Wayfarer, it looks like you're being brainwashed by the media. — Leontiskos

I retract nothing. As to whether USAID is going to be shut down, USAID is set to be hacked from 14,000 workers to just 294. And that is going to happen, it is, in fact happening. All of those USAID workers have been shut out of their computer systems. This is not a hypothetical. That video is from eight months ago. It's turning out much worse than was feared.

Oh, and if Hoschschild says that, then I'm very dissappointed by that. I've learned a lot from that article of his that I refer to but I completely reject any rationalisation of the January 6th outrage. It was an attack on the foundations of American democracy.

but I will stop posting about Trump now.

Except for one more thing. That article by Hocschild completely ignores reality.

Who attempts to overthrow a government without weapons?

Witness testimony and evidence in legal cases against supporters of President Donald Trump who stormed the U.S. Capitol in January 2021 show that some of the rioters had weapons, contrary to social media posts saying the attack could not be called an “insurrection” because none of the participants was armed.

Americans—at least 50,000 souls—traveled to Washington, D.C., that day to attend a peaceful civil rights demonstration, a rally to demand integrity in election processes.

What 'integrity'? Trump and his stooges, including the unfortunate Guliani, brought more than 60 cases about voting irregularities, every one of which was tossed. All of that talk about 'integrity' is a lie and a cover for the actual reality of what happened, which was a violent insurrection aimed at subverting a legal election.


Now the perpertator is running the country. Yet somehow, I'm the one who's 'brainwashed'.

You're right, I should stop posting about this, and will. But I retract nothing.

- Well here's a good rule of thumb: if the article you are reading says hardly anything at all about the reasons why some decision is being made, then it's probably not objective reporting. If the only motive a story provides for why Trump, Musk, or Rubio are doing what they are doing is that they are evil dictators bent on world domination, then part of the story might be missing.

All of that talk about 'integrity' is a lie and a cover for the actual reality of what happened, which was a violent insurrection aimed at subverting a legal election. — Wayfarer

Hochschild again:

Who attempts to overthrow a government without weapons? Why would the alleged leader of an insurrection authorize military force to protect the government, and why would the alleged insurrection victims countermand that authorization? How do people who listen to speeches about democratic procedures and election integrity in one location transform into enemies of the Constitution after walking a mile and a half to the east? Who believes that interrupting a vote would overturn a government? If there was an attempted insurrection, why would a notoriously creative and aggressive prosecutor fail to find any basis for filing insurrection charges? — Joshua Hochschild, Begging your Pardon

Pretty good points, actually. It's almost as if the eyewitnesses have a more reasonable account than the folks who are hell-bent on making Trump look bad, come hell or high water.

The world has become a Bond movie. One way to deal with climate change is to kill 80% of all people, right? — Tom Storm

And/or leave the Earth behind altogether. Musk's plan for Mars is eerily similar in its rationale to Hugo Drax's plan in Moonraker. They're also both unabashed eugenicists.

People are voting with their wallets. Tesla sales plummet.

:up:

Good luck with that. Let the supreme court think about it make a decision once the things have been already done. — ssu

Time is a critical factor. If the push to remove personnel through massive buyouts allows a budget to pass that does not include certain costs, future censure will not magically provide renumeration nor restore operations that have been shut down.

Smart people are not always wise. They can be subject to ideological blinders outside their areas of expertise. At least some of the those pardoned for their acts on January 6th were comically guilty, caught on tape assaulting police officers because they were angry that their candidate lost an election. "The masses who fell victim to psychological warfare to wonder what made them so vulnerable to manipulation," thing is ironic.

Was it overblown to claim a bunch of disorganized rioters were a "coup?" Sure. Is it even more ridiculous to claim that people who are on video committing felony offenses are the "victims" of politicized prosecutions? Absolutely. As is the idea that "actually, there is a vast conspiracy we just don't have evidence of that really, the rioters were tricked into rioting. Yes, the crowd control wasn't tight enough, and they used pepper spray, clearly and indication that they were trying to bait people into rioting!" You know, because tourists also generally begin looting and vandalizing things when they are "let in" as well trying to kick down barricades until one of them is shot dead. Just tourist things.

You know, because peaceful protestors often bring their own pepper spray to demonstrate and then they just get viciously tricked into spraying into police officers faces. :roll:

For instance, Trump’s speech at the Ellipse, between the White House and the Washington Monument, was anything but inciting.

He literally said the election was stolen in that speech. How can that be anything but inciting?

Many who were present hoped the president would reveal new information—about evidence of fraud

Yes indeed. Evidence given those claims would have been nice. It's weird how even a loyalist like Barr left over no such evidence existing.

Hochschild has plainly bought into the alternative history, that the insurrection attempt was a peaceful protest about a stolen election with the protesters as victims. I suspect it is futile to attempt to reason against such a view. It’s part of the process of normalizing ‘the big lie’ such that it becomes the dominant narrative.

Think of all the lies I got to put up with! ---Pretenses! Ain't that mendacity? Having to pretend stuff you don't think or feel or have any idea of? — Big Daddy, in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof

A video falsely claiming that the United States Agency for International Development paid Ben Stiller, Angelina Jolie and other actors millions of dollars to travel to Ukraine appeared to be a clip from E!News, though it never appeared on the entertainment channel.

In fact, the video first surfaced on X in a post from an account that researchers have said spreads Russian disinformation.

Within hours it drew the attention of Elon Musk, who reposted it. So did President Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr.

Time is a critical factor. If the push to remove personnel through massive buyouts allows a budget to pass that does not include certain costs, future censure will not magically provide renumeration nor restore operations that have been shut down. — Paine

This is the idea. This is why they are so rapidly trying to act without much if any thinking of what programs they cut.

Basically this is an self-coup or an auto-coup in process. It should be the Congress that decides on spending or on government institutions by making laws and through legislation. Trump is now truly trying to question this and trying to make executive orders to be legally what they aren't.

While the Trump crowd is laughing their ass off on the bizarre "Invade Greenland" and "Mar-a-Gaza" and other orders, the real issue here is the changing what in a Republic is separation of powers to a Presidency lead fusion of powers. And that of course, only if the President is Trump or at least a Republican. With a Democrat President or any from another party, naturally the GOP would be all for the separation of powers and for the limitation the executive.

Afterwards Trump can just rule by decree and doesn't have to care at all about the Congress.

Especially if/when he loses the majority in Congress.

I think Congress will eventually fight to get the power of the purse back. The loss of institutional knowledge and structure, however, will take decades to repair if the Musketeers succeed.

The willingness of the GOP to go along with the demolition will be tested when their dependence upon federal spending is revealed through its withdrawal. Take, for example, the spending through the Department of Education. Here is a report on how much goes toward Red States. The States want to suckle upon that teat without the anti-poverty goals of the Feds.

The broader problem for the Red States is that tax cuts and deals that make them more attractive to businesses rely on the Federal budget to displace costs. The Balance of Payments shows this asymmetry. The breakdown is not a one-to-one correspondence but does show the close relationship binding States and the Federal budgets together. If the Federal structure goes to the guillotine, The GOP will lose a significant source for dough. As noted in this analysis on expenditures, spending in the tax code includes:

When the federal government spends money on mandatory and discretionary programs, the U.S. Treasury writes a check to pay the program costs. But there is another type of federal spending that operates a little differently. Lawmakers have written hundreds of tax breaks into the federal tax code - for instance, special low tax rates on capital gains (certain kinds of investments), a deduction for home mortgage interest, and many others.

In fact, tax breaks function as a type of government spending, and they are officially called "tax expenditures" by the Treasury Department. Tax breaks cost the federal government more than $1.3 trillion in 2020 – nearly as much as all discretionary spending in the same year. — OMB report

This set up cannot continue if lawmakers surrender their power to Trump.

Breaking news:

A federal judge early Saturday temporarily restricted access by Elon Musk’s government efficiency program to the Treasury Department’s payment and data systems, saying there was a risk of “irreparable harm.”

The Trump administration’s new policy of allowing political appointees and “special government employees” access to these systems, which contain highly sensitive information such as bank details, heightens the risk of leaks and of the systems becoming more vulnerable than before to hacking, U.S. District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer said in an emergency order.

Judge Engelmayer ordered any such official who had been granted access to the systems since Jan. 20 to “destroy any and all copies of material downloaded from the Treasury Department’s records and systems.” He also restricted the Trump administration from granting access to those categories of officials.

The defendants — President Trump, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and the Treasury Department — must appear on Feb. 14 before Judge Jeannette A. Vargas, who is handling the case on a permanent basis, Judge Engelmayer said.

The situation could pose a fundamental test of America’s rule of law. If the administration fails to comply with the emergency order, it is unclear how it might be enforced. The Constitution says that a president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” but courts have rarely been tested by a chief executive who has ignored their orders.

Federal officials have sometimes responded to adverse decisions with dawdling or grudging compliance. Outright disobedience is exceedingly rare. There has been no clear example of “open presidential defiance of court orders in the years since 1865,” according to a Harvard Law Review article published in 2018.

Saturday’s order came in response to a lawsuit filed on Friday by Letitia James of New York along with 18 other Democratic state attorneys general, charging that when Mr. Trump had given Mr. Musk the run of government computer systems, he had breached protections enshrined in the Constitution and “failed to faithfully execute the laws enacted by Congress.”

The lawsuit was joined by the attorneys general of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin.

They said the president had given “virtually unfettered access” to the federal government’s most sensitive information to young aides who worked for Mr. Musk, who runs a program the administration calls the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE.

While the group was supposedly assigned to cut costs, members are “attempting to access government data to support initiatives to block federal funds from reaching certain disfavored beneficiaries,” according to the suit. Mr. Musk has publicly stated his intention to “recklessly freeze streams of federal funding without warning,” the suit said, pointing to his social media posts in recent days.

In her own social media post on Saturday, Ms. James reiterated that members of the cost-cutting team “must destroy all records they’ve obtained,” and added: “I’ve said before, and I’ll say it again: no one is above the law,” she wrote. ...

Before Mr. Trump took office last month, access was granted to only a limited number of career civil servants with security clearances, the suit said. But Mr. Musk’s efforts had interrupted federal funding for health clinics, preschools and climate initiatives, according to the filing.

The money had already been allocated by Congress. The Constitution assigns to lawmakers the job of deciding government spending. — Judge Halts Access to Treasury Payment Systems by Elon Musk’s Team

Congress has plainly surrendered to Trump's will. The judiciary is the last bastion, but my sense is that Trump will flout these rulings, and the Courts don't have any real power to enforce them. There will be much moaning and gnashing of teeth in the media, but Musk will simply brush it aside. At that point, it will, at least, have been made manifestly obvious that the President and his main collaborator are operating in defiance of the law.


source

Predictably, Trusk has directed vitriol at the judge who has put restrictions on DOGE:

Elon Musk expressed outrage on Saturday after a federal judge in New York temporarily restricted his government cost-cutting team’s access to the Treasury Department’s payment and data systems.

In a rapid-fire series of posts on his social media site X, Mr. Musk criticized the decision and called the judge, Paul A. Engelmayer, “an activist posing as a judge.”

Judge Engelmayer said in his decision that there was a risk of “irreparable harm” in allowing Treasury access by political appointees and “special government employees,” which includes Mr. Musk and members of his team. Access to those systems, he said, could leave highly sensitive financial information vulnerable to leaks and hacks.

In a separate statement, the White House called the judge an “activist” and the ruling “absurd and judicial overreach” for effectively locking the treasury secretary out of his role.

“These frivolous lawsuits are akin to children throwing pasta at the wall to see if it will stick,” Harrison Fields, a spokesman, said in a statement. “Grandstanding government efficiency speaks volumes about those who’d rather delay much-needed change with legal shenanigans than work with the Trump administration of ridding the government of waste, fraud, and abuse.”

Mr. Musk said on X that the Treasury Department and his team had agreed upon a list of adjustments to be made to the payroll system that were “obvious and necessary changes,” including incorporating a do-not-pay list and mandating categorization codes and notes in comment fields outlining reasons for payments.

In response to a post from the conservative podcaster Charlie Kirk, who said the Trump administration should consider defying the order if it becomes permanent, Mr. Musk suggested without evidence that the judge’s decision was part of a “super shady” scheme to protect scammers.

The judge’s decision barred Mr. Musk and his team from access to the systems at least until Friday, when a hearing before a different judge was scheduled in the matter. Those workers who have been allowed access since Jan. 20 must “destroy any and all copies of material downloaded from the Treasury Department’s records and systems,” according to the order.

It was unclear if the Trump administration and Mr. Musk’s team would take steps to comply with the emergency order.

Last month, just after President Trump took office, a top Treasury Department official, David Lebryk, refused to give Mr. Musk’s team access to the government’s payment system. He was placed on administrative leave and later announced his retirement. — NY Times

I had thought 'contempt of Court' was a thing, but I guess it's another thing that Trusk wants to abolish.

I think Congress will eventually fight to get the power of the purse back. The loss of institutional knowledge and structure, however, will take decades to repair if the Musketeers succeed. — Paine

Even more will happen with international relations... as things are going. Europeans at least have internalized that the US might not be there. This has gotten even into popular culture, where if a crisis is depicted to happen in a NATO country, the US is portrayed to be absent or totally passive and NATO won't work (which is great for the story line). And one emerging view is that the Euro-Atlantic link, which has been so important (and what Russia's the ultimate goal is to break), might finally been over. Of course this isn't reality yet and we should remember just for how many decades now the imminent collapse of the EU itself has been predicted. So it's at this moment it's more likely that NATO will prevail than it would be ditched and become part of history like SEATO or CENTO.

How Times of India views the development:


A possible trade war won't help this. Likely the discourse will change on the European side too. Good example is Justin Trudeau, whose popularity has increased after talking tough back to Trump (even if the conservatives are still ahead) and is now telling that Trump's annexation dreams of Canada have to be taken as real. As we are preparing for the next round of Trump tariffs and for the 30 days to expire, I think it's likely that we get the trade war.

Of course after the Trump administration things can change with the Democrats trying then to roll back everything that Trump has wrecked, but likely the damage has then been already done: one simply cannot count on that the US will be there as an ally. Even if Trump is out, a similar politician might come to power in the future. This is unfortunate situation where Russia already is: even if Putin's regime would collapse tomorrow and a totally new administration would come to power that would want democracy, would want to improve ties to Europe and the West and would want to discard the imperial aspirations of Putin, there would be this underlying worry that the Putinists could return. The "Westernizers" could fall from power and the hard-line would take power again. It took a long time before Germany erased the worries about Nazis taking over Germany again.

The willingness of the GOP to go along with the demolition will be tested when their dependence upon federal spending is revealed through its withdrawal. Take, for example, the spending through the Department of Education. Here is a report on how much goes toward Red States. The States want to suckle upon that teat without the anti-poverty goals of the Feds. — Paine

Trump's popularity makes the GOP so sheepish towards Trump. Yet, if (or when) we get that trade war, the 25% tariffs raise inflation and we get a possible recession, then things might turn different. First warning sign will be if Musk and Musk's actions cause criticism. Musk will play here the role of the lightning rod. Then if things would look really bad, they GOP politicians can as easily leave Trump as they have embraced him.

You can already buy from Amazon these stickers for Tesla owners.

The judiciary is the last bastion, but my sense is that Trump will flout these rulings, and the Courts don't have any real power to enforce them. There will be much moaning and gnashing of teeth in the media, but Musk will simply brush it aside. At that point, it will, at least, have been made manifestly obvious that the President and his main collaborator are operating in defiance of the law. — Wayfarer

Do you know how long it takes a court case to go to the SCOTUS? I don't, but I assume it does take time. And that is Musk's plan. He has been quite open of his plans before the Trump debacle started: that they'll end funding for everything, then if something is really, really needed, that can be reconstructed and refinanced then.

Above all, let's just remember one person that has had personal experience from the courts: Donald Trump himself. He's lost, he's won and he has avoided a lot, yet he gives a lot of importance to courts. A true fascist wouldn't care much about the courts, the important thing would be the raw power, the military, the intelligence services and the security forces. I'm not so sure if Trump really can just fire all the judges and replace them with lawyers totally loyal to him.

What Trump can find helpful are the powers given to the President, if there is a huge economic shock. Let's just remind ourselves what power the US Constitution gives to the President in normal times:

Article II grantsthe President the authority to:

• act as Commander-in-Chief
• grant pardons
• make treaties with the approval of the Senate
• nominate Cabinet members, Supreme Court justices, and ambassadors for confirmation
by the Senate
• appoint lower-level government officials without Senate confirmation, and fill higherlevel executive branch vacancies when Congress is in recess
• suggest new laws
• receive foreign officials
• enforce the laws that Congress passes.

It doesn't give the President economic powers, however these have been granted to the President, if he decides to call it an "emergency". A very much used "emergency" is to handle foreign countries:

the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) was to allow
the President to regulate international commerce once a national emergency has been declared.
Today, the IEEPA is used with respect to many countries around the globe. There is currently a national emergency signed by President Biden, namely Proclamation 10371, against Russia in response to the nation’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. On April 3, 2014, President Obama issued Executive Order 13664 in order to place economic sanctions on individuals in South Sudan due to the South Sudanese Civil War. Most notably, the longest-standing national emergency was declared in 1979 by President Jimmy Carter against Iran through Executive Order 12170. The order has been freezing Iranian assets for over 40 years in response to the Iranian hostage crisis and has been renewed by subsequent presidents.

And this is what Trump is already using. But it doesn't end there. In a trade war, Trump can do things just how he wants:

The President also has the authority to declare trade sanctions on a foreign country or person. According to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA), the President is authorized to declare a national emergency for any "unusual or extraordinary threat" to national security, foreign policy, or the economy if the threat is created in "substantial part" by a foreign nation. The President, bypassing Congress's approval, may impose sanctions that freeze the target's assets that fall under U.S. jurisdiction and prohibit any person or institution from transacting with the target of IEEPA sanctions.

Also in an national emergence, he can simply shut down everything. Banking and money transfers can be regulated by Trump.

During a state of national emergency, the President has the power to direct the Secretary of the Treasury to regulate and restrict the transactions of any member bank of the Federal Reserve System. Should any person violate these restrictions, they will be subject to a fine of up to $10,000 and possibly imprisoned for up to ten years. Additionally, the Comptroller of the
Currency can declare any day a legal holiday for national banking associations in a state due to emergency conditions,such as natural disasters, riots, wars, etc. Essentially, by declaring a state of emergency in a state, the President has the power to shut down the movement of moneys through national banks in the affected region.

Above all, let's just remember one person that has had personal experience from the courts: Donald Trump himself. He's lost, he's won and he has avoided a lot, yet he gives a lot of importance to courts. A true fascist wouldn't care much about the courts, the important thing would be the raw power, the military, the intelligence services and the security forces. I'm not so sure if Trump really can just fire all the judges and replace them with lawyers totally loyal to him. — ssu

He doesn't have to fire them, if he can just bypass them. There are a number of judgements that have already been made about some of his actions, right now the lead NY Times story is Judge Rules the White House Failed to Comply With Court Order with respect to the illegal freezing of Congressionally-approved funds:

A federal judge on Monday said the White House has defied his order to release billions of dollars in federal grants, marking the first time a judge has expressly declared that the Trump White House was disobeying a judicial mandate.

The ruling by Judge John J. McConnell Jr. in Rhode Island federal court ordered Trump administration officials to comply with what he called “the plain text” of an edict he issued on Jan. 29.

That order, he wrote, was “clear and unambiguous, and there are no impediments to the Defendants’ compliance with” it.

Judge McConnell’s ruling marked a step toward what could quickly evolve into a high-stakes showdown between the executive and judicial branches, a day after a social media post by Vice President JD Vance claimed that “judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power,” elevating the chance that the White House could provoke a constitutional crisis. ...

But for some of President Trump’s allies, it is the judges ruling against Mr. Trump who are out of bounds.

“Activist judges must stop illegally meddling with the President’s Article II powers,” wrote Mike Davis, who heads the Article III Project, a conservative advocacy group.

Vance is already saying that the judges are 'acting illegally'. With a supine Congress, from which any meaningful check on Trump's authoritarianism has already been extinguished, the Courts are the last bastion. I think Trump/MAGA will basically just ignore their rulings, saying that the Courts are opposing 'the will of the people' (i.e. Trump.) As I already said, there will be a lot of kvetching in the media about it, but if the President defies the Courts with the backing of Congress, it is very hard to see how he can be stopped.

Also of note is the next story, saying that the President is acting in defiance of the law, and that America is already in a constitutional crisis. But this is what Americans voted for - shaking the place up, taking it to the Establishment - although I really don't know if they comprehended what the outcome would be.

Bad outcomes will put pressure on the GOP.

Continuing the theme of the relationship between States and Federal budgets, there was a quick response to the NIH cuts from attorney generals: 22 States Sue to Block Trump Cuts to Medical Research Funding. And a federal judge has just put a stay on the order.

The money involved supports local economies in the same way military spending supports regions around bases. Here is one example: ‘This is a death blow’: NIH to cut billions in research overhead funding

Do you think it's as hopeless in the US as many think? Are the President and his billionaire boys' club staging a nascent fascist coup in America? If so, will the constitution hold or will it be brushed aside?

But how long will that take for GOP to notice the bad outcomes. Just as with Brexit, the Brexiteers were for years ecstatic about leaving the EU and dismiss very much the economic problems it caused. Naturally these were only surfaced after the Labour administration took charge.

One thing indeed can be that not only it's a "revolt of the judges" that happens, it can be also a "revolt of the states" that will happen. At least the 23 that are lead by Democrats.

And of course the global trade war is very likely happen as Trump has made global tariffs of 25% on everybody on steel and aluminium. Not going to end here. Might be a good time to sell stock and simply buy gold. Because Trump has no idea just what is the history of the Smoot-Hawley tariffs in the 1930's, which worsened the 1930's depression. The tariffs then were actually smaller than the 25% number that Donald seems to love.

The Smoot-Hawley Act increased tariffs on foreign imports to the U.S. by about 20%. Over 25 countries responded by increasing their own tariffs on American goods. Global trade plummeted, contributing to the ill effects of the Great Depression. More than 1,000 economists urged President Hoover to veto it. Hoover's successor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, worked to reduce tariffs and was given more authority to negotiate with heads of state under the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934.

If there is one thing that we should have learned from the Smoot-Hawley tariff experience, it is that tariff wars are a lose-lose proposition for the world economy.

By inviting retaliation in the form of reciprocal trade restrictions, international trade gets disrupted significantly. That inflicts real pain on all countries’ export sectors.

That, in turn, imparts an adverse shock to their overall economies. Almost all economists agree that Smoot-Hawley was a significant contributor to the length and depth of the Great Economic Depression.

But when we don't know or care about history, we will likely repeat the mistakes of the past.

I generally refrain from posting polemical material but in the circumstances this is highly relevant. It points out that the only justifications Trusk could give for feeding U.D.A.I.D into the woodchipper were lies - lies about a fictitious paid trip to Ukraine (when in reality, Sean Penn paid his own way and travelled very hard) and distributing condoms in Gaza which simply never occurred. It’s preposterous, what has been done to this agency. It needs to be reviled.

One thing indeed can be that not only it's a "revolt of the judges" that happens, it can be also a "revolt of the states" that will happen. At least the 23 that are lead by Democrats. — ssu

The revolt of the states has already been underway for quite some time. The capacity for individual states to decide their own laws on most issues, is potentially very divisive. And this will eventually erode the Fed's central power, if there is no top-down goal of unity, with corresponding internal diplomacy. Divisive economic policies from the Fed, will rapidly amplify pushback from individual states. Replace USA, with SA, as the outcome of MAGA.

He literally said the election was stolen in that speech. How can that be anything but inciting?

The history of first amendment jurisprudence. He has to first advocate for criminal activity, and second, that his advocacy was directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action. None of that occurred, I’m afraid. In fact he advocated the opposite, that they act “peacefully”.

I don't think the Constitution will be brushed aside but that considerable damage will occur while the Boy's Club has free rein of the White House. I agree with that State governments and financial consequences will eventually force the GOP to return to their jobs. The situation afterwards is hard to know. It makes me think of the novel, Roadside Picnic by Arkady and Boris Strugatsky. A scientist tries to explain the new anomalies and uninhabitable places on aliens who had a party on our planet and did not pick up after themselves.

What gives me a faint sense of hope is that the movement may become a victim of its own success. The reliable donkey which carried all the past sins into the desert has been put out of its misery.

Well, Ur-Trumper Steve Bannon has already had his ire raised and proclaimed that Musk should be "deported back to Africa."



One can incite people without doing anything illegal. Hell, people can do things that are corrupt without breaking the law. For instance, both the Clinton's speaking fee arrangements and several of the "gifts" accepted by Supreme Court justices (particularly Thomas) would be slam dunk felony offenses for local or state officials, and for lower level federal employees. It is completely illegal to let someone with whom you have official business give you hundreds of thousands in "gifts" or to let them buy a house for your mother, even if you are just a volunteer member of some local zoning board. This is true regardless of what the intent was. Merely allowing for the appearances of corruption is a felony for most officials.

For the most powerful officials, it isn't illegal at all. The people at the top of the federal government have long been exempt from anti-corruption legislation aimed at lower level federal workers and they have refused to pass laws aimed at fighting corruption and the appearance of corruption that are common at the state level. Based on recent SCOTUS rulings, it's not even clear if an explicit selling of pardons would be illegal. The parties will accuse each other of corruption, but they seem loathe to actually do anything about it.

Clearly illegality is not the proper benchmark of corruption, nor is it the proper benchmark for "incitement."

Well, we could test it. Go out and incite someone to do something. You can try it on me if you wish. You might find that it’s actually quite difficult to incite people to do anything, let alone something illegal.

That’s because the whole theory of incitement is magical thinking top-to-bottom. It is physically impossible to animate someone with your words and to suggest that one can is tantamount to sorcery.

"Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?"

:up:

It will become clear over the next few days and weeks the extent to which Trump and Musk intend to comply or defy with respect to court decisions. Many of those decisions have been adverse to Trump, but it seems to me that he truly believes he is above the law and that anyone who opposes his will is simply an obstacle to be navigated, with the full backing of the MAGA caucus. Today the news is all Gaza again - 'flooding the zone' - but these lawsuits and the Administrations response to them will be crucial.