[Terr_]

> 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.

[jagged-chisel]

> … as if …

This hasn’t happened already?

[Terr_]

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...

[pjc50]

> 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]

I was about to say, “don't give him any ideas”, but it probably wouldn't have mattered anyway.