Trump 2025

[Apathy]

2 minutes ago, Dudeliduu said:

Det er så tragikomisk å se folk fra det ene året til det andre ikke innse sitt eget hykleri såpass krystallklart som dette.
Mange slike tilfeller.

Ja det skal virkelig bli artig å følge med på saker mot politiske motstandere de neste 4 årene. Kommer det til å ta 4 år før sakene blir ført (eller ikke ført da den politiske motstanderen vinner neste valg) eller blir det rett i fengsel for å ikke ha kysset ræva til nåværende "administrasjon" (som i praksis er EN person med en drøss med JA mennesker som leker lemmings).

[jallajall]

Musk fortalte i går om et ineffektivt byråkrati som ikke har kapasitet til å håndtere mer enn 10.000 pensjoneringer i månden. Alt er på papir og er foregår i en gammel gruve fra 1950-tallet i Pennsylvania.

WaPo fortalte det samme for 11 år siden, men likevel er det ingenting som har blitt gjort siden da...

Here, inside the caverns of an old Pennsylvania limestone mine, there are 600 employees of the Office of Personnel Management. Their task is nothing top-secret. It is to process the retirement papers of the government’s own workers.

But that system has a spectacular flaw. It still must be done entirely by hand, and almost entirely on paper.

Held up by all that paper, work in the mine runs as slowly now as it did in 1977.

 

[fredrik2]

49 minutes ago, jallajall said:

«There is an old saying that if it weren’t for double standards, liberals wouldn’t have any standards at all»

 

Er vel inget problem att "ändra sig" på det sättet baserat på vad som sker och situation?

Först tyckte hon att höysteretten gav för mye makt till presidenten och nu tycker hon har presidenten har för mye makt och vill att presidenten ska följa det dommarna sier. 

 

 

[Rhabagatz]

19 minutes ago, fredrik2 said:

Först tyckte hon att höysteretten gav för mye makt till presidenten och nu tycker hon har presidenten har för mye makt och vill att presidenten ska följa det dommarna sier. 

Først og fremst er det en misforståelse at dette skal være selvmotsigende.

Høyesterett har gitt presidenten immunitet - ikke tillatelse. Dette betyr at han ikke kan, men ikke blir straffet dersom han gjør. Og det gjelder bare for offisielle handlinger innenfor hans myndighetsområde (handlinger i embets medfør). Det var altså ingen blankofullmakt til å overkjøre kongressen eller ikke følge domstolsavgjørelser.

Selvfølgelig må presidenten innrette seg etter domstolene, som jo bygger sine beslutninger på lover vedtatt av kongressen. Dette er kjernen i maktfordelingsprinsippet. 

Kongressen lager lover, domstolene dømmer og presidenten sørger for at de følges.

At vi skal diskutere slike ting eller at visepresidenten antyder at det ikke er slik, er intet mindre enn en failtterklæring. 

  

Endret 12. februar av Rhabagatz

[Casey]

jallajall skrev (2 timer siden):

«There is an old saying that if it weren’t for double standards, liberals wouldn’t have any standards at all»

 

Du bekrefter det jeg har sagt hele tiden: Enhver anklage fra høyresiden er en tilståelse. Hykleri er en av kjerneverdiene i konservativismen.

[jallajall]

Miraklenes tid er ikke forbi.
Ser ut som retten har endret den tidligere midlertidige forføyningen, og gitt både finansministeren og Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City tilgang til Finandsdepartementets systemer igjen. Egentlig alle som hadde tilgang før 20.01 får tilbake tilgangen.
 

[obygda]

jallajall skrev (15 minutter siden):

Miraklenes tid er ikke forbi.
Ser ut som retten har endret den tidligere midlertidige forføyningen, og gitt både finansministeren og Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City tilgang til Finandsdepartementets systemer igjen. Egentlig alle som hadde tilgang før 20.01 får tilbake tilgangen.
 

En må nesten være religiøs og litt gal i toppen for å mene at dette er en positiv nyhet. Trump forsøker å ødelegge USA og følgerne hans forstår det ikke ennå.  Trump ville ha mer respekt i verden for USA. Aldri hatt mindre respekt for USA enn nå når Trump og hans lakeier flyr rundt og ødelegger USA. For egen del har jeg sluttet å handle alle varer fra USA..og vil oppfordre alle andre til å gjøre det samme. 

[jallajall]

16 minutes ago, obygda said:

En må nesten være religiøs og litt gal i toppen for å mene at dette er en positiv nyhet.

Kall meg religiøs og gal i toppen, men jeg synes det er en positiv nyhet at f.eks. egne- og underleverandører som Treasury bruker får tilbake tilgangen til å utføre vedlikehold og rette opp kritiske feil som måtte oppstå. Ser heller ikke noe veldig negativt ved at sentralbanken får tilbake tilgangen de har hatt i lang tid.
 

[JK22]

https://x.com/clashreport/status/1889716919533531471

Lenken kunne ikke bli inkludert fordi det er ingen tvitring på den URL-en.

HVA I HELVETE?!! 

Tulsi Gabbard, det verste valget noensinne; er nå den nye intelligensministeren i Trump-administrasjonen! Dette hendt til tross for massive advarsler fra ALLE KANTER - generaler, etterretningseksperter, militære eksperter og allierte som sentrale personer i det amerikanske militæret! 

[jallajall]

Senatet følger som annonsert opp med cloturevote på RFKjr. Da går man i gang med 29 timers post-debatt før man har den endelige avstemningen.


 

[jallajall]

Tja.

 

[JK22]

Donald Trump is dismantling election safeguards while musing about a third term | Opinion

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/donald-trump-is-dismantling-election-safeguards-while-musing-about-a-third-term-opinion/ar-AA1ySP9w?ocid=BingNewsSerp&cvid=fe88987702d04642bd3f52dcb060ba64&ei=28

Among the government institutions that President Donald Trump hopes to demolish during his second term, the agencies and task forces that protect American elections are the most predictable targets.

Trump simply cannot tolerate accuracy in our elections. He lies about voter fraud, whether he wins or loses. He dismisses the dangers of foreign interference, even as he invites it.

His malign machinations in the first three weeks of his second presidency are a callback to his notorious "Russia, if you're listening ..." plea in 2016, when he called on that country to help him win his first presidential election.

Limited now by the U.S. Constitution to two terms, Trump is also openly musing about running for a third term anyway, while rejecting the notion that his vice president might be his successor in office. And a Trump ally in the U.S. House last month introduced a proposed change to the Constitution to allow a third term.

If Trump really wants a third term, the billionaires who backed him last year will need to spend plenty again. And some foreign actors could help by waging another influence campaign on his behalf.

Is that why Trump is tearing down institutions that regulate money in elections and protect our votes from foreign influence? We've all seen him court billionaires, handing guys like Elon Musk the keys to the government. We've all heard him use the media to ask foreign governments for back-channel election assistance.

My rule on coincidences in politics ‒ I don't believe in them.

Trump wants to fire FEC commissioner. She's not going quietly.

Ellen Weintraub has been a commissioner on the U.S. Federal Election Commission for 23 years and was selected as chair for this year. She has been outspoken about the disproportionate influence of billionaires in elections and the need to guard against foreign influence. So of course Trump tried to fire her last week.

Weintraub's not going quietly, and she has been public about examining legal options to resist Trump.

The FEC chair told me that someone would have to nominate her replacement, who would need to be confirmed by the Senate. Trump could have done that in his first term but didn't.

Weintraub didn't want to guess at Trump's motives, but she has been a critic of his actions and a lack of action by the FEC when concerns were raised about him, his political action committees and his family members.

She told me that of 63 allegations the FEC has received about Team Trump, the nonpartisan staff found reason to look at potential violations in 31 cases, but that none of the Republican commissioners allowed this to go forward.

"I do think I push a lot of buttons for them," Weintraub said of Trump and his billionaire political patrons.

She also issued a sharply worded rebuke in 2019 when Trump, during his first term, said in an ABC News interview that he would accept information on potential 2020 political rivals from foreign adversaries like Russia or China. Weintraub noted on social media that such an act would be illegal, adding, "I would not have thought that I needed to say this."

Trump disbanded task force that monitored 'bad guys'

John Vaudreuil, who served as U.S. attorney for the Western District of Wisconsin, said newly installed Attorney General Pam Bondi's decision to disband the Department of Justice's Foreign Influence Task Force last week during her first day on the job will have "immediate and long-lasting" consequences.

Vaudreuil, who now works with Keep Our Republic, a nonpartisan group focused on civic education and election protection, offered this warning: "I can assure you that the bad guys, whether they're Russians or wherever they're from, who want to influence our elections or get involved in our economy, they're very organized. And as I would always say to my law enforcement partners, shame on us if we're not as organized as the bad guys.

Among the tasks of the Foreign Influence Task Force, set up by the FBI during Trump's first term, was to combat efforts from overseas adversaries to "suppress voting and provide illegal campaign financing." That's according to an archived web page for the task force, since the DOJ took down the original version.

What's the echo I hear? "Russia, if you're listening ..."

Trump weakening effort to fight election misinformation

David Becker, a former Department of Justice lawyer who founded The Center for Election Innovation and Research, told me that we should also be concerned about Trump's efforts to push out of the government employees at The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency who monitor election-targeted misinformation.

"We've seen foreign adversaries, particularly China, Russia and Iran, continually attempt to influence our elections, to deceive American voters, to probe election infrastructure," said Becker, who added that the Trump administration has "unilaterally disarmed" in that international struggle. "I'm sure leaders in Moscow and Tehran and Beijing are celebrating."

You might be thinking ‒ Trump will do this sort of damage to the government but then someone new will be president in January 2029, if he follows the constitutional ban on a third term. That's a big if, as we see federal court after federal court issue "you can't do that" rulings about early Trump actions that he and his team just shrug off.

And don't think four years of damage can be fixed in one or even four years by the next president.

"You can't eradicate an intelligence or law enforcement or security agency and then just stand it up again immediately," Becker said. "It takes years to build expertise. It takes years to train agents. And it takes far less time to tear that all down."

Maybe Trump wants a third term. Maybe he can't stand the idea of government employees doing the legitimate work of government. Maybe he just revels in the notoriety born of burning down institutions.

One thing is certain ‒ if he gets his way, America will spend more than four years repairing his damage.

Mange som tror republikanerne eller Trump vil bli straffet av stemmegiverne under kongressvalget i 2026 (det har blitt latt merke til at republikanerne "stoppet opp"...) og presidentvalget i 2028 hvor Trump ikke kan stille til valg på nytt, kan ende opp med å bli svært skuffet, for valgordningssystemet har kommet under angrep samtidig som lovapparatet kompromitteres slik at valgmanipulering og valgfusk kan skje problemfritt - her må det forstås at 1789-konstitusjonen ikke har noe bestemmelse om stemmegivning, folkelig mandat, valg etc. - dette kom langt senere med lovverk og tilleggsprotokoller som kan ødelegges som sett med 14. amendementet som var holdt uvirksomt i 1880-1965 fram til borgerrettighetsloven og valgloven var vedtatt. Begge lov som er under angrep av republikanerne, mange av de ledende republikanerne - Reagan og McConnell blant annet - vil ikke ha disse to lovene som gjør det amerikanske demokratiet komplett. 

Så hvis det er folk som tror man kan få bort MAGA og Trump fra maktens kretser ved å la folket bestemme, tar de meget stygg feil fordi republikanerne har aldri brydd seg om "folkets mandat" tross all snakk - nesten 90-95 % av alle saker knyttet til valgmanipulering og valgundertrykkelse - USA er det eneste landet i verden som ikke har politiske rettigheter for en velger under et valg - selv totalitær Kina har valgregler i kommunistpartiets indre prosesser - kom fra republikanerne, slik at demokratene praktisk talt er skuerent i sammenligning! 

Og det verste er at republikanerne fram til nå hadde aldri blitt straffet av sine velgerne som nektet i eksklusjonens ånd å realisere at hvis andres rettigheter til å stemme rammes, vil de selv bli skadelidende. 

Når folk flest - om de skulle holde ut i svinnende håp - innser at de kan ikke gjøre noe for å få bort tyranniet som kan være i ferd med å manifestere seg, er det meget vanskelig å si hva som vil skje. Men muligheten for en katastrofal borgerkrig kan mangedoble seg. 

[Dragavon]

Noen som er overrasket over at dette var eit nytt Ponsi-scheme frå Trump?
 

Sitat

 

Det anslås at rundt 800 000 mennesker har tapt til sammen rundt 21 milliarder norske kroner på Trumps kryptovaluta.

Men ingenting så ille at det ikke er godt for noe. Trump skal nemlig ha tjent grovt på prosjektet

 

https://borsen.dagbladet.no/nyheter/har-tapt-milliarder/82666785

[rabler]

8 minutes ago, Dragavon said:

Noen som er overrasket over at dette var eit nytt Ponsi-scheme frå Trump?
 

https://borsen.dagbladet.no/nyheter/har-tapt-milliarder/82666785

Det som er litt mer trist er at det strengt tatt heller ikke er overraskende at såpass mange falt for den helt åpenbare svindelen.

[obygda]

rabler skrev (17 minutter siden):

Det som er litt mer trist er at det strengt tatt heller ikke er overraskende at såpass mange falt for den helt åpenbare svindelen.

La oss håpe det var mange MAGA tilhengere blant disse...til pass til dem

[Runar]

obygda skrev (6 minutter siden):

La oss håpe det var mange MAGA tilhengere blant disse...til pass til dem

Jeg kan ikke se for meg hvem andre som gikk på. Kanskje en og annen investor. Det var jo åpenbart at det kom til å ende slik!

[JK22]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/it-isn-t-an-accident-that-we-re-here-now-how-the-supreme-court-encouraged-trump-to-defy-the-law/ar-AA1yUl2U?ocid=BingNewsSerp&cvid=482d19dcb1294a32a0101a378930239b&ei=56

With President Donald Trump’s administration appearing to act in open defiance of court orders, even as the Justice Department insists the administration is trying to comply in good faith, and Vice President JD Vance railing against the authority of the judiciary, legal experts note that courts could still impose dramatic civil penalties on those who carry out Trump's orders, a measure courts are yet to impose. 

At the same time, historians note that the Trump administration, in asserting broad executive powers unchecked by Congress or the courts, is reviving legal battles that were considered settled hundreds of years ago.

On Monday, Judge John McConnell Jr., presiding over a federal court in Rhode Island, wrote that the Trump administration was violating the “plain language” of a previous court order prohibiting “all categorical pauses or freezes” in federal spending.

The freeze has affected a wide range of programs, like early childhood education programs funded by Head Start grants, tribal governments, schools in low-income districts and rural hospitals. A senior official at the Federal Emergency Management Agency also directed subordinates to freeze a vast assortment of grants on Monday, even after the ruling in Rhode Island.

Meanwhile, over the weekend Vance suggested that the administration might spurn the judicial system, claiming in a social media post that judges "aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power.”

“If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal,” Vance wrote. “If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that's also illegal.”

Trump himself told reporters Tuesday that "I always abide by the courts" despite protests from his allies, like billionaire Elon Musk, who earlier said that McConnell, the Rhode Island judge, ought to be impeached.

Michael McConnell, a former judge on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and the director of Stanford’s Constitutional Law Center, expressed skepticism that the Trump administration would openly defy a court order, despite some of its rhetoric. He spoke with Salon on Monday, before the Rhode Island court clarified that the administration was not in compliance with their previous order. 

McConnell noted that the General Accountability Office and the Comptroller General, which are technically part of the legislative branch, are theoretically responsible for ensuring the president is in compliance with appropriations statutes. But, “in the end, we rely on the courts, which is why it would be such an extreme step if the president just didn’t follow a court opinion.”

David Super, a legal historian at Georgetown University, told Salon that in terms of “the issue of overt defiance, it really hasn't happened squarely. ”

Super explained that even infamous examples often brought up when discussing the issue aren’t as clear cut as what Trump is doing right now. For instance, in the instance of Worcester v. Georgia, which concerned whether the state of Georgia had the authority to regulate the affairs of its citizens and the Cherokee Nation, President Andrew Jackson is often said to have defied the Supreme Court. Vance himself cited an apocryphal quote attributed to Jackson while appearing on a podcast in 2021, saying that "when the courts stop you, stand before the country like Andrew Jackson did and say: ‘The chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.'" 

Politico recently asked Vance if he still believed Trump should simply ignore the judicial branch. He replied: "Yup."

However, Super notes, the United States wasn’t a party to the case, “so there was never any order directed at Jackson or another federal authority. That’s an example of a president expressing disdain for a president but not refusing to comply with it.”

Another oft-cited case of a president defying a court is in the case of United States ex rel. Murphy v. Porter, which concerned President Abraham Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus. Lincoln had intervened in an attempt to serve a writ of habeas corpus. While the circuit court that ruled on the issue protested this intervention, they never actually ordered Lincoln to do something else. 

“That was not an opinion of the Supreme Court," Super said, noting that "back then Supreme Court justices sat on other courts when the Supreme Court wasn't in session.” 

“Lincoln," he continued, "was clearly unsympathetic but never defied even that order, let alone an order of the Supreme Court. It never ordered President Lincoln to do anything else.” 

In terms of mechanisms of accountability, Super said that there are some measures the courts can take that they haven't yet, with the main one being holding administration officials in civil contempt.

“If they jail people for criminal contempt, Trump can pardon them and they can get out. But courts can also charge people with civil contempt, which is not a penalty — it's a coercion,” Super said. “The Supreme Court has held that the pardon power does not apply to civil contempt.”

Essentially, courts have broad discretion to proscribe coercion in order to make people, including executive officials, comply with a court order; this can take the form of fines or jail time for the person who refuses to comply. While judges have traditionally given employees of the executive branch more leeway in their timeline for compliance, Super said that “the court is capable of imposing a fine capable of coercing anyone’s compliance,” even a billionaire.

“Go broke or go to jail,” Super said. “They could do that to Mr. Musk or Mr. Vought.”

Holly Brewer, a legal historian at the University of Maryland, told Salon that “what Trump is doing is moving back to a role for the legislature where the legislature is merely advisory.”

Brewer said that, in this way, Trump is revisiting battles that were settled in the 17th century during the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution.

“The thing that strikes me the most is that if funds are appropriated by Congress and approved to be used for particular purposes, this is the law of the land — and if the president is somehow deciding by executive order that he gets to change these fund,s this is an issue that was at the core of the constitutional crises of the 17th century,” Brewer said.

In Brewer’s assessment, the Supreme Court unleashed Trump with its presidential immunity ruling in 2024, which effectively isolates him from suffering consequences for potentially illegal acts, at least if they can be construed as official acts of the president.

“It isn’t an accident that we’re here now. It’s because of some of what the Supreme Court has done,” Brewer said. “I don’t think even the Supreme Court fully understood the consequences of the immunity decisions.”

Lawrence Rosenthal, chair of the Center for Right-Wing Studies at the University of California, agreed with Brewer in identifying the immunity decision as key legal groundwork for the current moment.

“I think the larger question is immunity or impunity: the sense that the executive can do what he wishes without fear of running afoul of the law. Another way of putting that is 'being above the law,'” Rosenthal said.

Rosenthal noted that under both German and Italian Fascism, ruling parties passed acts aimed at insulating themselves from accountability. In Germany, this was called the Enabling Act; in Italy, it was the Acerbo Law.

Rosenthal noted that both the German and Italian systems were parliamentary democracies, however, and that in the United States, it was the Supreme Court that granted this type of protection. “The name of it was 'presidential immunity,' which was discovered last year by the Supreme Court."

“Donald Trump has been given a kind of legal carte blanche, so if there are sanctions or orders and he does not follow them he is, in the words of the immunity decision, acting in his capacity as president, and he does not have criminal liability,” Rosenthal said.  

The only silver lining of the current legal battle, in Rosenthal's view, is that “Americans have had the most serious conversation in my lifetime about the nature of fascism.”

"Den konstitusjonelle krisen" har et navn; de engelske borgerkrigene som utbrøt fordi kong Karl 1. nektet å respektere parlamentets anmodninger om budsjettkontroll og parlamentsbeslutningene knyttet til statsfinansene i klar strid med etablerte normer. Først og fremst om retten til å beskatte kongerikets undersåttene, som er parlamentets ansvar den gang som i dag. Siden Henrik 8.s død hadde det vært stigende konflikt mellom konge og parlamentet etter hvert som kronens bruk av statsmidlene ble tøylesløst. Karl 1.s arroganse og stivsinnethet - som Stuartkongene var beryktet for - fulgt til en eksplosiv utvikling som eksplodert for alvor i 1642. 

Dette var bakgrunnen for de politiske tankene som er essensielt for de amerikanske grunnlovsfedrenes tanker og ideer da disse utarbeidet forkastet som ble til den amerikanske konstitusjonen for den føderale Amerika i 1787, som to år senere trådt i kraft etter å ha blitt vedtatt. Det var de engelske borgerkrigen, Stuartkongenes dårlige presentasjoner og den ærefulle revolusjonen som gjør den amerikanske konstitusjonen til en realitet helt under presist samme ide som den gang da Karl 1. kom i konflikt med parlamentet - hvem skulle ha retten til å bestyre statsfinansene skapt gjennom beskatning og avgiftskrav rettet mot det berørte folket, som skal ha sitt å si i dette. Det var dermed essensielt for grunnlovsfedrene at retten skal tilfalle den lovgivende makten sammensatt av representanter som representere samfunnet og dermed representere disse som betale skatt og avgift. 

Den utøvende makten skal nemlig ikke beskatte eller bestikke statsfinansene uten den lovgivende maktens velsignelse. Da amerikanerne gjort opprør, var det fordi som kolonisatorer var de underordnet kongens autoritet uten deltagelse i parlamentet, som den gang bare besto av folk fra de britiske øyene - og må dermed akseptere skatt som andre hadde bestemt likedan hva andre gjør med disses skattepengene uten deres tillatelse. 

Så det som skje i disse dager omkring statsforvaltningen og de amerikanske statsfinansene hvor kongressen er satt på sidelinjen gjennom noe som minner om et kollektiv svik mot 1789-konstitusjonen, er helt uparallelt; man må helt tilbake til tiden før 1688, eller mer presist Karl 1.s regentstid i 1625-1649! Og selv det er et grovt brudd på etablerte gammelengelske rettsprinsipper helt tilbake til 1200-tallet for 800 år siden, da de engelske kongene aksepterte parlamentets rett til å ha medbestemmelse i beskatning og finansbestyring. 

Det er bred enighet om at den føderale høyesteretten indirekte sett er ansvarlig for den alvorlige krisen i dag  med den idiotiske immunitetsbeslutningen, da Trump fikk absolutt immunitet - som fra Roberts` side var forsøkt vinklet ved å at at det bare gjaldt embetstjeneste og at den var begrenset; men hvis presidenten ikke trenge å frykte inngrep fra kongressen under kontroll av hans folk og hvis dommerne sitter i forvirring over hvor de faktiske grensene står - beslutningen var uhørt vag - er det i praksis absolutt immunitet. 

Intet republikk eller demokrati kan overleve innføring av absolutt immunitet hvor en av maktinstitusjonene er over loven, som i denne tilfelle presidenten i det hvite huset. Det er dette Roberts og hans kollegene ikke maktet å fatte. Selv Karl 1. var ikke hevet over loven, han ble aktuelt halshogd for hans brudd på rettigheter og privilegier som tidlige konger - selv Henrik 8., tyrannkongen - måtte respektere i møte med parlamentet. Karl 1. var ikke hevet over loven, og det var heller ikke hans sønn, som var truet på livet i 1673 til å gi parlamentet store innrømmelser. Den tredje og siste Stuartkongen måtte flykte i 1688 da han nektet å erkjenne at selv en mektig konge må respektere lover. 

[Maabren]

Vil Trump få orden på USA, fred i midtøsten og slutt på krigen i Ukraina første året? Eller ender vi opp med verdenskrig?

[Runar]

Maabren skrev (1 minutt siden):

Vil Trump få orden på USA, fred i midtøsten og slutt på krigen i Ukraina første året? Eller ender vi opp med verdenskrig?

Jeg tror svaret er verken eller, men nærmere politisk kaos i statene og en veldig spent situasjon ellers i verden.

[Paxville]

https://www.vg.no/nyheter/i/kwPJ7B/trump-etter-lengre-samtale-med-putin-enige-om-aa-starte-ukraina-forhandlinger-umiddelbart