FBI, EPA, and Treasury told Citibank to freeze funds to claw back climate money
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
Judge Chutkan also ordered the Justice Department to provide the court with details about the alleged fraud, “because I don’t have the credible evidence that’s required.”
This whole calling things fraud without actually have any evidence is really starting to get old.
However, this very rarely happens except in the most egregious cases where the lawyer is usually also disbarred for their conduct (i.e., Guiliani) so it's not a meaningful disciplinary measure.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/trump-...
Why do these judges allow people to show up to court and make exceptionally stupid arguments?
So to them, there's no shame in representing an asshole and advancing a terrible argument, if that's what their client wants.
What's more, generally you don't become a judge without being a lawyer for a few decades first. And they know what class solidarity is. Why would they be overly harsh with their colleagues and friends, if nothing explicitly demands they do so?
Pretty much every legal case ends involves at least one side ending up unhappy. And pretty much every legal case involves at least one person who's happy to make legal threats. I'd wager many lawyers have someone threaten to get them disbarred a few times a year. It'd be difficult for the legal system to function if getting people disbarred was easy.
I’m not asking why there are people representing shaky cases. Even bad people are entitled to a competent defense.
I’m talking about why judges allow lawyers to get away with breaking courtroom procedure and rules.
I don’t think there is as much class solidarity among lawyers. Most lawyers I know are happy to shit talk other lawyers, hell, many of them would jump at the chance to find an idiot in contempt.
After a few decades of dealing with clowns and reaching a federal judgeship, you’d think they would take the opportunity to knock some heads.
Is that a thing judges can do? They can imprison you for contempt of court; wouldn't perjury need a prosecutor?
In my lifetime politicians have associated with flagrant lies that led to 100,000s of deaths and they aren't even expected to apologise. The Iraq war alone is a study - eg, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Body_Count_project.
There is this weird thing where the big government people have suddenly had a revelation that the day-to-day operation of government is threatening. And I welcome that because it is true, I just don't know what they think has changed apart from that they lost an election.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI_search_of_Mar-a-Lago
If we can pretend those are being done in good faith then we can pretend that the current Trump admin are being honest and reasonable too.
It was believed that Trump had improperly stored classified documents there...
... and he had.
And was lying about it too.
So yeah, how was that not good faith?
"These documents are missing. They were last in the possession of the President. He's on video seen with staffers loading up similar documents to take to Florida. We apply for a search warrant when he denies what's on video, a judge grants it, and we go look, and find exactly those documents."
You: "Witch hunt! Bad faith witch hunt!"
All these politicians are committing things that are crimes. Raiding your opponents house because you think they're improperly storing documents is blatant intimidation and harassment and the follow up was absolutely criminal prosecutions of political opponents without justification. The only silver lining is the US public had the rational response and supported Trump against the bullying.
The FBI raided Mar-a-lago as a last resort. He was asked to return classified documents and lied about it. Then it was shown he ordered others to move the documents so as to obstruct the investigation. As pointed out before. What should happen? If I would do that I would be in jail, rightly so.
That's a lot of the times the difference. Many left leaning people will say "and they should be prosecuted too" which is almost ... shocking ... to some on the other side (and not in part because they really see it as 'sides').
> Raiding your opponents house because you think they're improperly storing documents is blatant intimidation
Horseshit. You act as though it's some wild cockeyed theory. There are audit trails for classified documents. The President's office was the last who had them. He and his staffers were shown on national fucking TV carrying boxes that looked identical onto a plane and into his private residence. And then he lied about it, and attempted to conceal evidence and obstruct justice.
Your spin is disingenous at best. "Bullying". And if you think the public mostly thought Trump was being unfairly "bullied" and intimated over those documents, then that says something about your perspective.
Also for complete clarity, since Biden had a very similar thing happen with the improper storing of documents: He shouldn't be doing that either. Why didn't it rise to the same level? Maybe because he didn't actively try to sabotage an investigation into it. But I don't think it should have been ignored because "well, -he- has a '(D)' after his name".
That is tantamount to saying the issue isn't the mis-storing of classified documents, but that Biden didn't feel like threatened by an investigation from the Biden administration. Colour me shocked. That and the lawfare the Democrats were engaging in through the last election cycle was blatant process abuse and it was a relief that the attacks failed in such spectacular fashion.
This is a vocal mob of activists looking for ways to get Trump. If they want to do that by proposing general-purpose anti-corruption improvements and limitations on government then sure, that might be a productive path forward. But in practice it is going to be a bunch of measures that only target Trump because these people aren't worried about the abuse of power, in fact they were cool with it when it targeted their enemies. It has been an ongoing issue for at least the 20 years; since the Patriot act came into action. Probably longer. It hasn't suddenly sprung up because Trump won a second election with a bigger margin than last time. We know for a fact that the people who are serious about it have been unable to get much purchase in the political world.
He perhaps didn't feel that way because he didn't lie under oath about having said documents.
The same sworn statement the FBI gave to the judge before getting a search warrant for, y'know, the president's private residence.
https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco-weiss/pr/robert-hunter-...
Why do you defend Trump so vehemently?
He was then pardoned. By his father. Is that really the example you want to use to show Joe Biden upholding the rule of law fairly?
I don't even think it is particularly bad, there is a standing convention that presidents can do illegal things and get away with it as long as it isn't too sensitive, apparently that extends to close family. So be it. But if that is the standard, that standard applies to Trump too. I mean, if Biden thinks that taxes are optional and he is responsible improperly storing documents himself then he has no business organising FBI raids of his political opponents for doing something a bit off. Or the follow up special prosecution, adding actual abuse of power by the Biden admin to what could maybe be brushed off as miscommunication or terrible optics up to then. He clearly understands that this is normal behaviour for someone in high office.
It is this weird dynamic where the left wing clearly understands that these behaviours are bad, but only choose to recognise them as such when Trump can be targeted. Is it so terrible to accept that it is also bad when any other politician misbehaves? Consistency is necessary to make the system hold together. Trump behaving in a manner consistent with the laws and of a high ethical standard would be really nice. It would be nice if any president behaved that way. We're still waiting for one that does. On the scale of presidents Trump scores pretty highly for good behaviour. He hasn't invaded a country under false pretences which makes him the best Republican president in around 30 years. We can speculate that any war crimes he committed were probably more accidental than the purposeful use of torture by the Bush administration too.
And then tomorrow someone will be arguing that these are the people who should control healthcare or education or whatever.
Stop pretending that Trump is the same as Democrats. He is in a league of criminality that he shares with his buddy Putin, and it’s way worse than any we have ever seen in the US.
If you consider Biden pardoning his son so egregious, I think you’d agree the pardons of the thousand defendants of the violent riot on January 6 would be even more disgraceful? If your cherry picked metric for a good president is “didn’t start a war”, I’ll counter with “didn’t encourage riots to obstruct the peaceful transition of power, then pardon all those involved to intimidate anyone who dares challenge him”
It’s pretty clear to me the only person who Trump cares about is Trump. I don’t understand why anyone would defend a person with such obvious disdain and lack of empathy for people, so I’ll just leave it at that. Enjoy the carnage that Trump leaves behind for the rest of us to pick up and rebuild.
If new facts come out I might, but the these facts are fairly long in the tooth by now and they aren't persuasive. When it came out that Biden was doing the same thing an already flimsy case fell apart in in the clowny way that things do when Trump is involved. The best part is they just did a big poll over in the US and the verdict came back that they very much prefer Trump and he can do whatever he likes with classified documents.
There is a lesson here for the Dems; if they want to paint their opponent as bumbling and corrupt they shouldn't have appointed someone as bumbling and corrupt as Biden to the top job. They had a good few years and now that decision has gotten them another dose of Trump.
> If your cherry picked metric for a good president is “didn’t start a war”...
I don't know what your complaint is about that, wars are one of the most crippling mistakes that US presidents keep making, both in terms of global and domestic damage done. The resources wasted are gargantuan, the death tolls staggering, the cruelty are unbearable and the cynicism dark. The risks of something going really badly wrong are unacceptably high too. If focusing on that grim stain on America's honour is cherry picking then you should consider doing more of that. It's one of the big issues in the US and an ongoing one.
> It’s pretty clear to me the only person who Trump cares about is Trump.
Yeah we all know. You don't have to tell the right wingers that politicians suck, that is core plank of right-wing theory of governance is that they're all irredeemable scum or close to becoming that. The problem is the leftist delusion that there is a way to consistently find good politicians is what gets them caught flat-footed when someone like Biden gets the spotlight shined upon them, costing arguments credibility.
Locking them out of THEIR money because some petty fucking despot and his unelected sidekick decides that's the best way to claw back SOME money that was legally granted because fuck it, it'll hurt/anger/annoy some libs along the way, too.
I'm pretty sure the actual fraud and abuse here is coming from inside the house. Claiming the richest man in the world isn't motivated by money is like claiming Jeffrey Epstein wasn't motivated by sex.
More-importantly, it's nowhere close to "normal" try-to-reverts, where one President tries to replace an equally "soft" policy put in place by another President.
Here the newly-installed crooks are trying to deny a hard "money shall be spent on X" law passed by Congress, which is an unconstitutional attempt to seize the "power of the purse".
Same legal-vibes as if Trump declared people on his Friends List were exempt from taxes.
I'll pencil that in for April. After all, the president can direct who is and is not prosecuted..
This hasn’t happened already?
Related outcome, but different in mechanics/constitutionality.
[0] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/a-hamstrung-irs-is-a-gift...
I’m only partial joking. The check and balances in the country won’t work if half the population wants to replace democracy with theocracy.
[0] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/house-republicans-block-con...
Majority of the other things people are freaking out about were done via Executive Order, and therefore can be undone by Executive Order.
Smart people have been warning about that for nearly two decades. Now that some people happen to not like what's being undone, it's suddenly a crisis.
News at 11...
The story is written with a specific slant on purpose. "House Republicans Block..." then later admits Republicans control the House which means this is working exactly as intended. Again, you just aren't happy with the results.
Vote in the midterms if you're so upset. Otherwise, business as usual.
It's like we're standing on the street watching a building burn down and you're saying "look the sprinklers are on, this is how it's supposed to happen". No one is stupid enough to say what you're saying and actually believe it. So clearly you're just lying.
It looks like this entire nonsense is heavily going to hurt the wallets of more than half of the population. So why would they be so keen to vote for a theocracy?
Although at this stage I also wouldn't put it past the clowns in power to actively tamper with elections to get the results they want.
In practice, the president is threatening to remove any Republican member of congress who crosses him by supporting a primary challenger.
Democracy is scary stuff to some people.
Their progressive policies were adopted after Fortune 500 and major institutions had changed theirs.
Whether it be climate change or gay marriage, established companies like Goldman Sachs and Amazon were there first and the Democrats followed because they desperately align themselves with the status-quo regardless of where it is.
Just scroll through the Google News result for "Democrats". People scratch their heads because they assume they're supposed to be oppositional as opposed to institutional.
Once you understand they're the party of establishment, status quo and hegemony, there's literally no more confusion on their motivations or lack of action.
You mean like Biden enforcing our border laws?
(This should not be taken as accepting your premise)
That said, laws generally permit some leeway to the executive to set spending priorities/focus. It can be pretty limited since Congress tends to specify what department and sometimes program money must be spent on, but it still it allows for things like deciding you're going to prosecute more drug dealers even though they're long shot cases rather than easier to win fraud causes. This is done at all levels of government.
Shifting spending priorities as the law allows, though, is rather different from actively breaking the law.
Back the Blue apparently includes demonizing their daily effort to process asylees, rescue families in danger, and arrest gang-affiliated criminals, all while forgetting that crossing the border illegally is a civil offense akin to a speeding ticket. But now that we are a physical threat to their safety, we supposedly have a secure border.
> 2. Conflicts of Interest and Political Favoritism
> A $2 billion grant was awarded to Power Forward Communities, a new nonprofit with ties to Stacey Abrams, despite reporting only $100 in total revenue in 2023
> Young, Gifted & Green was awarded $20 million, even though its CEO applied for funding while serving on the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council.
The balls for this administration to attempt to call out other people on conflicts of interest and political favoritism is crazy.
I.e. that a community organizer was involved in a community organization…
Abrams' connection to Power Forward Communities, is through Rewiring America, one of the five organizations that leads the program.
That seems pretty weak. No idea what the other group is but I mean if the above is what's being lead with, I don't find myself concerned. Looks more like working your way backwards from "I don't want this money spent so I will find whatever connection I can to corruption"
It’d be funny if it wasn’t so serious
Especially nobody won't abuse Medicare because there won't be any. If they want food they can beg in the streets or work at a plantation.
Contrast with something like the Pentagon which has billions entirely unaccounted for, even after paying tens of thousands of dollars for common items such as a bathroom soap dispenser.
They employ 40 people and their CEO makes 400K, BTW.
These orgs do not deserve the benefit of the doubt.
[0]https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/521...
Anyway, this isn't business. We're talking about an organization which employed 40 people, and whose own ordering of their deliverables by importance saw 'published 8 pamphlets' in their top 3. What, precisely, was the marginal benefit of paying the CEO 400K as opposed to say, 200K (which still amounts to ~5X the median personal income)? Did that 200K net an additional webinar production and another two pamphlets?
not mentioned in or at all related to TFA, but go off.
> mostly-government-funded
False. Just blatantly wrong. The 990 you linked reports zero revenue from government sources, (part 8, line 1e) and 21m from other grants and contributions (i.e. private sources). Regrettably their website's donors page is broken, but their most recent annual report[1] reports large contributions from exactly the large grant-making foundations you'd expect (Robert Wood Johnson, Hilton, Melville, Ballmer, Annie E. Casey, ...).
> 400k
354k, plus 44k in other benefits (i.e. health insurance etc.). Regardless, yes people working for nonprofits get paid. These are professional organizations. The people that fund these organizations want their contributions to be effectively utilized to pursue the mission of the nonprofit. Finding people who will accept the absolute minimum rarely leads to an effective, sustainable organization.
> deliverable
This is (primarily) an advocacy organization. Research, data, reports, analysis, consultancy, marketing material, etc. are their byproduct and collateral. Their goal is to cause impactful, beneficial programs to be funded, implemented, and have their effects realized by the needy populations their serve. The programs they've supported (e.g. National Housing Trust Fund) and their continued and growing support from private foundations should be evidence of success in their mission.
[1]: https://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/2023_ANNUAL_REPORT.pdf
GP was dismissing the original assertion.
That's such a bullshit argument that only a us-american can make, only someone hearing for years anti-goverment, anti-regulation, pro capitalism propaganda can say that without any proof, y'all look like you want that distopia, be happy with it then
Checks and balances actually work pretty well, but we only use them at the topmost level between the three constitutionally defined branches. We need to apply the same mechanism throughout the federal bureaucracy.
But for agencies, you want the opposite – you want fast reaction to changing environment. So in that sense, career bureaucrats are an advantage as long as they remain relatively politically independent and prioritize based on requirements more than perception. The problems arise when they become affixed to one of the parties, but without the checks and balances.
I think this is maybe okay as long as the “fast reaction” has a “fast undo.” Otherwise a new executive (and their predecessor) actually has less power than the agencies within the executive branch.
It's easy to let politics color the perception of this but I for one although I dislike the current president support this effort.
What on earth happened to ppl on HN?
(This is not a comment on your substantive views, just a request to express them more thoughtfully, in the intended spirit of this site.)