[Glemllksdf]

Wasn't the tarrifs thing one of the things he did illegaly and thats why they are now getting paid back?

Whats with the documents he put in his toilet?

Destroying the east wing. Its too late now right but shouldn't he followed some procedure?

I probably have plenty other examples but thats probablyh enough to get more insight. For me these cases feel like a mix of certain other parts should have steped in but have been ignored by trump and instead of doing their job, they don't because they all are either afraid or just behind trump. If this is the case, it might not be illegal but whats the right word then?

For the tarrifs, it feels like it should be clear that the way they did it was illegal but the law is just slow and because again the other parts aren't complaining, its not as illegal as it should be?

[bavell]

Nope, the original tariffs were under IEEPA, then Supreme Court ruled they didn't have authority to use IEEPA, so they had to drop those tariffs and start working on refunds. It'd only have been illegal if they kept the tariffs after the ruling.

Lot of propaganda & emotions around this straightforward chain of events.

[mindslight]

Under this reasoning, it's not illegal to just take things from stores (stores hate this one simple trick). If you're caught and your specific actions are then adjudicated to be illegal, at that point you can just start making a plan to bring the items back (even if some are used/damaged/etc) and everything is fine.

In reality of course, the actions were illegal the whole time. The big festering problem is that there is no actual punishment for government agents who break the law.

[bavell]

Definitely some problems in the current system, broad and creeping executive overreach extending back decades now.

Pretty sure stealing from stores is already illegal, not sure I understand your analogy... lots of case law / precedent there.

[mindslight]

The existence of case law / precedent does not affect whether something is "already illegal", but rather only how strongly one can predict if something is illegal. The original tariffs were illegal from day 1.

The point of the analogy was exactly to point at something with a lot of case law where this dynamic is crystal clear (although if Trump starts petty shoplifting after he's done looting our government, it's even odds whether this corrupt "court" will find some way to excuse it. Anything for the cause, of course)

[Glemllksdf]

So the USA was under

Wikipedia on IEEPA: "An Act with respect to the powers of the President in time of war or national emergency. "?

I mean thats very wishi washi. So are we both aligned that it looks like missuse? Because if its only about a word definition of no its not illegal what he did but a clear missconduct than it feels like word play.

[bavell]

I do agree it was a weak case, I think SCOTUS ruled correctly.

[mattmaroon]

None of those are examples of violating a court order, in fact the first is an example of following one. The second happened when he was out of office. The third is ongoing.

I definitely did not say he doesn’t get ruled against by the courts.