I wonder if he could hire a hit man, then after the judge was taken out, pardon himself. Wash, rinse, repeat until there are no liberal judges.

chase128 said:

---

Old May Banker said:

---

Codify policy thru congress.

---

This seems the best general answer. Is it possible to get Congress to move quickly enough?

---

Congress can tell the executive branch WHAT to do.

Congress cannot tell the executive branch HOW to do it.

That's the separation of powers...

Science Denier said:

---

Impeach just one of them. They will change their tune once they realize they can actually face consequences.

---

A) The House would have a hard time getting it to pass just because of the numbers
B) The Senate would never overcome the 67 votes necessary to convict

Science Denier said:

---

When a judge's "ruling' goes against the constitution and against current law, that judge should be impeached.

---

I agree 100000000%

Ag with kids said:

---

chase128 said:

---

Old May Banker said:

---

Codify policy thru congress.

---

This seems the best general answer. Is it possible to get Congress to move quickly enough?

---

Congress can tell the executive branch WHAT to do.

Congress cannot tell the executive branch HOW to do it.

That's the separation of powers...

---

Separating the WHAT from the HOW has become beyond *******ized. Congress meddles way to much in the HOW and the Executive has been wading way too deep and too long in the WHAT.

Old McDonald said:

---

donald trump, elon musk, and their allies want you to believe that they have the unilateral authority to do whatever they want just because they say so. they are lying, just like they lie about everything else, and they know it.

they are not above the law no matter how bad you want them to be. sorry our government doesn't allow your favorite oligarchs to play king.

---

Sorry you suddenly care.

Trolls always show their hand. Liars lie.

nhamp07 said:

---

Fraud does not necessarily equal funding things one party doesn't agree with.

If there was actual fraud people would be calling for indictments

---

Would funding political ads and court cases against the opposing party nominee in an upcoming election of a sitting president classify as "things one party doesn't agree with" or "fraud and embezzlement" in your book?

I'm not sure you have looked very closely at F16 lately. People are calling for indictments, and we are only 3 weeks in.

FIDO_Ags said:

---

I'm not calling Musk or the DOGE team liars nor do I disagree with the audits they are conducting, what I want to know is what is fraud and what is stupid spending. Stupid spending should be eliminated, but that doesn't make it fraud. I am familiar with what the CFR says about distribution of federal funds and the end states of those funds. There is a long paper trail between the Fed and end user of those funds, that's what I want to see, not just the pass through agencies. That is where fraud would be found and anyone abusing that should be prosecuted. Said simply , there are two categories-stupid spending and fraud. Fraud is easier since it implies criminal intent. I want to know what the stupid spending is and then investigate why that decision was made. That will fix government, not a bunch of tweets.

---

1) All stupid spending is fraud.

2) We can't prove the boomarang money trail without auditing all of the NGOs that got money. You are on record, are you not, that auditing all of the NGOs is good, right?

3) We should stop stupid spending whether or not it is fraud. If the executive branch has the constitutional power to stop it, they should. If they don't they should shine a light on it and refuse to participate.

4) Is it your preference that non-fraudulent, stupid spending continue? That is the most important question. I will give you one post to pretend you are POTUS. What is your take on what to do in the face of very stupid spending and a $2.8 trillion deficit?

Amy Jackson of course dictates that Trump can't do something without even considering the merits of an action.

Note: Judge entered an administrative stay as opposed to a TRO, meaning she hasn't even considered merits. https://t.co/xRB1uLmkEZ

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 11, 2025

Trump should have his office moved to the basement.

Since when do dems care about what judges say, Biden ignored scotus on student loans.

Make laws instead of EO's. Congress should be busting their asses right now to pass bills. Clock is ticking. We have less than two years to get this stuff done.

Quote:

---

If the POTUS doesn't have authority over the offices, departments, and agencies under the Executive branch then why do we even HAVE an POTUS?

---

Democrats believe Sleepy Joe should be the new normal.

Old May Banker said:

---

Codify policy thru congress.

---

This. End of thread

45-70Ag said:

---

Since when do dems care about what judges say, Biden ignored scotus on student loans.

---

No he didn't. He tried to find another loophole to fit what he wanted. I don't like it but that's not what he did.

Charpie said:

---

Old May Banker said:

---

Codify policy thru congress.

---

This. End of thread

---

They'd still find a friendly district judge against that as well

Once it is voted on and becomes the law, what exactly can a judge do? Honest question.

nhamp07 said:

---

Fraud does not necessarily equal funding things one party doesn't agree with.

If there was actual fraud people would be calling for indictments

---

Those will be following and that is what all the caterwauling and attempted stone walling is about! .

They will lose this time. "Bugslife"

nortex97 said:

---

Amy Jackson of course dictates that Trump can't do something without even considering the merits of an action.

Note: Judge entered an administrative stay as opposed to a TRO, meaning she hasn't even considered merits. https://t.co/xRB1uLmkEZ

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 11, 2025

Trump should have his office moved to the basement.

---

Looking at the highlighted portion; what gives the judge the right to tell the president who he can use as a lawyer. Isn't that what a special counsel is?

As much as I like his policies, Trump is not a king. EOs are troublesome without a doubt, but I am ok with having to fight with judges and the House/Senate.

At this point, the corruption is so evident that I'm not sure we can sustain the republic in its original capacity, though.

nhamp07 said:

---

Fraud does not necessarily equal funding things one party doesn't agree with.

If there was actual fraud people would be calling for indictments

---

Many of us have been calling for indictments for two decades. I hope DOGE reveals enough fraud that they actually happen.

The issue is the 5-year term of the special counsel and that Trump did not provide a reason/cause for the termination in the email. He should have his security clearances revoked, be given clear orders about who he is allowed to share information with, and limited instructions about how he can share records/communicate via email pending resolution, as well as clear guidance that no work-related matters be discussed on non-government phones/emails etc. Make him set the table himself, in other words.

He's basically a mole, clearly, and it's only a matter of time (weeks, at most) until he is gone. This is just stalling for effect. Trump's team needs to start providing the 'cause' in their termination communications, imho. This is pretty easy to do and most causes won't be challenged (on appeal, anyway).

Thank you.

ts5641 said:

---

Make laws instead of EO's. Congress should be busting their asses right now to pass bills. Clock is ticking. We have less than two years to get this stuff done.

---

Can't make a law without 60 senators. Except for budget related items once a year that only requires 50 senators

Except Chuck Schumer has promised to end the filibuster once Democrats return to a majority.

So, the GOP/uniparty is playing a game by not reciprocating in kind, as usual.

nhamp07 said:

---

Fraud does not necessarily equal funding things one party doesn't agree with.

If there was actual fraud people would be calling for indictments

---

And if any indictments are brought against leftists for fraud and abuse, you'll trot right back screaming that Trump is weaponizing the Justice system.

This schtick is so old.

The problem with what these judges are doing is that they aren't opining on constitutional or legal issues. They're using the judiciary to insert themselves into the role of executive administration whenever Trump does something they disagree with on a policy basis.

The judge that demanded an un-freeze of federal funding, for instance, has functionally taken usaid out of the executive purview and placed it into a judicial receivership. Hardly following any guidelines of separation of powers.

Ignore them, just like the left would do. We are in a war to get this country back.

nortex97 said:

---

Except Chuck Schumer has promised to end the filibuster once Democrats return to a majority.

So, the GOP/uniparty is playing a game by not reciprocating in kind, as usual.

---

Bluster. He didn't do it 2 years ago when it would've helped their cause just as much as it will next time they have a trifecta.

It is a desperate act that won't serve the Dems as well as much as a filibuster has, because once it's gone, they know republicans will just undo everything that they did. The DC environment won't be stable enough to build the bureaucratic ecosystem like they've been able to build currently that's served them very well.

One thing Trump must do in order to effectively combat the challenges is to keep his inner circle tight, leaks non-existent, and leverage all the tactics the Dems have used to their advantage.

Some may remember the old email aliases Joe Biden used to comm with Hunter and friends before Trump 1.0.

I suspect many have forgotten about this but the email aliases used a @pci.gov email which I believe stood for Presidential Center for Information along with pitc.gov which is Executive Committee for Presidential Information Technology.

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/03/19/presidential-memorandum-establishing-director-white-house-information-te

I looked at this back in the thick of the Mar-a-Lago raid and subsequent f-nannery about classified docs. Essentially a little known, not discussed White House server for emails and information sharing that I believe went as far as using completely separate networks than standard WH comms - meaning control away form FOIA and other prying eyes.

Trump may be using some of this as about a week or so after election the "whois" information for pci.gov seems to have been changed to "redacted for privacy reasons".

tl;dr Team Trump is playing for keeps and may be using apparently clandestine (but legal) departments, committees, resources and such that were established by Obama and further exploited by Biden and friends.