this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2025
275 points (98.6% liked)

politics

19950 readers
3354 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) criticized Donald Trump for illegally firing inspectors general without giving Congress 30 days' notice.

Trump recently dismissed the USAID inspector general after a report exposed the administration’s mismanagement of foreign aid, putting $489 million in food assistance at risk.

Grassley, a longtime watchdog advocate, said Trump could still remove officials legally by placing them on administrative leave.

top 46 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world 2 points 31 minutes ago

Betcha he'd gladly back any trump bill though...

[–] whostosay@lemmy.world 4 points 1 hour ago

You know I was thinking it was a possibility, but thank fucking God Chuck Grassley said it was against the law. Up until right now I was on the fence.

[–] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 20 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

You going to do anything about there Chuckie? No? That's what I fucking thought.

[–] PwnTra1n@lemmy.world 13 points 3 hours ago

YOURE THE CHECKS IN CHECKS AND BALANCE

[–] cabron_offsets@lemmy.world 45 points 4 hours ago

so fucking do something

[–] oleorun@real.lemmy.fan 2 points 2 hours ago

Leopard eating face noise ensues

[–] thallamabond@lemmy.world 119 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

With full control of the executive, Congressional, and supreme Court, all of this stuff could be done legally. Trump is CHOOSING not to for the sole purpose of extending the power of the executive as has been described by many (Unitary Executive Theory). These senators and representatives would be smart not to cede any power, they will not get it back.

[–] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 20 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

These senators and representatives would be smart not to cede any power, they will not get it back.

Yeah, that emphasized part is important and is unlikely. Why? Because they hope it will mean they never loose power. They are not thinking of ever loosing any power.

[–] DABDA@lemm.ee 11 points 6 hours ago (1 children)
[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 4 points 6 hours ago (1 children)
[–] DABDA@lemm.ee 2 points 5 hours ago
[–] snekerpimp@lemmy.world 15 points 5 hours ago

Ummm it’s your job to keep him in line. Fucking do it

[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 9 points 4 hours ago

no shit son

[–] MolecularCactus1324@lemmy.world 33 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (4 children)

You need enough Republicans speaking up that they can impeach Trump. Dems are being quiet to let Republicans lead on this, they are the only ones who could possibly do it. Democrats leading will only make Republicans defend him.

[–] xyzzy@lemm.ee 3 points 50 minutes ago* (last edited 48 minutes ago)

I don't mean to be rude, but are you from Candyland? You need 20 Republicans in the Senate to convict him and remove him from office. He tried to kill them and they still didn't convict him.

It won't happen.

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 6 points 4 hours ago

Republicans speaking up that they can impeach Trump.

[–] cm0002@lemmy.world 11 points 7 hours ago

Yea you've got a good point actually. I would say the GOP are got damn toddlers, but that would be an insult to toddlers everywhere and you don't want to end up on the toddler cartel shit list.

[–] diskmaster23@lemmy.one 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

That's why personally I am not sitting here being outraged and Facebooking the outrage. It ain't gonna do anything.

[–] BassTurd@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

I mean, I'm sitting here outraged, but I'm not plastering it on Facebook.

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 28 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Trump? Doing illegal things??? Shocked! I am shocked! Yes, that's the word. No other word describes my feelings on this! Shocked I say!!!

........not that shocked actually.

[–] jonne@infosec.pub 5 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

If only there was some sort of indication he doesn't follow the law, like previous impeachments, actual court convictions and decades of being a real estate developer.

[–] SayJess@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 hour ago

If only there were. For now, we’ll just have to let Donald “I’m a convicted felon” Trump do whatever he wants.

[–] BassTurd@lemmy.world 3 points 4 hours ago

This is in reference to Trump in 2017. Grassley's old ass brain is just now getting there.

Who could have known that a 34-time convicted felon would have so little regard for the law?

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 15 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

Doesn't matter. Official acts. Even apart from that, who's going to investigate or prosecute? DoJ?

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

In theory an illegal act would have Congress impeach him, and the Senate hold a trial to find him guilty or innocent, if found guilty he is removed. In theory if he refuses to step down the U.S. military would remove him under their oath of office as well. For which since he was removed by the Senate he would be guilty of unknown (likely treason)

The truth is that the Senate will not vote to find him guilty. But yeah, what also is interesting there is while treason is charged in a civilian court, an acting commander in chief is a member of the military, and thus could likely be held for treason charges as acting military as well. Both treason charges have a maximum sentence of death. Minimum sentence is likely dishonorable discharge minimum 5 years prison. (For a 78 year old man with court times, pretty much life in Prison). Being that he is a high profile case and it is military based, one would hope they would use the money his administration put towards Guantanamo to hold him their without bail until conviction.). That is but a dream of justice though.

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 4 points 4 hours ago

an acting commander in chief is a member of the military, and thus could likely be held for treason charges as acting military as well.

No he's not. The president is C-in-C of the military but he is explicitly still a civilian. The founding fathers wanted to ensure the military was always under the command of a civilian government.

[–] Placebonickname@lemmy.world 4 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Someone who hates their job…cause they’ll end up being fired as soon as Trump finds out the investigation

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 7 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Nobody at DoJ is going to investigate a sitting president without full approval from AG.

[–] Placebonickname@lemmy.world 3 points 7 hours ago

I agree with this statement, but even if an attorney general did approve the investigation what would happen if they found out Trump really did break the wall? They can’t teach him with the Republicans control in the house and the Senate wouldn’t convict even if the house did impeach.

Gotta find some way to pray that guy at the office without relying on the Senate or the Congress. 

[–] otto@sh.itjust.works 13 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (2 children)

This guy is fourth in the line of succession for the presidency. Just something to keep in mind.

[–] Bonesince1997@lemmy.world 3 points 4 hours ago

91 years old

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 7 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Ah, I see you're a fan of the famed triple luigi manuver.

[–] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

We do not want him in the office either

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 hours ago

Maybe we can go for four?

[–] refurbishedrefurbisher@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

IDK, I wouldn't mind having Luigi in the Oval Office instead.

[–] Bonesince1997@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

As long as Toad is in his cabinet.

[–] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 3 hours ago

Would rather have toad than chuck

[–] Lexam@lemmy.world 5 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Thank baby Jesus I was already on my fainting couch when I read this!

[–] thefartographer@lemm.ee 1 points 3 hours ago

You have a couch that can faint??? Don't tell Vance!

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 8 points 6 hours ago

Either vote against his bullshit or you're supporting his law breaking.

[–] PunnyName@lemmy.world 6 points 6 hours ago

Does no one remember the fucking SCOTUS decision about immunity?

[–] Akasazh@feddit.nl 6 points 6 hours ago
[–] adarza@lemmy.ca 4 points 6 hours ago

wutcha gonna do when they come for you, chuck? roll over? bend over? or hang the fucking traitors running roughshod over everything this nation has stood for its entire existence?

[–] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 6 hours ago

Just like when he was impeached twice the first term. Amazingly chuck was okay with him breaking the law then

[–] foggy@lemmy.world 4 points 7 hours ago