The attorneys who resigned rather than follow unlawful orders are to be celebrated. Remember, courage is contagious and there's been far too little of it lately.
That is fundamental. The public has a moral and pragmatic duty to celebrate and remember courageous tellers of significant truths, especially where courage and sacrifice are so clearly required. I don't think we do so nearly enough. That is real heroism, those who more than self (justice and) their country love by making admirable choices. Like a living thing, democracy can withstand lies and treachery, but only if we adequately reject it.
Had they not quit, WE would not be talking about what had happened. The country would not be aware of the corruption/bribe quid pro quo of the charges and the attempted/failed/success of dropping the charges after corralling a department of lawyers and forcing them to choose a representative to take the case to court or all would be dismissed. I would say the integrity to quit rather than perform an unlawful act garnered a lot of attention and was certainly courageous act of personal integrity.
I really appreciate the work you do and the concise and informative content of your sub stacks Your work is well organized, readable and to the point. Thank you. Press on!
It is a fact the DOJ hires (or used to) some of the best legal minds and not personal injury lawyers that advertise on Faux News. I would hope some of these attorneys who resigned on principle are hired by prestigious law firms and compensated for their truth worth as bright, competent and experienced lawyers. Maybe they could use their talents to go after the Musk/Trump Administration when they run a foul of the law and Constitution, which would be full-time employment.
Make sure that we fully understand why they did it, and then respectfully explain it to as many GOP voters as possible.
This is not mere incompetence. There is an IDEOLOGY behind what they're doing, and it's called "fascism". Polls show that MAGA voters largely reject fascism and want democracy. So they are now presenting fascism AS the highest form of democracy - as Vance did during his speech in Munich.
We HAVE to make sure that we fully understand WHY that is false, so that we can counter their arguments effectively.
As you can hear Vance do, they will try to make voters believe that IF they elect a president, that president should have limitless power. Congress and the courts should be merely advisory. At first sight, the idea is understandable: you vote for a president's agenda, so you want to see it enacted asap, and the fastest way to do so is that he signs one executive order after the other, rather than going through the slow process of negotiations with Congress, which inevitable include compromising. And then you declare any judge who rules one of those executive orders to be illegal or even anti-constitutional "enemies of the people" and try to remove them.
So the question is: what is wrong with fascism (the idea that you bundle the power of the legislative branch of government (Congress) and the courts into ONE branch of government, namely the executive - "fasces" meaning "bundle", in Latin)?
Why would we NOT want such a political system? Imagine Obama, who had an 81% approval rating when he came into office (almost twice Trump's approval rating), being able to install Medicare for All with a simple stroke of a pen. Why would we NOT want this?
You need to study the history of authoritarianism to be able to come up with good counterarguments (something that most Trump voters and Trump hires in the WH obviously never did) AND you need to know in detail how a democratic government actually works.
THAT's what we can do, as citizens. And to the extent that we succeed, their resignations won't have been in vain.
"There is an IDEOLOGY behind what they're doing, and it's called "fascism"...(the idea that you bundle the power of the legislative branch of government (Congress) and the courts into ONE branch of government, namely the executive - "fasces" meaning "bundle", in Latin)".
Please tell us how Trump is trying to roll legislative and judicial functions into the executive branch. From what I see, Trump is trying to shrink the size and power of the bureaucracy, and it's the Dems and their supporters crying the loudest and attempting to maintain the status quo. What manner of authoritarian wants to reduce his own power? Trump is not stating or implying through his actions that the State is above the individual. He doesn't want to tell you how much water goes through your shower head, mandate electric automobiles, or eliminate gas stoves. He has not declared Congress or the federal judiciary dissolved or suspended the Constitution in favor of rule by executive decree. In short, what he is doing hardly qualifies as "fascism".
Though not perfect in terms of execution, the idea of making government operations and spending transparent and accountable should be welcomed by both political parties. Why are the Dems in such a panic over accountability and transparency?
This is not a matter of "a little imperfection", this is a matter of one "blatantly unconstitutional" (to quote a Reagan-appointed judge who ruled against the birthright citizenship executive order) decision after the other.
The list of examples is already extremely long.
Let's just stick with this week: his AG asked a federal prosecutor, appointed by Trump himself and a member of the Federalist Society (read: extremely conservative) to DISMISS the case she was prosecuting even though all the evidence to proceed to conviction was there, and she was asked to do so only for 100% political reasons, so that the AG would be able to bribe the defendant (the NYC mayor) to no longer represent his own constituents but instead the US president. That is LITERALLY robbing the court of its constitutional duty and independence. Obviously, that prosecutor resigned. So Bondi tried to force the next prosecutor in line to commit the same anti-constitutional act. He resigned. Then she moved the case to another state. Same thing. SIX prosecutors now already resigned because they swore an oath to the Constitution and the DOJ has no legal right whatsoever to force them to pursue or drop a case.
Also this week, both Musk and the VP argued that whenever the president disagrees with a court order, he should IGNORE it. By law, all presidents HAVE to follow court orders and appeal in case they disagree. So this is also by definition FASCIST.
And then there is Musk himself. His so-called audit is happening without any real auditors in there. Instead, he uses CODERS (who rewrite computer codes). That's extremely dangerous, so now more than ever before, Congress HAS to exert its constitutional oversight role. Instead, the GOP decided to drop that role and let Musk do whatever he wants. That's the executive taking over the power of the legislative. So it's fascist.
Want me to continue?
Overall, the day you'll read the Constitution you'll see that CONGRESS and Congress only has the legal right to determine the size of the government. Only Congress can shut down agencies or funding. Today, the GOP gave that power to the executive itself. That is fascist.
Remember, fascism is defined by only one thing: the bundling of the constitutional power of the legislative branch (Congress) and the judiciary (courts) into the power of the executive. Democracy is essentially defined by the opposite: the constitutional separation and independence of the three branches of government, with each having its own rights and duties that the other two branches cannot legally take over. It's because Trump is constantly grabbing the power of the other two branches that he is installing fascism in the US.
Apart from that, Democrats not only WELCOME audits, Obama did a huge one himself. A REAL one. That means: independent accountants and forensic investigators, not tween coders who answer to an unelected official (who also happens to be the recipient of MASSIVE government subsidies - one of the few things that Musk did NOT cut; he gets $9 million a DAY from America's taxpayers). And it means constant congressional oversight. And it means showing EVIDENCE to Congress (something Musk refuses to do). And it means letting Congress decide, once it sees the evidence, what to cut and what to keep. THAT is a REAL audit. Here, something totally different and extremely fishy is going on.
Muskrat is just like Joe McCarthy, he has all the evidence, proof etc. but won't show it to anyone, and just like Joe M. it doesn't exist. It is all just like Frump, he hears stuff, repeats what he likes, and then believes it himself, dimwit that he is.
"Let's just stick with this week: his AG asked a federal prosecutor, appointed by Trump himself and a member of the Federalist Society (read: extremely conservative) to DISMISS the case she was prosecuting even though all the evidence to proceed to conviction was there, and she was asked to do so only for 100% political reasons..."
As I understand it, the case has not yet gone to trial. If it's a federal case I believe the AG has the authority to proceed or dismiss a case. And if you want to talk about "100% political reasons", then please explain why Biden's DOJ slow-walked any prosecution of Hunter Biden until public opinion forced their hand.
"Also this week, both Musk and the VP argued that whenever the president disagrees with a court order, he should IGNORE it."
Has Trump ignored any court order? Andrew Jackson actually did.
"And then there is Musk himself. His so-called audit is happening without any real auditors in there."
Did you know that there are no requirements listed in the Constitution to be a federal judge? Not age, citizenship, residency or even a law degree. All that is required is that you be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. My 2 year-old grandson is constitutionally "qualified" to be a federal judge.
The fact that are no "real auditors" is irrelevant. What is relevant is the discovery of how taxpayer money is spent. If you can specify how and where they are not fulfilling that function, please spell it out.
"Overall, the day you'll read the Constitution you'll see that CONGRESS and Congress only has the legal right to determine the size of the government."
And the Executive Branch oversees their day-to-day operations and are accountable to the people (as is Congress) for how that money is spent. If Agency 1 is simply given $40 billion dollars with no idea as to exactly where or to whom it's going, both Congress and that agency are wrong.
Congress is also the only branch of government that's allowed to make laws. That means agencies in the executive branch aren't allowed to write regulations that have the effect of laws, and Congress cannot delegate that responsibility. Congress alone has the power (specifically the House) to raise revenue, and that includes tariffs. Some time ago Congress thought it would be a good idea to give the President that power under certain circumstance...uh, no.
"Apart from that, Democrats not only WELCOME audits, Obama did a huge one himself. A REAL one."
And the results of that was what, exactly? You didn't say. Musk's mission is to "follow the money", and the Dems appear to be in full panic mode over that.
"And it means constant congressional oversight. And it means showing EVIDENCE to Congress (something Musk refuses to do)."
Maybe because Musk isn't finished yet. It's one thing to collect raw data; it's another to lay everything out in a manner that's complete, concise and correct. Do you think that should be done on the fly? Let's start by getting the facts first.
"Remember, fascism is defined by only one thing: the bundling of the constitutional power of the legislative branch (Congress) and the judiciary (courts) into the power of the executive. Democracy is essentially defined by the opposite: the constitutional separation and independence of the three branches of government, with each having its own rights and duties that the other two branches cannot legally take over."
If anything, what a lot of people are realizing is that the power of the federal government has expanded way beyond what the Founders intended, and it happened way before Trump. And I guess you're okay with a powerful executive branch and bureaucracy as long as your people are in charge. But if someone wants to pull the curtain back and see exactly what's going on...well, let's just scream "fascism!" And let's remember that Trump ran on this and the people voted for it.
Our government has an entrenched bureaucracy that must be streamlined and have their power curtailed. They are not a separate branch of the government and they do not exist as a check on presidential power. But you fail to grasp that.
No, you're wrong. Again, read the Constitution. An AG does NOT have the constitutional power to interfere in a state trial. The only time it was done before was by Nixon. And FYI: the SEVENTH prosecutor who was now asked by US AG Bondi to break his oath to the Constitution just resigned too, so it's already called the Thursday Night Massacre (after Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre - look it up if you never heard of it).
As to Musk: so you want to do this the illegal way. You actively defend the US government to commit crimes. Don't you see how utterly anti-patriotic that sounds? Also, Musk has never ever produced ANY form of evidence backing up his claims. And now his own DOGE website was HACKED, with hackers writing things on its webpage... so we have an unelected official with NO congressional oversight whatsoever who is inside the US government's never system and its computers and who cannot even make his own computer secure. Still, you want him to continue. How is this possible? What's your excuse for SUCH utter incompetence? And don't tell me that you IMAGINE that previous administrations somehow must have done this too. First of all, that's false, and secondly and much more importantly, I thought you guys wanted to make America GREAT, not AS corrupt as you imagine previous administrations were... ?
And then you end with "let's get the facts first". Apart from the facts that I already mentioned, yes, THAT is how a REAL audit is done. PROVE FACTS FIRST. Only then do you intervene and cut certain programs or even agencies. Today, the exact opposite is happening: Musk, the wealthiest person on Earth, unilaterally hit a button, with NO facts proven AT ALL, that literally kills hundreds of thousands of starving children and among the poorest adults on Earth. NO audit EVER stops the organization that is being audited from functioning WHILE under audit.
This is a scam, and I'm sure that as soon as you truly sit down and think for a moment, you can easily see this too.
"As to Musk: so you want to do this the illegal way."
How is this illegal? Please be very specific as to what law or laws Musk is breaking.
"And then you end with "let's get the facts first". Apart from the facts that I already mentioned, yes, THAT is how a REAL audit is done. PROVE FACTS FIRST."
Oh, forgive me, I guess I don't understand that REAL audits can only be done by a REAL auditor. I mean, it's a law somewhere, right? I guess anything DOGE uncovers can't be REAL at all, everything has to be a lie or is a mistake.
"This is a scam, and I'm sure that as soon as you truly sit down and think for a moment, you can easily see this too."
Well if this is really a scam, then I for one am patient enough to wait for the results. Then you can have your REAL auditors look at it.
I'm always astonished that Republican assholes like Josh Hawley think we can't read the damn Constitution for ourselves and must have it 'splained to us.
The guy is nothing but arrogant dreck oozing all over a saltine cracker.
Please stop referring to the trump/musk regime as an administration. It is not an administration, it is a fascist regime enacting destruction and chaos. Please, you guys know better than I that words matter. Call it what it is.
A recent Robert Reich article went through the whole thing saying "regime" instead of "administration" and it read very naturally; not at all as if the term was being used in any way as snark or to make a point, but as merely the most accurate term.
Thank you to you and your team for your excellent work. This sets up a framework and then presents factual evidence to consider how our democracy is holding up. Importantly, it is not an opinion piece. As it tracks developments over time, I hope it becomes widely known. I will look out for it, just as I do Heather Cox Richardson’s Letter from an American.
Joyce and Heather are the two who first helped me grasp both the historical background and the legal underpinnings of what we are dealing with. I was lucky to have found them early on. I've added others since then that each give me another facet of the picture. Jay Kuo is the latest of my teachers, and the public servants standing up against what they know is wrong are mentors and examples for us all.
They all give me hope that enables me to speak up and add my voice in the hopes that others will also join their voices. And I learn so much from many of you, including some old hands who remember as far back as the decade before I was born and what the world went through then. I've learned a lot from them, regard them as mentors, and know that many of them helped create the era of social advances I grew up in, and raised my children in. We are losing them now. I feel I owe it to them to do what I can to maintain what they spent their lives working on, to keep it safe for the generations after us. I
While I admire and praise the integrity of these brave officials, I lament that this is exactly what Trump/Musk/Bondi/Bove/Patel et al., want - anyone true to their oath to the Constitution gone.
Probably, but the important thing was that they maintained their public duty and didn't fold to extortion. They are not the self-serving opportunists we too often elect to public office. Our society, badly, needs more of the former.
I am not a public employee and I probably don't appreciate the legal nuances between "resigning" and "getting fired." Either way, if one refuses to do something based on the order being unlawful or unethical, the person standing up for principle should receive our support and applause. In my thinking, it makes even greater sense to resist an unlawful order and to force the official requesting it to a showdown. Once officially fired an employee can take her case to the press, sue for wrongful termination, and use the internet to spread opprobrium for the official(s) who have made the unlawful demands. Being fired for correctly upholding legal or ethical principles shouldn't harm one's future employment prospects. I don't know if it affects one's health insurance, pension rights, or other benefits. Perhaps others can add to my understanding.
I am seeing a lot which I am truly ashamed of. I am also seeing an awful lot of Americans both in the press (i.e. The Contrarian) and who have found themselves in the way of Trumps takeover of America, who have stood courageously tall for American democracy.
We need to weed these bad elements out and we need to stand behind those with such exemplary courage!
I appreciate everything you do to keep us informed and (relatively) calm. I applaud the attorneys who resigned, and I’m concerned about who will replace them.
Amazing and mind blowing, Joyce. Thank you for the details of what the Courts are doing and in a succinct way. It has been less than a month, and those who are trying to keep our democracy must be exhausted. What will happen after 48 months of this?
The attorneys who resigned rather than follow unlawful orders are to be celebrated. Remember, courage is contagious and there's been far too little of it lately.
That is fundamental. The public has a moral and pragmatic duty to celebrate and remember courageous tellers of significant truths, especially where courage and sacrifice are so clearly required. I don't think we do so nearly enough. That is real heroism, those who more than self (justice and) their country love by making admirable choices. Like a living thing, democracy can withstand lies and treachery, but only if we adequately reject it.
I absolutely agree, but am fearful of who their replacements will be!
They were all dumbasses who quit instead of fighting.
Profiles in cowardice.
Had they not quit, WE would not be talking about what had happened. The country would not be aware of the corruption/bribe quid pro quo of the charges and the attempted/failed/success of dropping the charges after corralling a department of lawyers and forcing them to choose a representative to take the case to court or all would be dismissed. I would say the integrity to quit rather than perform an unlawful act garnered a lot of attention and was certainly courageous act of personal integrity.
I disagree. That whole, "keep my powder dry and go along to get along so I can "fight from the inside" is what got us here in the first place.
Thanks so much for a dose of encouragement - officials actually upholding and defending the Constitution.
I really appreciate the work you do and the concise and informative content of your sub stacks Your work is well organized, readable and to the point. Thank you. Press on!
Thank you Joyce for sifting through this for all of us. You are a National Treasure.
It is a fact the DOJ hires (or used to) some of the best legal minds and not personal injury lawyers that advertise on Faux News. I would hope some of these attorneys who resigned on principle are hired by prestigious law firms and compensated for their truth worth as bright, competent and experienced lawyers. Maybe they could use their talents to go after the Musk/Trump Administration when they run a foul of the law and Constitution, which would be full-time employment.
How can we thank those brave prosecutors for have courage to do what Senate Republicans have no integrity?
Crowd Fund?
Keeping their stories alive would be part of it.
Make sure that we fully understand why they did it, and then respectfully explain it to as many GOP voters as possible.
This is not mere incompetence. There is an IDEOLOGY behind what they're doing, and it's called "fascism". Polls show that MAGA voters largely reject fascism and want democracy. So they are now presenting fascism AS the highest form of democracy - as Vance did during his speech in Munich.
We HAVE to make sure that we fully understand WHY that is false, so that we can counter their arguments effectively.
As you can hear Vance do, they will try to make voters believe that IF they elect a president, that president should have limitless power. Congress and the courts should be merely advisory. At first sight, the idea is understandable: you vote for a president's agenda, so you want to see it enacted asap, and the fastest way to do so is that he signs one executive order after the other, rather than going through the slow process of negotiations with Congress, which inevitable include compromising. And then you declare any judge who rules one of those executive orders to be illegal or even anti-constitutional "enemies of the people" and try to remove them.
So the question is: what is wrong with fascism (the idea that you bundle the power of the legislative branch of government (Congress) and the courts into ONE branch of government, namely the executive - "fasces" meaning "bundle", in Latin)?
Why would we NOT want such a political system? Imagine Obama, who had an 81% approval rating when he came into office (almost twice Trump's approval rating), being able to install Medicare for All with a simple stroke of a pen. Why would we NOT want this?
You need to study the history of authoritarianism to be able to come up with good counterarguments (something that most Trump voters and Trump hires in the WH obviously never did) AND you need to know in detail how a democratic government actually works.
THAT's what we can do, as citizens. And to the extent that we succeed, their resignations won't have been in vain.
"There is an IDEOLOGY behind what they're doing, and it's called "fascism"...(the idea that you bundle the power of the legislative branch of government (Congress) and the courts into ONE branch of government, namely the executive - "fasces" meaning "bundle", in Latin)".
Please tell us how Trump is trying to roll legislative and judicial functions into the executive branch. From what I see, Trump is trying to shrink the size and power of the bureaucracy, and it's the Dems and their supporters crying the loudest and attempting to maintain the status quo. What manner of authoritarian wants to reduce his own power? Trump is not stating or implying through his actions that the State is above the individual. He doesn't want to tell you how much water goes through your shower head, mandate electric automobiles, or eliminate gas stoves. He has not declared Congress or the federal judiciary dissolved or suspended the Constitution in favor of rule by executive decree. In short, what he is doing hardly qualifies as "fascism".
Though not perfect in terms of execution, the idea of making government operations and spending transparent and accountable should be welcomed by both political parties. Why are the Dems in such a panic over accountability and transparency?
This is not a matter of "a little imperfection", this is a matter of one "blatantly unconstitutional" (to quote a Reagan-appointed judge who ruled against the birthright citizenship executive order) decision after the other.
The list of examples is already extremely long.
Let's just stick with this week: his AG asked a federal prosecutor, appointed by Trump himself and a member of the Federalist Society (read: extremely conservative) to DISMISS the case she was prosecuting even though all the evidence to proceed to conviction was there, and she was asked to do so only for 100% political reasons, so that the AG would be able to bribe the defendant (the NYC mayor) to no longer represent his own constituents but instead the US president. That is LITERALLY robbing the court of its constitutional duty and independence. Obviously, that prosecutor resigned. So Bondi tried to force the next prosecutor in line to commit the same anti-constitutional act. He resigned. Then she moved the case to another state. Same thing. SIX prosecutors now already resigned because they swore an oath to the Constitution and the DOJ has no legal right whatsoever to force them to pursue or drop a case.
Also this week, both Musk and the VP argued that whenever the president disagrees with a court order, he should IGNORE it. By law, all presidents HAVE to follow court orders and appeal in case they disagree. So this is also by definition FASCIST.
And then there is Musk himself. His so-called audit is happening without any real auditors in there. Instead, he uses CODERS (who rewrite computer codes). That's extremely dangerous, so now more than ever before, Congress HAS to exert its constitutional oversight role. Instead, the GOP decided to drop that role and let Musk do whatever he wants. That's the executive taking over the power of the legislative. So it's fascist.
Want me to continue?
Overall, the day you'll read the Constitution you'll see that CONGRESS and Congress only has the legal right to determine the size of the government. Only Congress can shut down agencies or funding. Today, the GOP gave that power to the executive itself. That is fascist.
Remember, fascism is defined by only one thing: the bundling of the constitutional power of the legislative branch (Congress) and the judiciary (courts) into the power of the executive. Democracy is essentially defined by the opposite: the constitutional separation and independence of the three branches of government, with each having its own rights and duties that the other two branches cannot legally take over. It's because Trump is constantly grabbing the power of the other two branches that he is installing fascism in the US.
Apart from that, Democrats not only WELCOME audits, Obama did a huge one himself. A REAL one. That means: independent accountants and forensic investigators, not tween coders who answer to an unelected official (who also happens to be the recipient of MASSIVE government subsidies - one of the few things that Musk did NOT cut; he gets $9 million a DAY from America's taxpayers). And it means constant congressional oversight. And it means showing EVIDENCE to Congress (something Musk refuses to do). And it means letting Congress decide, once it sees the evidence, what to cut and what to keep. THAT is a REAL audit. Here, something totally different and extremely fishy is going on.
Muskrat is just like Joe McCarthy, he has all the evidence, proof etc. but won't show it to anyone, and just like Joe M. it doesn't exist. It is all just like Frump, he hears stuff, repeats what he likes, and then believes it himself, dimwit that he is.
"Let's just stick with this week: his AG asked a federal prosecutor, appointed by Trump himself and a member of the Federalist Society (read: extremely conservative) to DISMISS the case she was prosecuting even though all the evidence to proceed to conviction was there, and she was asked to do so only for 100% political reasons..."
As I understand it, the case has not yet gone to trial. If it's a federal case I believe the AG has the authority to proceed or dismiss a case. And if you want to talk about "100% political reasons", then please explain why Biden's DOJ slow-walked any prosecution of Hunter Biden until public opinion forced their hand.
"Also this week, both Musk and the VP argued that whenever the president disagrees with a court order, he should IGNORE it."
Has Trump ignored any court order? Andrew Jackson actually did.
"And then there is Musk himself. His so-called audit is happening without any real auditors in there."
Did you know that there are no requirements listed in the Constitution to be a federal judge? Not age, citizenship, residency or even a law degree. All that is required is that you be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. My 2 year-old grandson is constitutionally "qualified" to be a federal judge.
The fact that are no "real auditors" is irrelevant. What is relevant is the discovery of how taxpayer money is spent. If you can specify how and where they are not fulfilling that function, please spell it out.
"Overall, the day you'll read the Constitution you'll see that CONGRESS and Congress only has the legal right to determine the size of the government."
And the Executive Branch oversees their day-to-day operations and are accountable to the people (as is Congress) for how that money is spent. If Agency 1 is simply given $40 billion dollars with no idea as to exactly where or to whom it's going, both Congress and that agency are wrong.
Congress is also the only branch of government that's allowed to make laws. That means agencies in the executive branch aren't allowed to write regulations that have the effect of laws, and Congress cannot delegate that responsibility. Congress alone has the power (specifically the House) to raise revenue, and that includes tariffs. Some time ago Congress thought it would be a good idea to give the President that power under certain circumstance...uh, no.
"Apart from that, Democrats not only WELCOME audits, Obama did a huge one himself. A REAL one."
And the results of that was what, exactly? You didn't say. Musk's mission is to "follow the money", and the Dems appear to be in full panic mode over that.
"And it means constant congressional oversight. And it means showing EVIDENCE to Congress (something Musk refuses to do)."
Maybe because Musk isn't finished yet. It's one thing to collect raw data; it's another to lay everything out in a manner that's complete, concise and correct. Do you think that should be done on the fly? Let's start by getting the facts first.
"Remember, fascism is defined by only one thing: the bundling of the constitutional power of the legislative branch (Congress) and the judiciary (courts) into the power of the executive. Democracy is essentially defined by the opposite: the constitutional separation and independence of the three branches of government, with each having its own rights and duties that the other two branches cannot legally take over."
If anything, what a lot of people are realizing is that the power of the federal government has expanded way beyond what the Founders intended, and it happened way before Trump. And I guess you're okay with a powerful executive branch and bureaucracy as long as your people are in charge. But if someone wants to pull the curtain back and see exactly what's going on...well, let's just scream "fascism!" And let's remember that Trump ran on this and the people voted for it.
Our government has an entrenched bureaucracy that must be streamlined and have their power curtailed. They are not a separate branch of the government and they do not exist as a check on presidential power. But you fail to grasp that.
No, you're wrong. Again, read the Constitution. An AG does NOT have the constitutional power to interfere in a state trial. The only time it was done before was by Nixon. And FYI: the SEVENTH prosecutor who was now asked by US AG Bondi to break his oath to the Constitution just resigned too, so it's already called the Thursday Night Massacre (after Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre - look it up if you never heard of it).
As to Musk: so you want to do this the illegal way. You actively defend the US government to commit crimes. Don't you see how utterly anti-patriotic that sounds? Also, Musk has never ever produced ANY form of evidence backing up his claims. And now his own DOGE website was HACKED, with hackers writing things on its webpage... so we have an unelected official with NO congressional oversight whatsoever who is inside the US government's never system and its computers and who cannot even make his own computer secure. Still, you want him to continue. How is this possible? What's your excuse for SUCH utter incompetence? And don't tell me that you IMAGINE that previous administrations somehow must have done this too. First of all, that's false, and secondly and much more importantly, I thought you guys wanted to make America GREAT, not AS corrupt as you imagine previous administrations were... ?
And then you end with "let's get the facts first". Apart from the facts that I already mentioned, yes, THAT is how a REAL audit is done. PROVE FACTS FIRST. Only then do you intervene and cut certain programs or even agencies. Today, the exact opposite is happening: Musk, the wealthiest person on Earth, unilaterally hit a button, with NO facts proven AT ALL, that literally kills hundreds of thousands of starving children and among the poorest adults on Earth. NO audit EVER stops the organization that is being audited from functioning WHILE under audit.
This is a scam, and I'm sure that as soon as you truly sit down and think for a moment, you can easily see this too.
"No, you're wrong."
No...you're wrong...see how easy that was? We can do this all day, right?
"An AG does NOT have the constitutional power to interfere in a state trial."
I neither stated nor implied such. But is this a state trial or a federal trial?
"Justice Department moves to dismiss Eric Adams case after extraordinary internal revolt"
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/justice-department-moves-dismiss-eric-adams-case-extraordinary-interna-rcna192294
"As to Musk: so you want to do this the illegal way."
How is this illegal? Please be very specific as to what law or laws Musk is breaking.
"And then you end with "let's get the facts first". Apart from the facts that I already mentioned, yes, THAT is how a REAL audit is done. PROVE FACTS FIRST."
Oh, forgive me, I guess I don't understand that REAL audits can only be done by a REAL auditor. I mean, it's a law somewhere, right? I guess anything DOGE uncovers can't be REAL at all, everything has to be a lie or is a mistake.
"This is a scam, and I'm sure that as soon as you truly sit down and think for a moment, you can easily see this too."
Well if this is really a scam, then I for one am patient enough to wait for the results. Then you can have your REAL auditors look at it.
I'm always astonished that Republican assholes like Josh Hawley think we can't read the damn Constitution for ourselves and must have it 'splained to us.
The guy is nothing but arrogant dreck oozing all over a saltine cracker.
He sure is. I'm one of his constituents. He's also a seditionist and a Dominionist.
Please stop referring to the trump/musk regime as an administration. It is not an administration, it is a fascist regime enacting destruction and chaos. Please, you guys know better than I that words matter. Call it what it is.
A recent Robert Reich article went through the whole thing saying "regime" instead of "administration" and it read very naturally; not at all as if the term was being used in any way as snark or to make a point, but as merely the most accurate term.
Thank you to you and your team for your excellent work. This sets up a framework and then presents factual evidence to consider how our democracy is holding up. Importantly, it is not an opinion piece. As it tracks developments over time, I hope it becomes widely known. I will look out for it, just as I do Heather Cox Richardson’s Letter from an American.
Joyce and Heather are the two who first helped me grasp both the historical background and the legal underpinnings of what we are dealing with. I was lucky to have found them early on. I've added others since then that each give me another facet of the picture. Jay Kuo is the latest of my teachers, and the public servants standing up against what they know is wrong are mentors and examples for us all.
They all give me hope that enables me to speak up and add my voice in the hopes that others will also join their voices. And I learn so much from many of you, including some old hands who remember as far back as the decade before I was born and what the world went through then. I've learned a lot from them, regard them as mentors, and know that many of them helped create the era of social advances I grew up in, and raised my children in. We are losing them now. I feel I owe it to them to do what I can to maintain what they spent their lives working on, to keep it safe for the generations after us. I
Thank you…I signed up to receive the work of Vance and Kuo because of your note.
While I admire and praise the integrity of these brave officials, I lament that this is exactly what Trump/Musk/Bondi/Bove/Patel et al., want - anyone true to their oath to the Constitution gone.
If they didn't resign, they'd be fired.
Probably, but the important thing was that they maintained their public duty and didn't fold to extortion. They are not the self-serving opportunists we too often elect to public office. Our society, badly, needs more of the former.
I am not a public employee and I probably don't appreciate the legal nuances between "resigning" and "getting fired." Either way, if one refuses to do something based on the order being unlawful or unethical, the person standing up for principle should receive our support and applause. In my thinking, it makes even greater sense to resist an unlawful order and to force the official requesting it to a showdown. Once officially fired an employee can take her case to the press, sue for wrongful termination, and use the internet to spread opprobrium for the official(s) who have made the unlawful demands. Being fired for correctly upholding legal or ethical principles shouldn't harm one's future employment prospects. I don't know if it affects one's health insurance, pension rights, or other benefits. Perhaps others can add to my understanding.
Is there a Crowd Fund for the Prosecutors who resigned if they need $$ for emergencies. We should help them if they have need.
I am seeing a lot which I am truly ashamed of. I am also seeing an awful lot of Americans both in the press (i.e. The Contrarian) and who have found themselves in the way of Trumps takeover of America, who have stood courageously tall for American democracy.
We need to weed these bad elements out and we need to stand behind those with such exemplary courage!
I appreciate everything you do to keep us informed and (relatively) calm. I applaud the attorneys who resigned, and I’m concerned about who will replace them.
Emil Bove has made himself unemployable outside of the maga catacombs.
The American Bar Association should remove his law license.
Joyce, thank you so much for this work. It's encouraging.
Amazing and mind blowing, Joyce. Thank you for the details of what the Courts are doing and in a succinct way. It has been less than a month, and those who are trying to keep our democracy must be exhausted. What will happen after 48 months of this?
Rising, better organized, resistance to autocracy, I hope.