[ramesh31]

>If they don't have clearance aren't they committing a number of offences under various acts of national security and computer misuse and thus liable for arrest?

Arrested by who? The executive branch who ordered his actions? Americans voted for this, and now we have to live with it.

[dartos]

No, the judicial branch which is supposed to enforce the law regardless of who was voted for…

Yknow… the branch that’s supposed to check the power of the executive branch…

[taylodl]

The judicial branch can't prosecute, that's what the executive branch does, and it's the executive branch that's doing these things. The legislative branch has the power to keep the executive branch in check, but they're not exercising that power - which I'm saying is bordering on criminal. Obviously, the executive branch is unlikely to prosecute the legislative branch for not taking action against the executive branch. Our constitution has the implicit assumption that all three branches wouldn't be in cahoots with one another, and should they be, the electorate was expected to have enough sense to vote out the legislators and replace them with ones that would keep the executive in check. The million dollar question is how much pain and destruction will be endured until that happens?

[WOTERMEON]

4 years of it, if I remember correctly

[taylodl]

Two years - Congress is replaced every two years. 1/3 of the Senate is replaced every two years. Given that they've only been in office for two weeks, two years seems like a long way off.

[pseudalopex]

House not Congress. Elected not replaced. It is unlikely enough senators will be replaced in 2026.

[lazyasciiart]

Arrests don’t need prosecutors involved unless they need a warrant.

[tsimionescu]

Arrests need warrants. And if you're thinking about the police, that's also part of the executive, mostly. Judges can't do anything unless some other branch of the government asks them to.

[dragonwriter]

> Arrests need warrants.

Arrests need probable cause. They can either be done on a warrant or without a warrant (in the latter case, in the federal system, a complaint must be filed and the arrested person must be brought before a magistrate for a hearing on probable cause within 72 hours after arrest.)

[lazyasciiart]

Not even a little bit, do you think a judge gets involved before someone is arrested for a DUI? Or trespassing, simple assault, shoplifting, etc?

[tyre]

The Justice Department, including the FBI and federal prosecutors, are run by appointees of the president.

The president can replace them.

[dboreham]

Those are just...guidelines.

[4ndrewl]

I'm afraid you let that ship sail. You now have a king and a court with untrammeled power - good luck when a successor needs to be found.

[taylodl]

Seems like we've jumped into the wayback machine and set a course to a year before 1215...

[ramesh31]

>No, the judicial branch which is supposed to enforce the law regardless of who was voted for…

The judiciary has zero enforcement power. They make the laws which the executive is meant to enforce. If the executive fails to enforce a law, congress can impeach. That's not happening.

[SAI_Peregrinus]

The legislative branch makes the laws. The Judicial branch judges whether laws were broken. The executive branch has the power to enforce laws (or to not enforce them, as they see fit).

The current executive branch will not enforce laws against itself, and nobody else is legally allowed to enforce the laws, so all the courts & congress can do is write strongly worded letters.

[tsimionescu]

You're almost right. The thing is that Congress absolutely has the power to impeach the president and strip them of all legal office. Of course, most of Congress is perfectly happy with what's going on, so this won't happen.

[dartos]

That’s not how it works.

The executive branch runs the country.

The legislative branch makes the laws.

The judicial branch enforces them…

[sundaeofshock]

No, we did not vote for this. Show me the campaign ad that said Trump was going to give Musk and his gang of losers complete control over the treasury.

[jethro_tell]

It’s all spelled out in the project 2025 doc that was widely publicized as the game plan.

Also, trump was impeached last time because he tried to shut down funding approved by congress. So, if you’re surprised it’s happening again, I suppose you can’t be helped

[FireBeyond]

Oh, the one that Trump heavily distanced himself from? Project 2025 was something skeptics pointed out as being the game plan, but Trump denied (or agreed, then denied).

[johnnyanmac]

So, can you eat crow now, or are you genuinely surprised Donald Trump lied? Again.

Do I really have to explain how much of his 100+ EO's come from Project 2025?

[FireBeyond]

I think a quick view of my comment history would show that I am not a fan of Trump. In fact, I would go so far as to characterize him as "if a wet dog turd were a person". I had zero doubt that 2025 would be a blueprint, just another of his lies.

[jethro_tell]

You’re saying that like I’m the gullible one but he’s following it to a t so . . ..

[exe34]

I'm over across the pond - it was pretty obvious to me that Elon was going to take a wrecking ball to the ship of government. if it wasn't clear to you, I'm afraid you can only blame yourself and possibly your diet of information.

Trump said Elon would get to run a new department called "department of government efficiency". if you know what he did at Twitter, you can easily join the dots.

[johnnyanmac]

>Show me the campaign ad that said Trump was going to give Musk and his gang of losers complete control over the treasury.

Let's see: Trump appointed it the day after he won:

https://www.npr.org/2024/11/12/g-s1-33972/trump-elon-musk-vi...

And Musk announced DOGE on September 2024:

https://news.bitcoin.com/elon-musk-agrees-to-head-donald-tru...

So yes, this was not some secret. If you (royal you) trusted that photo in the 2nd link to make america efficient, I have no words.

[epistasis]

If you think that a politicians advertisements are the full picture of what they will do, I have a bridge you may be interested in buying.

That said, DOGE was well announced and widely publicized prior to the election, by Musk and the media. Musk was up on the stage with Trump quite a bit.

Those who did not know this was going to happen are either easily fooled or were paying no attention.

[codingdave]

If we are going to discuss this, we should be clear about the details. "Americans voted for this" is a hot take. Some did. Many did not vote at all. Of those who voted, Trump barely won those votes. It was just enough to get the electoral college votes. Even those who did vote for him did not vote for his current Project 2025-based plan. On the contrary, his campaign denied he was going to do all this.

[Blackthorn]

If you don't vote, you effectively vote for the winner.

When the 49ers lost the 2024 Super Bowl, the second and third string players didn't go around saying they didn't really lose because they never hit the field. No, they lost.

[taylodl]

Excellent analogy!

[subsection1h]

> If you don't vote, you effectively vote for the winner.

Yes, if the Electoral College wasn't a thing.

[johnnyanmac]

If you didn't vote in a swing state, I don't even know what to say.

But you'd also be surprised how many non-swings could swing if they had enough non-voters vote.

[9283409232]

> On the contrary, his campaign denied he was going to do all this.

People believed the wolf when he said he wasn't going to hurt the sheep.

[troyvit]

> Many did not vote at all.

If they didn't vote they voted for the winner. America (including me, because voting wasn't enough) earned this 100%.

[the_snooze]

Trump has been the dominant figure in American politics for almost a decade now. It's quite obvious who he is and what he stands for. And he's more popular now than ever before. That's the reality. Accepting that and planning around it is the first step to countering it. Burying your head in the sand and saying "people don't actually want this!" is unactionable talk.