Hacker News Reader

Comment by TrackerFF | Hacker News Reader

Impeachment speedrun.

First the inspectors general firing, and now this - which seems to be illegal impoundment?

> Impeachment speedrun.

An impeachment of a GOP president, by a GOP House and GOP Senate? With one of the GOP reps trying to give him a third term:

* https://ogles.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-ogles-propo...

* https://www.cnbc.com/2025/01/23/trump-third-term-amendment-c...

Sure.

The GOP are now basically accomplices.

I am sure at least some of them know right from wrong. It'd be a tragedy if representatives were loyal to a president over the country.

It’s almost like you haven’t been watching US politics for the last eight years.

I should have said I'm hopeful. I'm always hopeful people can behave like adults and see the long term consequences of their action (and inaction) over others as well as themselves.

This is like being hopeful of staying dry in the rain

> I am sure at least some of them know right from wrong.

They also know which way the crowd/mob leans, and they know if they want to achieve their goals/agenda

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025

they need to have power

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik

If you don't have power you can't do shit. Just ask Harris/Biden/Clinton.

“The first duty of a revolutionary is to get away with it.” ― Abbie Hoffman, Steal This Book

At this point, at least in the US, ideals are for suckers and losers. You can have ideals once you're in, but being effective is more important before that.

There is no if in that sentence. It is Trump's party. The party of what used to be personal freedom is now in support of what amounts to a king.

It's honestly astonishing.

What were once considered conservative values have been completely tossed aside. It kind of blows my mind.

> It'd be a tragedy if representatives were loyal to a president over the country.

Trump was impeached twice by the House but was not convicted by the GOP-controlled Senate twice.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Donald_Trump

The second impeachment was for "incitement of insurrection".

Pardon my bluntness, but what planet are you living on?

Knowing right from wrong and acting on that knowledge are entirely different though.

Standing up to Trump is dangerous to one's political and mortal future. He's removed the security details of Mike Pompeo and John Bolton, two Republicans who served him during his first term. Trump is a spiteful man with no care about the lives or safety of others, and that's partly what got him elected. The remaining Republicans know this, and will toe the line. Speaking out against Trump, even if one retires, is dangerous.

Plus it’s not like there are Democrats doing anything to fight it.

Exactly. There is no need for fascism because there is no left opposing him. That is what people do not understand. We have corporate government that will be dictating your lives and you are focused on Trump and not the Oligarchs that control everything.

They lack the numbers. And it seems everyone is frightened by everyone else's obsequiousness towards borderline illegal orders.

What would a hypothetical "left" do differently than the current Democrats? Assuming this "left" is similarly handicapped like the Democrats are, having just lost control of the House, Senate and White House?

You don't get to blame the Democrats anymore. They were voted out in November, and are no longer in power in any way.

There is no "opposition" power structure in the US system.

If congress brings a bill to a vote, democrats can threaten to filibuster it, but the GOP can pretty easily call that bluff right now.

That's it. That's the only "power" a minority party has in the US system.

Imagine being a party so pretentious, so horrible and disgusting that you lose to a fascist

Oh, when the republicans are turning to fascism let's blame the democrats that lost the election completely and has no power to do anything anymore.

What things do you think the Democrats should do but aren't doing? Your "anything" suggests you think there are many such things. A list would be helpful.

> Plus it’s not like there are Democrats doing anything to fight it.

Can you enumerate some of the things that they could do, given recent actions have all been Executive Orders, which is the prerogative of the Executive branch.

Unless things start happening in the legislature, where perhaps things like filibustering are an option, what options do the Democrats have against purely Executive actions?

> Can you enumerate some of the things that they could do,

Biden had a very long time to do a lot of things. You can get a lot done with a bit of creativity and a willingness to cause a few constitutional crisis'.

He was even given a blank check for crime by the Supreme Court.

So the Executive and majorities in both houses of the Legislative branch are all aligned? How does that make them "accomplices" and not just a valid government doing governance?

> How does that make them "accomplices" and not just a valid government doing governance?

By supporting someone who attempted a self-coup:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capito...

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-coup

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_impeachment_of_Donald_T...

"Accomplice" means a confederate in a crime. If the executive violates a law and the legislature, among whose duties is to catch and prosecute such acts, allows him to do so, they are accomplices. If they work together to achieve ends through the normal, legal process, they are not accomplices.

Sorry this doesn't acknowledge the reality of how our government has trended over the last 30 years

What is a crime? At the end of the day, laws and legal processes are just social norms. To quote The Onion: "Trump Claims He Can Overrule Constitution With Executive Order Because Of Little-Known ‘No One Will Stop Me’ Loophole"[0]

[0] https://theonion.com/trump-claims-he-can-overrule-constituti...

Who will enforce the law against him?

There's a long list of EOs that have been overturned by courts.

There is a long list of unpunished Trump crime.

For now.

How long until these get pushed up to the constitutional courts where the judges can be legally bribed?

Since it isn’t clear what exactly will be stopped here.

Some of these could hurt the districts with republican representation the most. Like food stamps, unemployment, and similar. So maybe something this stupid will wake people up?

A lot of other policies could be twisted so trump isn’t directly blamed. This is… pretty cut and dry if you suddenly stop getting money you rely on.

So maybe it’s actually possible? One can hope.

I have zero faith. Republicans in those districts will find a way to spin this, and the people will eat it up.

Maybe I'm just too cynical anymore but I have almost no faith in the American electorate.

I mean. You’re not wrong.

I think the only way I am going to be sane over the next 2 or 4 years is to hold out some sliver of hope…

He promised months back that he would challenge the impoundment law. He claims it's unconstitutional.

See: https://www.npr.org/2024/11/26/nx-s1-5195528/trump-impoundme...

So presumably he wants this to go to the Supreme Court. If the court rule against him, then Congress's authority is preserved, so I doubt they will impeach him. If the court rules in his favor, then I doubt they'd impeach him over something the court agrees with him on.

JD Vance might be his insurance policy. I can easily imagine him being even worse.

Absent context, I think there's a reasonable argument to be made. Remember, though, that we're comparing a JD Vance who was recently impressed with the importance of following the rules with a Trump recently impressed by the opposite.

Donald Trump could do truly terrible things that I will not list because I would be accused of hysteria and the GOP would not impeach, let along convict him. The only sin I can imagine they would not forgive is to raise taxes on the wealthy. It's going to be a long, strange four years, and perhaps more.

It doesn't matter, they won't vote to remove. Even actual treason wasn't enough last time.

Even if he was impeached (he won't be), then its DJ Vance, who will just continue the playbook. Looking at the next 6 people in the presidential line of succession, everyone on of them would be fully onboard with keeping this up.

> Impeachment speedrun.

do you think Trump is playing this by ear? this term is unique because he has an experienced team that has already served one term, they are aware of what comes after leaving office, they had 4 years to plan ahead, and they can blame the previous administration for a lot of stuff.

if Trump was going to serve two terms anyway, this is the worst-case scenario for democrats.

nothing new. Reagan fired 15 IGs too soon after his 1981 inauguration

So, I'm not American and have just seen all the Trump circus from afar in the las 10 years.

But... hasn't Donald Trump ready been impeached, trialed, found guilty of several crimes, several times with total impunity?

Like, at.this point from here it seems he can do as he pleases. He could very well shoot someone and he will get away with it.

The only hope for the US as a country is some kind of natural disaster (heart attack , stroke or similar).

Nope. Congress destroyed the power of the impeachment in Trump's first term.

Not giving money to researchers is hardly a criminal matter. Of course some congressmen could propose impeachment anyway, pretty sure some already have, but they don't have the numbers to kick him out of office so it's just posturing for their constituents.

Well, at this rate, and by his actions, Trump is basically telling congress to get f'ed.

His disregard with what Congress already signed into law is troubling, but he might find sympathy from members who were not in Congress before, as well as members who didn't sign the legislation he's overriding.

Then those new members can pass a law ratifying these cuts and doing so legally. This is just crime.

Executive impoundment is explicitly illegal and unconstitutional, actually. The president does not have the power of the purse, that's congress.

Arguably this is only temporary. I don't think Congress sets the timeline do they?

It's not immediately clear to me how we should read the Constitution on that question, but the Impoundment Control Act seems to explicitly include "delay" alongside "withholding" in things that it might be forbidding.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com