Jen Rubin and Norm Eisen discuss the recent emergency order from State Democracy Defenders Fund seeking to prevent public disclosure of any terminated FBI agents and personnel.
So … Trump has now created his own contingent of Brown Shirts (look it up) by pardoning the violent January 6th participants almost immediately after his inauguration. He thereby signaled that violence for HIS cause (another discussion) against those who oppose him will have NO negative consequences for the perpetrators. Even including violence against police and others upholding the law.
But, of course, because of the Supreme Court ruling, Trump cannot be prosecuted for breaking laws if it’s part of him doing presidential stuff.
Doesn’t it seem that the Supreme Court has the right to tell him that these actions he is calling presidential, in fact are not, and that just because he carries out his own wishes for control while in his office and miss uses his actions and edicts, or whatever he chooses to call these behaviors, does not mean that it is official business of the president, particularly when it is not an action given power to a president by our Constitution. It seems to me that the court would be totally justified in telling him that. It is up to the court to save people any chance of Congress, in the FBI, in legal actions that have been taken and hearings, and then other justified items of business which Trump is twisting to get rid of anyone who opposes him. It seems that he thinks if he gets rid of them, there will be nobody to follow to vote against him, if voting is allowed as it should be. The court needs to reverse that decision they made after they rule that his actions do not pertain to that. They should have known in the first place unless they just wanted to dictator that that was no rule to be making.
"Doesn’t it seem that the Supreme Court has the right to tell him that these actions he is calling presidential..."
SCOTUS is typically a court of appeals, not a court of original jurisdiction. And they can't issue a ruling unless someone or some group files a lawsuit and SCOTUS accepts it.
"They should have known in the first place unless they just wanted to dictator that that was no rule to be making."
Trump, despite his flaws, is not a dictator. He hasn't declared martial law, dismissed /dissolved Congress, abolished the federal court system and claimed total control of the government. Despite all the howls from the Dems/progressives/libs, Trump is not orchestrating a coup against our democracy. He is, however, attempting major changes to the administrative state which is under the control of the Executive Branch.
I'm sure some of what he's doing is questionable or unconstitutional (trying to eliminate birthright citizenship). But the Constitution does say this:
"Clause 1. Powers and Term of the President
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."
That power is not vested in the administrative state/bureaucracy. That is under the control of the President, so he gets some latitude. As I understand it, the structure of these various agencies is determined by Congress via legislation, but the operations can be altered by the President. USAID, however, was created by executive order, and is wholly under the control of the President.
Can the President Abolish, Move, or Consolidate USAID?
Because Congress established USAID as an independent establishment (defined in 5 U.S.C. 104) within the executive branch, the President does not have the authority to abolish it; congressional authorization would be required to abolish, move, or consolidate USAID.
The Secretary of State established USAID as directed by Executive Order 10973, signed on November 3, 1961. The agency was meant to implement components of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA, P.L. 87-195), enacted on September 4, 1961.
Section 1413 of the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, Division G of P.L. 105-277, established USAID as an “independent establishment” outside of the State Department (22 U.S.C. 6563).
In that act, Congress provided the President with temporary authority to reorganize the agency (22 U.S.C. 6601). President Clinton retained the status of USAID as an independent entity, and the authority to
reorganize expired in 1999. Congress has not granted the President further authority to abolish, move, or consolidate USAID since.
Bob, thank you for the information. I stand corrected. I've been wrong about things before and I will continue to be wrong in the future, just not necessarily on every topic.
With that said, I believe USAID's days and operational practices are over. We are going to find out where taxpayer dollars are going and what USAID considers "humanitarian aid", how much money the intended recipients actually receive, and other such information. We do need that transparency and there should be more accountability. Hopefully USAID (or what's left of it) is under the direct control of the State Department and they should review and approve of every project USAID does in the future.
I would have to verify that, about USAID, before simply saying "okay, we'll, it's out of our hands then." In general, though, I think you're on the right track as far as due process not (yet) being threatened on a national scale. And I *hope* you're right, but I don't have that level of confidence in the checks and balances. I wish I did, but I don't.
Thank you for the compliment. I try to do my best here. I won't always get it right, but I'll try to be a counter to the prevailing narrative in this forum.
I understand the issue with prosecuting Trump for doing things in his “official” capacity, but does that cover President Musk? I want to know why he and his little brown shirt mafia aren’t already under arrest.
AGREED....all true. But 3.5 American people will NOT roll over...have Faith...This is NOT Hungary, even tho he had Viktor Orbin as a Guest at Mar A Lago for tips and tricks and support ! The writing has been ON THE WALL since the first "secret 3 hour long PRIVATE meeting " with Putin in 2015 and in 2017 again FROM USA TODAY WHEN IT COULD SPEAK
After meeting with Putin at the 2017 Group of 20summit in Hamburg, Germany, Trump took his interpreter's notes and told him not to discuss the meeting with anyone, including other U.S. officials, the Post reported.
The paper said Trump's handling of the Hamburg meeting was "part of a broader pattern by the president of shielding his communications with Putin from public scrutiny and preventing even high-ranking officials in his own administration from fully knowing what he has told one of the United States’ main adversaries."........
They used to call this treason, back in the day.
Our Trojan Horse is our numbers and our RESOLVE .... NO ONE ! is going to steal our Country and our FREEDOM :) :) :)
I’m wondering if this constitutes “presidential stuff” It would be interesting to find out if he can shoot someone on 5th avenue and break all the laws of the US Constitution and never be prosecuted.
Since Elon Musk and his posse of tweens have taken over the Treasury Department, should I, a 76 year olds women on Social Security who has said bad things about this, worry that he will decide I am not worthy of HIS ( that the US Treasury ‘s money?) Asking for friend?
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU for captioning and even more for the transcript.
No offense, but never gonna watch a video of talking heads -- takes way too much time. Will absolutely scan a transcript.
Plus now y'all're being an a11y ("11" convention 'cos the letters between "a" and "y" in accessibility total 11. Didn't come up with it; not my fault). Good look for the good guys.
Yes, so am I grateful. As a P. S. to what I wrote in my thank you while ago, I want Jen and Norm to know that seeing you right in front of me on my phone and hearing your voices makes me feel less alone. It is so important to me to have your videos. Otherwise, it is the devastating news and silence here. Jen and Norm, your “presence” makes a helpful difference. For the most part there is nobody I can tell, and in small groups of friends, nonpolitical talk is allowed. I know who does share my views, the truth, but discussion is forbidden. Your videos also help since vision for reading is mo longer as good as I need it to be. Thank you.
Of great interest is that we see the lawyers and journalists leading the fight to save our democracy, to uphold the rule of law, and shout out the truth for all of us.
First, THANK YOU for keeping on with the lawsuits!
Second, is there a way to get the word out more widely that these lawsuits are happening? From the sound of much of the media, all these things are going unchallenged. We need to change that perception in a huge way.
Thanks, Jen and Norm! SO grateful for your coveragebof this important news. Thanks Norm for representing people who want to/need to stand up to hold onto their rights!!!! Bravo! Always a pick me up! ✊ Yes we can! 💪
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU the Contrarian News for all that you are doing for us Americans!!! You are appreciated! 🇺🇸
Thank you!! We need your focus and effective actions to help us keep the faith. We need you so much right now.
I LOVE THIS!!!!!!! "The Shock and Awe of Democracy" is fabulous!
Thank you both for giving us hope💙
So … Trump has now created his own contingent of Brown Shirts (look it up) by pardoning the violent January 6th participants almost immediately after his inauguration. He thereby signaled that violence for HIS cause (another discussion) against those who oppose him will have NO negative consequences for the perpetrators. Even including violence against police and others upholding the law.
But, of course, because of the Supreme Court ruling, Trump cannot be prosecuted for breaking laws if it’s part of him doing presidential stuff.
Doesn’t it seem that the Supreme Court has the right to tell him that these actions he is calling presidential, in fact are not, and that just because he carries out his own wishes for control while in his office and miss uses his actions and edicts, or whatever he chooses to call these behaviors, does not mean that it is official business of the president, particularly when it is not an action given power to a president by our Constitution. It seems to me that the court would be totally justified in telling him that. It is up to the court to save people any chance of Congress, in the FBI, in legal actions that have been taken and hearings, and then other justified items of business which Trump is twisting to get rid of anyone who opposes him. It seems that he thinks if he gets rid of them, there will be nobody to follow to vote against him, if voting is allowed as it should be. The court needs to reverse that decision they made after they rule that his actions do not pertain to that. They should have known in the first place unless they just wanted to dictator that that was no rule to be making.
I am unable to correct the spelling for misuses.
Don't worry, I don't think anyone will Ms. understand you.
"Doesn’t it seem that the Supreme Court has the right to tell him that these actions he is calling presidential..."
SCOTUS is typically a court of appeals, not a court of original jurisdiction. And they can't issue a ruling unless someone or some group files a lawsuit and SCOTUS accepts it.
"They should have known in the first place unless they just wanted to dictator that that was no rule to be making."
Trump, despite his flaws, is not a dictator. He hasn't declared martial law, dismissed /dissolved Congress, abolished the federal court system and claimed total control of the government. Despite all the howls from the Dems/progressives/libs, Trump is not orchestrating a coup against our democracy. He is, however, attempting major changes to the administrative state which is under the control of the Executive Branch.
So you're saying what Trump is attempting is normal and OK? It's all legal, on the up and up? Much ado about nothing?
I'm sure some of what he's doing is questionable or unconstitutional (trying to eliminate birthright citizenship). But the Constitution does say this:
"Clause 1. Powers and Term of the President
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."
That power is not vested in the administrative state/bureaucracy. That is under the control of the President, so he gets some latitude. As I understand it, the structure of these various agencies is determined by Congress via legislation, but the operations can be altered by the President. USAID, however, was created by executive order, and is wholly under the control of the President.
Sorry, you should have done more research before you come to that conclusion.
This is from a document prepared by Congressional Research Service; here is the link but I'm not sure if links are supported: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN12500
Can the President Abolish, Move, or Consolidate USAID?
Because Congress established USAID as an independent establishment (defined in 5 U.S.C. 104) within the executive branch, the President does not have the authority to abolish it; congressional authorization would be required to abolish, move, or consolidate USAID.
The Secretary of State established USAID as directed by Executive Order 10973, signed on November 3, 1961. The agency was meant to implement components of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA, P.L. 87-195), enacted on September 4, 1961.
Section 1413 of the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, Division G of P.L. 105-277, established USAID as an “independent establishment” outside of the State Department (22 U.S.C. 6563).
In that act, Congress provided the President with temporary authority to reorganize the agency (22 U.S.C. 6601). President Clinton retained the status of USAID as an independent entity, and the authority to
reorganize expired in 1999. Congress has not granted the President further authority to abolish, move, or consolidate USAID since.
Bob, thank you for the information. I stand corrected. I've been wrong about things before and I will continue to be wrong in the future, just not necessarily on every topic.
With that said, I believe USAID's days and operational practices are over. We are going to find out where taxpayer dollars are going and what USAID considers "humanitarian aid", how much money the intended recipients actually receive, and other such information. We do need that transparency and there should be more accountability. Hopefully USAID (or what's left of it) is under the direct control of the State Department and they should review and approve of every project USAID does in the future.
Thank you again for your reply.
I would have to verify that, about USAID, before simply saying "okay, we'll, it's out of our hands then." In general, though, I think you're on the right track as far as due process not (yet) being threatened on a national scale. And I *hope* you're right, but I don't have that level of confidence in the checks and balances. I wish I did, but I don't.
"...but I don't have that level of confidence in the checks and balances. I wish I did, but I don't."
Completely agree, regardless of which political party is in charge.
Thank you for your explanations.
Thank you for the compliment. I try to do my best here. I won't always get it right, but I'll try to be a counter to the prevailing narrative in this forum.
I would hope that everyone would concern themselves with being factual rather than being a "counter to the prevailing narrative..."
Sometimes narratives are actually factually correct.
Are you referring to a particular narrative in this case?
Well, thank goodness the resistance has arrived. /s
"Well, thank goodness the resistance has arrived. /s"
Yeah, it's great to see the daily meltdowns.
I understand the issue with prosecuting Trump for doing things in his “official” capacity, but does that cover President Musk? I want to know why he and his little brown shirt mafia aren’t already under arrest.
AGREED....all true. But 3.5 American people will NOT roll over...have Faith...This is NOT Hungary, even tho he had Viktor Orbin as a Guest at Mar A Lago for tips and tricks and support ! The writing has been ON THE WALL since the first "secret 3 hour long PRIVATE meeting " with Putin in 2015 and in 2017 again FROM USA TODAY WHEN IT COULD SPEAK
After meeting with Putin at the 2017 Group of 20summit in Hamburg, Germany, Trump took his interpreter's notes and told him not to discuss the meeting with anyone, including other U.S. officials, the Post reported.
The paper said Trump's handling of the Hamburg meeting was "part of a broader pattern by the president of shielding his communications with Putin from public scrutiny and preventing even high-ranking officials in his own administration from fully knowing what he has told one of the United States’ main adversaries."........
They used to call this treason, back in the day.
Our Trojan Horse is our numbers and our RESOLVE .... NO ONE ! is going to steal our Country and our FREEDOM :) :) :)
I’m wondering if this constitutes “presidential stuff” It would be interesting to find out if he can shoot someone on 5th avenue and break all the laws of the US Constitution and never be prosecuted.
Since Elon Musk and his posse of tweens have taken over the Treasury Department, should I, a 76 year olds women on Social Security who has said bad things about this, worry that he will decide I am not worthy of HIS ( that the US Treasury ‘s money?) Asking for friend?
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU for captioning and even more for the transcript.
No offense, but never gonna watch a video of talking heads -- takes way too much time. Will absolutely scan a transcript.
Plus now y'all're being an a11y ("11" convention 'cos the letters between "a" and "y" in accessibility total 11. Didn't come up with it; not my fault). Good look for the good guys.
I am the same, not a fan of videos but I read the transcripts!!
Wow! I appreciate what you and Norm are doing to keep us all in the loop.
So grateful for these two people.
Yes, so am I grateful. As a P. S. to what I wrote in my thank you while ago, I want Jen and Norm to know that seeing you right in front of me on my phone and hearing your voices makes me feel less alone. It is so important to me to have your videos. Otherwise, it is the devastating news and silence here. Jen and Norm, your “presence” makes a helpful difference. For the most part there is nobody I can tell, and in small groups of friends, nonpolitical talk is allowed. I know who does share my views, the truth, but discussion is forbidden. Your videos also help since vision for reading is mo longer as good as I need it to be. Thank you.
Thank you, capital C contrarians!
Jen! I have admired your shows for a long time!
Norm! I knew you leaned left but I'm thrilled to see that you're assisting Jen! Thank you!
Thank you so much! Please say something about whether Trump is obeying the restraining orders or are they just running illegal rampage and don't care?
Although there's little media coverage, there have, in fact, been multiple lawsuits initiated already.
Of great interest is that we see the lawyers and journalists leading the fight to save our democracy, to uphold the rule of law, and shout out the truth for all of us.
cc: Senate and House of Representatives.
I was just thinking that the lawyers and the independent journalists are doing more for democracy than those that took an oath.
I agree, Elizabeth. And we need to get their messages out through social media.
You guys should get Pulitzers and Medals of Freedom. Thank you for your public service. After watching this, I might be able to sleep tonight!
Me too. For the first time in a week.
Is the Trump admin obeying the
TROs?
First, THANK YOU for keeping on with the lawsuits!
Second, is there a way to get the word out more widely that these lawsuits are happening? From the sound of much of the media, all these things are going unchallenged. We need to change that perception in a huge way.
Thanks, Jen and Norm! SO grateful for your coveragebof this important news. Thanks Norm for representing people who want to/need to stand up to hold onto their rights!!!! Bravo! Always a pick me up! ✊ Yes we can! 💪