should fully expect people going against him to get "arrested" under some made up charges.
* Even with Trump gone, there are smarter, younger, non senile conservatives ready to take his place and grab power and do the same things, with way less mistakes. Vance is right up there with him.
As such, even if everyone gets out and votes blue, in the end its all pointless. Trump can get impeached, convicted, and either Supreme Court says nah, or he just won't leave. In 2028, he (or Vance) will declare election fraud again and do it successfully this time to remain in power.
And even if somehow Dems win the house and presidency, and manage to pack supreme court to take control of all the branches, the thing is the will be left with a insanely shitty situation to clean up that will result in economic downturn, and the idiots in US will vote republican again in 2032.
But yeah, re-election without re-evaluation of the systems that failed to protect the public from abuse will just result in a replay anyway.
cough citizens united cough
Edit: This is obviously a politically charged topic, so I should be more clear. If we accept the (absurd) premise that a president can sell national secrets on eBay because they're his own personal property, I'd be mildly surprised if a court found that he had to give the proceeds to the state.
Only in America.
What I don't understand how it's allowed is that money earned from such ebay sell would go to private pocket instead of the government
I feel like that latter point isn't accentuated enough
First of all -- what? The exact legal authority between the President and Congress here is murky, yes (see https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/RS21900). But it's completely ridiculous to claim that the only criterion for authorization is that someone thinks a person ought to be authorized.
This is unitary executive thinking, grounded in the principle that, because the president is the sole and chief authority and executor of the law, the president may do just about anything in that capacity. It's utter unconstitutional nonsense, no matter what our (openly compromised by lobbyists) Supreme Court justices say.
The latter point is "not accentuated enough" because it's secondary to the primary point, which supersedes it. No the president's whim is not the same as executing the federal laws created by Congress within the framework of the constitution. It a mind-bendingly anti-American, anti-Constitutional line of reasoning on display here.