[bdavisx]

Serious question - it seems that many of this Administrations activities are illegal in some way or the other. I know that government officials are shielded from a lot of actions so they can not be prosecuted.

What actions that have been taken could actually be prosecuted? For example, I would have to assume that the ballroom demolition and build-out is illegal, there were $0 appropriated from Congress for this, and it doesn't seem like direct donations would be legal either. They are donations to the government and Congress has to appropriate that money too.

NOTHING is going to happen while the Republicans control congress, period. What could be done when the next administration comes in? Not just about the ballroom, but the various other things like this pardon. What of these actions are prosecutable?

[JumpCrisscross]

> it seems that many of this Administrations activities are illegal

Many are. This one is not. The President has sweeping pardon powers.

The solution is to strike the final phrase in Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution: “and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” [1].

There isn’t a place for one-man pardons in a republic. If the courts overreach, address it through legislation. (Even the imperium-obsessed Romans didn’t give their dictators, much less consuls, automatic pardon power. Caesar had to get special legislation to overrule the law.)

With Presidents of both parties having so recently abused pardons, we may be in a place where a wave could pass a Constitutional amendment at the federal level, allowing it to be punted to the states.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_Stat...

[thijson]

It seems like whatever party gets into power, suddenly doesn't want to change the system they inherited. I remember Trudeau talking about eliminating first past the post in Canadian elections. But once he got into power he forgot about it.

We need a way to vote for popular ideas via referendum at the federal level. That might get it through.

[JumpCrisscross]

> seems like whatever party gets into power, suddenly doesn't want to change the system

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution” [1].

No President. No courts. Partisanship may work to our advantage in a divided government. What you would need, however, to reach two thirds is some members of the President’s party signing on. That could happen if the President is taking a dump in the polls, and the opposition looks likely (but isn’t yet assured) to gain the Presidency next term.

> We need a way to vote for popular ideas via referendum at the federal level

We need a plebiscite institution. But that can be done at state level for Constitutonal amendment approval. What we don’t want is direct democracy proposing amendments. California is a modern example of why republics are more stable than pure democracies, for anyone who forgot about Athens.

[mrguyorama]

>California is a modern example of why republics are more stable than pure democracies

California is one state among 50. People using it as an example of some sort of government being bad are objectively in bad faith.

Please inform me how my state's citizen referendums are bad? We are about to have a vote on voter ID laws, which I do not approve of, but what's important is that the people who care are able to have their will made manifest, and it will actually go up for a vote.

Meanwhile nordic countries have vastly more direct democracies and don't have the problems you insist.

If you cannot make your argument without california, you do not have an argument, because california's shitty government predates democrat control, because it was always built as this crazy world where rich and connected people had control. California's government is built wrong, not because of democracy, but against it.

[JumpCrisscross]

> inform me how my state's citizen referendums are bad?

Straw man. Nobody claimed this.

> nordic countries have vastly more direct democracies and don't have the problems you insist

What are you referring to? “Finland has traditionally relied on the representative form of government, with very limited experience of the deployment of the referendum in national decision-making” [1]. And while Sweden and Norway have referenda, neither has binding referenda on demand or even a requirement for referendum to amend the constitution [2].

> if you cannot make your argument without california, you do not have an argument

California features the largest and most powerful direct-democratic institution, its referenda, in America. It’s going to come up when we discuss direct democracy.

That said, I have no idea how you reach my comment and conclude that California is not only the only argument I make against direct democracy, but even essential to it.

> california's shitty government predates democrat control

Are you mixing up direct democracy and rule by Democrats, the party?

[1] https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-349-24796-7_...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_by_country

[BrenBarn]

> What we don’t want is direct democracy proposing amendments.

I think the opposite. That is exactly what we need. A lot of the problem we have come from the fact that the constitution speaks almost entirely in terms of what various government bodies do and provides no way for the people to directly override government actions they disagree with. This has led us to our current situation which is based on politicians exploiting loopholes (e.g., gerrymandering, stacking various judicial/administrative posts, manipulating voting laws, etc.) in order to preserve their position against potential electoral response.

In some cases these problems have been overcome or mitigated at the state level. . . via ballot measures. In California, for instance.

> California is a modern example of why republics are more stable than pure democracies, for anyone who forgot about Athens.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but from where I'm standing California looks a lot more sane and stable than the US as a whole.

[GuinansEyebrows]

> What we don’t want is direct democracy proposing amendments. California is a modern example of why republics are more stable than pure democracies, for anyone who forgot about Athens.

speak for yourself. the proof of the pudding is in the eating, as evidenced by the current political climate in the US.

[JumpCrisscross]

> the proof of the pudding is in the eating, as evidenced by the current political climate in the US

We're not a direct democracy. You can't find proof of a pudding in a taco bowl.

Direct democracies fail in self-reinforcing factionalism. "When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government...enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens." This has consistently happened across history, even in small direct democracies, it's one of the essential takeaways from the Athenian experiment [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Socrates

[everfrustrated]

In history generally the only way governments are ever restructured is through civil war (or invasion).

[lovich]

Every amendment to the constitution restructured the government. We are certainly in an era of high divisiveness and a Congress that had abdicated all of its powers to the other branches so that they’re never caught actually holding a position, but the US government system has restructuring built into it

[JumpCrisscross]

> In history generally the only way governments are ever restructured is through civil war (or invasion)

This is total crap. Tale of Two Cities is set against the backdrop of Britain’s reforms, in contrast to the French Revolution. America has peacefully seen through Teddy Roosevelt’s trust busting, FDR’s New Deal and the Civil Rights Era, each peaceful restructurings of how our government works.

Revolutions transfer and consolidate power. Reforms broaden them. Those who miss this lesson of history and fall for glorified fictions of peasants’ revolts earn a consistent fate across millennia of human history.

Side note: strongly recommend https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6E4_Bcmscg&t=14s

[seanmcdirmid]

Uhm, the Republicans will change their mind quickly when the next Democrat president takes control with the expanded powers they inherited from the Trump administration (even the Supreme court doesn't like to contradict itself so quickly). I'm pretty sure...if America survives at all, we will have a constitutional convention really soon that push through changes because the current status quo has become an unstable mess.

[selectodude]

I trust the gang of six’s use of the shadow docket is cleverly designed to make sure only a republican president meets their unitary executive theories.

[jamesblonde]

Do you think they will let the Democrats take control given the risk to them if they take control? I see Gerrymandering after the supreme court annuls the voting rights acts. And then more shennanigans for a third term.

[seanmcdirmid]

That's why I premised this with "If America survives at all". There is definitely a possibility that the whole country just falls apart. A constitutional convention is more of a best case scenario.

Gerrymandering is only relevant for congressional house elections, it can't protect the senate and doesn't influence the presidency. Usually one party will take control of all three branches in a huge swing in power, the house is the just the first to flip usually because it is re-elected every 2 years.

[JumpCrisscross]

> constitutional convention is more of a best case scenario

Constitutional Convention is the abort button. It means giving a group of people basically limitless power to amend our Constitution, which in practice, means to do anything to the law. If we called one today, with most states in Republican hands [1], we’d be essentially handing complete control of our government—over and above the Constitution—to the GOP.

[1] https://www.ncsl.org/about-state-legislatures/state-partisan...

[vunderba]

Between sweeping abuse of executive orders, declaring emergency powers, and the pardon system (there's a reason it used to be called the "royal pardon"), my only hope is that this will finally open the public's eyes to the MASSIVE overreach that a US president has. It needs to be heavily curtailed.

The pardon system in particular really pisses me off. The argument that one rando at the top of the pyramid somehow magically knows better than the entire judicial system is such a load of horsecrap. For any injustice that the pardon system might be able to correct, it can and does just as easily introduce more injustices.

[perihelions]

> "Many are. This one is not. The President has sweeping pardon powers."

I understand it's debatably possible to prosecute the public corruption that motivated a pardon, even though the pardon act itself is unreviewable. I.e., the DoJ attempted a criminal bribery investigation of Bill Clinton's pardon of the donor Marc Rich,

https://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/15/us/us-is-beginning-crimin... ("U.S. is beginning criminal inquiry in pardon of Rich" (2001))

> "Some lawyers have said that proving such a case could be exceedingly difficult because bribery cases usually required the cooperation of one of the parties. Moreover, contributions to political parties or to Mr. Clinton's library foundation are legal, and the president's pardon authority is unreviewable."

I assume similar logic might apply to World Liberty Financial and Trump's CZ pardon.

[ksherlock]

"Well, when the president does it ... that means that it is not illegal" -- Richard Nixon (1977)

"Well, when the president does it ... that means that it is not illegal" -- SCOTUS (2024)

That leaves impeachment as the only legal remedy, which you've correctly identified as not a possibility with the current congress.

[shoemakersteve]

His two previous impeachments don't seem to have slowed him down, so it seems unlikely that a third would be any different. Not to mention his felony conviction.

[stetrain]

The actual legal remedy is impeachment + conviction by the senate. That hasn't happened yet and seems unlikely unless he actually loses the support of his own party.

[onlyrealcuzzo]

> For example, I would have to assume that the ballroom demolition and build-out is illegal, there were $0 appropriated from Congress for this, and it doesn't seem like direct donations would be legal either.

Maybe it's funded by the $230M he's demanding from the Department of Justice?

[9dev]

What about the acts of piracy (in the classic, seafaring way) and coldblooded murder of foreign citizens, carried out by US soldiers, claimed to be "drug dealers" (like that was a capital offence anyway)?

I’m curious if any of the involved personell will ever be tried for that.

[jpadkins]

> What of these actions are prosecutable?

The President must first be impeached by both parts of Congress. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_Stat...

The Senate runs a trial for the "high crimes" with the supreme court justice presiding. They can sentence a sitting president IIRC (or just remove him from office in which the DOJ can then prosecute normally).

[iLemming]

> NOTHING is going to happen while the Republicans control congress, period

For anyone interested, for the past 30 years, Republicans dominated for 22 years in total, while Democrats only 8.

[TrackerFF]

Some problems: Trump has already argued that if what he does falls under official acts, it's essentially absolute immunity. Trump also tried to argue that everything he did while during his presidency, was official acts. The supreme court agreed that if something is and official act, it is protected by absolute immunity.

So my guess is that whatever Trump is doing now, he'll later argue was done as a president.

Second, should be convicted of anything, the best shot is if it's a state law violation. I'm going to bet everything I own that Trump will either pardon himself, all his cronies, and/or when the time comes, step down and have Vance pardon him. So with that all federal crimes become pardoned.

The supreme court has been very frank about this: The only, and I do mean the only mechanism is a successful impeachment. And even if Trump by some miracle is successfully impeached, we have no way of knowing how that will play out. The current supreme court majority are seemingly true believers of the unitary executive theory, so I'm guessing that with time - we'll just see Trump get more and more unchecked power. And since it's going to be done via the shadow docket, it'll likely be valid for Trump only.

I think for all intents and purposes - and I don't mean to sound defeatist when I'm saying this - people should just accept the fact that Trump will be untouchable for the rest of his life.

[anigbrowl]

Assuming a normal election where the pendulum swings back and a normal transfer of power (no certain things), the outgoing President could pardon everyone from his chiefs of staff and cabinet officers to low-level federal law enforcement on the way out, and then the Democrats would wring their hands and say there's nothing they can do, bar some large scale political realignment where Republicans lost control of numerous state legislatures and governorships by a large margin, as well as in Congress.

The best opportunity for a major restructuring of the legal environment would bea Constitutional Convention, but because Republicans have pursued this as a strategic goal for a while, Democrats invested all their relevant energies in being against it rather than developing any kind of strategy of their own, guaranteeing that they would get rolled if one actually took place because they went in with wholly defensive mindset and no plan to win. The fundamental flaw of the modern Democratic party is that it sees itself as a vehicle for competent management of the status quo, not a force for implementation of its voters' political aspirations. Thus is pays lip service of what its supporters want but operates to dampen and delay those same supporters whenever it gets into office in the name of continuity and responsibility. It operates on a combination of political rent seeking and fundamental conflict aversion.

This is why I find myself increasingly impatient with self-styled moderates. Wanting to talk things out and compromise is good, but it only works when there is mutuality between counterparties. When the political opposition is indifferent to questions of truthfulness or corruption, moderation degrades into appeasement; moderates will sell out their own supporters in the name of peace and quiet, while giving away the strategic initiative over and over. The previous Trump administration engineered a mob overrunning Congress in an attempt to stay in power, and only failed because the Vice President declined to aid the scheme; a mistake the current one surely doesn't intend to repeat. The incoming administration spent a great deal of energy prosecuting every footsoldier they could find who set foot inside the Capitol, but shied away from going after the people who actually organized it. The results speak for themselves.

[garaetjjte]

Why it is even accepted that pardons can be issued before conviction?

[Scrapemist]

Yes, this also seems bonkers to me.

[WheatMillington]

This is not "good guys versus bad guys", the democratic party are not going to wash all this badness away. They have been guilty of basically the same things, even if at a lesser scale. Biden tried to appropriate billions outside of congress for student loan forgiveness. Political pardons have been a factor since the beginning of the US experiment. Pelosi has been using her position for self-enrichment in the open for decades now.

[covercash]

We need them all gone. Anyone who makes "politician" a career is precisely the wrong type of person to be an elected official. It should never be about personal gain. Wipe them all out, implement campaign finance reform, set term limits, prioritize election security & availability...

We need a reset.