This sounds like POTUS is the new Roman Emperor of our times and he / she can sell the republic or interests of its subjects to anyone as he wishes, keeping all the benefits generated for his personal fortune and distributing all the mis-fortune / longer term effects to the wider population base...
Guess what there is a name for this game, "Privatize the profits and socialize the losses".
Let's be honest here, this calvinball only applies to one political party. The other can't wear a tan suit or forgive a small fraction of student loans.
Let's be honest, the other party is entirely not without its faults. Criticism for superficial things like suit color happens in both directions, and forgiving student loans was problematic for a bunch of reasons (spending is out of control when either party is in power). Power is entirely too federally concentrated, and both parties change the rules on a constant basis (remember vaccine mandates? oil/gas lease bans that increased energy costs with no real replacement available?)
The existence of "executive orders" as a shortcut around checks-and-balances is a real problem, no matter who is in power.
I'm a libertarian. The main issues our country is currently facing are not both-sided issues. Personally, I stopped steelmanning around 2020. We can get back to generally criticizing Democrats (ie the real conservatives) when that criticism does more than merely empower overly simplistic populist reactionaries to lean into accelerating our problems.
Esp. the "spending is out of control with both parties" fiscal take is quite wrong.
The one question both-siders never ask: which party has more momentum or internal turmoil to cut off the spineless corrupted opportunists. Pretty easy answer to that one...
Just because POTUS writes down classified information in his personal notes/papers does not mean the information is no longer classified. Yes, POTUS has the power to de-classify, but there's a way of doing that so everyone is aware that certain information is now public. Doing it on a whim as a CYA because someone wants to make their illegal decision legal only after it becoming publicly known it occurred is not the way of properly de-classifying something.
The article talks about classification but this isn't really about classification or national security. It's about who has the fundamental rights over the documents after all that is sorted out. It's about can congress or the public force documents that embarrass or incriminates the president (after sufficient time and declassification has happened)
It looks like this stems from the Mar-a-lago raid in 2022. Did we ever find out what the president was actually squirreling away there that he wants to sell on eBay? I remember the leak at the time was that it was nuclear secrets, but I haven't really seen an update on it.
The results of that investigation were squashed by Judge Eileen Canon in Florida claiming the special prosecutor was not legal. Jack Smith has bent over backwards to not release information based on the court's decision to bar its release.
However, Trump's case against the BBC has become an interesting one. The judge overseeing this case recently stated that the BBC can call Jack as a witness potentially allowing an end run around Judge Canon's release of Jack's report.
to be honest, I wasn't even thinking in those terms. I didn't s/squash/quash/ in my head and use the wrong term. I literally was thinking the judge stomped all over the case. Is quash really the correct term here as you're implying?
In all of the articles around Judge Canon's actions regarding this case, I do not recall quash being mentioned. That's why I was asking if that's really what was done. I was not asking about the definition of the word.
Yes. I also closely followed this case, and the word "quash" was frequently used to describe her actions. I'd go so far as to say you probably subconsciously picked up on the verbage. The mind is a funny thing.
We all know who Trump is. This behavior, from Trump, should shock no one by now. I'm equally upset with all those who enable him. Midterms are here, time to do the one thing we are still allowed to. Be certain, Trump will cry foul on the elections unless they go his way.
It's less about who is doing it rather than that a US president is doing it at all. Obviously, once you find the right person, things can change quickly. Finding the right person when the other two branches of government are controlled by the same party, you can speed run the end of democracy. This is the part that's really shameful to me more so than just a single megalomaniac POTUS. The fact Congress has just capitulated its duties while overtly corrupt members of SCOTUS flaunt jurisprudence is something I thought we'd never have to see.
Congress didn't capitulate, it facilitated by obstructing any resistance. And we all saw this coming with SCOTUS as far back as the Obama administration. It's certainly horrifying to see it play out, but we've seen the warning signs since the W Bush admin.
I think it's a combo of both really. McConnel denying Obama's rightful SCOTUS nomination was not capitulating, but Johnson's rolling over for this administration is. Clearly, the situation we find ourselves is not the result of a single action. I think the speed run really started back with Speaker Gingrich.
At a certain point we just have to consider them all participants in a single oligarchic conspiracy to overturn democracy. If we cannot get justice through the system then it will have to be done by the masses themselves.
Congress is capitulating it's duties at least partially because anyone who tries to block Trump as a republican gets voted out. Oh sure, they stirred this shit up for 50 years and just reaping what they sew, but the train is free-running now and they can't really stop it.
The Voters want a Trump King. A government cannot ignore it's own people forever.
If the voters reward corrupt and horrific behavior, and punish law and order behavior, what the hell can you do about that?
Hate to burst your bubble, but behind Trump there are quite a few people that are ready to take his place, with no real chance of voting ever being able to stop them. Don't get your hopes up that voting blue matters. Everyone had the chance in 2024, half the eligible population did not vote. Now we get to live with those consequences.
In this day and age, 100% of all presidential acts need to be documented publicly. It's no longer enough to wave a piece of paper around and say "see, it has his signature." Random cabinet secretaries and white house staffers running papers through the autopen should be a capital crime and the only sentence should be hanging.
Is this really something that has been happening, or just some nonsense that has been thrown out to see what sticks? Yes, using the autopen should be limited to the mass signing of trivial correspondence like annual christmas cards or form letter responses to anything received from the citizens that used a stamp. Has there been any one seriously concerned about legislation or executive order type of documents being signed this way?
It's hard to know. People have opinions that it might be happening, which is why I call for presidential action to be public, and not in the form of final signed papers. I want to be able to see the president making the decisions and taking the actions that affect everyone in the country.
I wasn't aware of this supposedly. I had assumed that the EO signed covered it in a single signature. Not sure which is worse here, my assumption or your supposedly.
While Im not going to dissuade people from voting, everyone should be prepared for the following reality: true and fair elections in US very like to be a thing of the past.
There are 3 big factors in play
* 2020 attempted coup gave the Republicans valuable information on what to do this time around. Basically, the game is to put US into legal limbo and remain in power. They know nobody on the democrat side is going to think about using armed forces, and they are not going to use armed forces to keep their public image and keep economy from panicking, so they are going to just declare some emergency and keep power under the pretense of fixing that emergency. Reminder that Supreme Court is on his side.
* Trump has shown that he has no issue with having a private army operating with extrajudicial authority in public. Now imagine with what he is ok doing with a non-public army. You should fully expect people going against him to get "arrested" under some made up charges.
* Even with Trump gone, there are smarter, younger, non senile conservatives ready to take his place and grab power and do the same things, with way less mistakes. Vance is right up there with him.
As such, even if everyone gets out and votes blue, in the end its all pointless. Trump can get impeached, convicted, and either Supreme Court says nah, or he just won't leave. In 2028, he (or Vance) will declare election fraud again and do it successfully this time to remain in power.
And even if somehow Dems win the house and presidency, and manage to pack supreme court to take control of all the branches, the thing is the will be left with a insanely shitty situation to clean up that will result in economic downturn, and the idiots in US will vote republican again in 2032.
Grump will cry foul on anything, because that's what he does. Normally for someone at his point in life, this would be confined to yelling at nursing home staff for the food being too cold and having the wrong color skin (because their family certainly wouldn't be visiting). But unfortunately, there are way too many gullible fools in this country who felt validated by his crying.
"Court ruled in a 6–3 decision that presidents have absolute immunity for acts committed as president within their core constitutional purview, at least presumptive immunity for official acts within the outer perimeter of their official responsibility, and no immunity for unofficial acts".
Now, if there was any kind of consistency, there would be a ruling that the president's "personal" White House papers aren't above the law, but I expect another piece of legal Calvinball to happen again.
Ridiculous as it may be, I'm not sure the argument is incorrect under the law. The president is the ultimate classification authority. The only reason he was prosecuted for mishandling classified documents previously is because that was after he left office.
The American system of executive power needs a major rethink. For decades, Congress has given up more and more power to the executive under the assumption that the president will be a careful steward of those powers. This was a dumb decision at the time and it's made quite obvious now that an absolute cretin holds the office.
Unfortunately, I don't imagine we'll get that rethink. Instead, we'll just try to fix it by giving somebody else too much power and hoping they use it better.
The question is not around classification but of ownership and especially of the ownership of the documents after the president leaves office. The argument is that the documents generated during the presidency are the personal property of the president.
I wonder what is causing the centralisation around the executive branch in Western democracies? While the US is the more extreme example of the phenomenon, in the UK power has been consolidating in Number 10 for decades and the PM role has become more presidential than tradition dictates; compare say Tony Blair who was a very personal leader with Clement Attlee whose leadership style was more collaborative. The two systems are very different constitutionally, so it feels like there's broader factors causing this.
In the US, I think a big factor was world events getting so much faster while Congress did not. For an extreme example, the President has the authority to unilaterally launch a massive nuclear strike, because there wouldn’t be time to get Congress together in a crisis.
It also seems to be a way for Congress to dodge responsibility. If you pass legislation to fix something by giving the president powers, you can claim credit. If it goes wrong, you can blame the president.
Congress created the laws which allow classification & declassification. The president is the authority over what gets classified, but should still be required to follow the procedures for doing so.
Declassifying documents is completely within Trump's purview, but surely selling classified documents runs afoul of the emoluments clause in Article II, Section 1.
How are they selling classified anything if he's already declassified them? According to Trump, he can declassify anything be declaring he declassified them.
For selling his own personal documents? That's crazy talk.
Edit: This is obviously a politically charged topic, so I should be more clear. If we accept the (absurd) premise that a president can sell national secrets on eBay because they're his own personal property, I'd be mildly surprised if a court found that he had to give the proceeds to the state.
I don't think being able to sell secrets on eBay is a bad thing. The point of secret classification isn't to restrict trusted people - but to restrict *unathorized* access. And highest person in chain of command naturally has full authority to do as he sees the situation fit
What I don't understand how it's allowed is that money earned from such ebay sell would go to private pocket instead of the government
I feel like that latter point isn't accentuated enough
So national interest doesn't exist? It's all at the whim of a demented money grabber, just because a small majority of the voters (if there really was a majority) got riled up?
The king decides what national interest is, and in this case it is in the national interest for him to auction the government off into his own bank account.
Childlike wishful thinking. There is a disturbingly large number of people who think like this. And there are, as you might imagine, strong incentives for certain individuals and organizations to promote this kind of thinking. Look up Curtis Yarvin if you want to see some deeply disturbed promotion of these extremely dark, and fundamentally anti-American, ideas.
> The point of secret classification isn't to restrict trusted people - but to restrict unathorized access. And highest person in chain of command naturally has full authority to do as he sees the situation fit
First of all -- what? The exact legal authority between the President and Congress here is murky, yes (see https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/RS21900). But it's completely ridiculous to claim that the only criterion for authorization is that someone thinks a person ought to be authorized.
This is unitary executive thinking, grounded in the principle that, because the president is the sole and chief authority and executor of the law, the president may do just about anything in that capacity. It's utter unconstitutional nonsense, no matter what our (openly compromised by lobbyists) Supreme Court justices say.
The latter point is "not accentuated enough" because it's secondary to the primary point, which supersedes it. No the president's whim is not the same as executing the federal laws created by Congress within the framework of the constitution. It a mind-bendingly anti-American, anti-Constitutional line of reasoning on display here.
This sounds like POTUS is the new Roman Emperor of our times and he / she can sell the republic or interests of its subjects to anyone as he wishes, keeping all the benefits generated for his personal fortune and distributing all the mis-fortune / longer term effects to the wider population base... Guess what there is a name for this game, "Privatize the profits and socialize the losses".
Let's be honest here, this calvinball only applies to one political party. The other can't wear a tan suit or forgive a small fraction of student loans.
Let's be honest, the other party is entirely not without its faults. Criticism for superficial things like suit color happens in both directions, and forgiving student loans was problematic for a bunch of reasons (spending is out of control when either party is in power). Power is entirely too federally concentrated, and both parties change the rules on a constant basis (remember vaccine mandates? oil/gas lease bans that increased energy costs with no real replacement available?)
The existence of "executive orders" as a shortcut around checks-and-balances is a real problem, no matter who is in power.
Very strong attempt to both-sides a visibly one sided issue.
A weak attempt to one-side a visibly both-sided issue.
I'm a libertarian. The main issues our country is currently facing are not both-sided issues. Personally, I stopped steelmanning around 2020. We can get back to generally criticizing Democrats (ie the real conservatives) when that criticism does more than merely empower overly simplistic populist reactionaries to lean into accelerating our problems.
Esp. the "spending is out of control with both parties" fiscal take is quite wrong.
The one question both-siders never ask: which party has more momentum or internal turmoil to cut off the spineless corrupted opportunists. Pretty easy answer to that one...
The shorter name is corruption. It's not any more complicated than that.
Just because POTUS writes down classified information in his personal notes/papers does not mean the information is no longer classified. Yes, POTUS has the power to de-classify, but there's a way of doing that so everyone is aware that certain information is now public. Doing it on a whim as a CYA because someone wants to make their illegal decision legal only after it becoming publicly known it occurred is not the way of properly de-classifying something.
The article talks about classification but this isn't really about classification or national security. It's about who has the fundamental rights over the documents after all that is sorted out. It's about can congress or the public force documents that embarrass or incriminates the president (after sufficient time and declassification has happened)
It looks like this stems from the Mar-a-lago raid in 2022. Did we ever find out what the president was actually squirreling away there that he wants to sell on eBay? I remember the leak at the time was that it was nuclear secrets, but I haven't really seen an update on it.
The results of that investigation were squashed by Judge Eileen Canon in Florida claiming the special prosecutor was not legal. Jack Smith has bent over backwards to not release information based on the court's decision to bar its release.
However, Trump's case against the BBC has become an interesting one. The judge overseeing this case recently stated that the BBC can call Jack as a witness potentially allowing an end run around Judge Canon's release of Jack's report.
Minor nit: in a legal context, the word is "quashed" - e.g., quashing a subpoena.
to be honest, I wasn't even thinking in those terms. I didn't s/squash/quash/ in my head and use the wrong term. I literally was thinking the judge stomped all over the case. Is quash really the correct term here as you're implying?
> quash
It's a formal term: to officially void, cancel, set aside, or forcefully suppress something.
In all of the articles around Judge Canon's actions regarding this case, I do not recall quash being mentioned. That's why I was asking if that's really what was done. I was not asking about the definition of the word.
Yes. I also closely followed this case, and the word "quash" was frequently used to describe her actions. I'd go so far as to say you probably subconsciously picked up on the verbage. The mind is a funny thing.
Yes, in the part of the definition to completely suppress or extinguish something.
Your comment somehow got quashed.
Source article: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/10/16/presidential-record...
We all know who Trump is. This behavior, from Trump, should shock no one by now. I'm equally upset with all those who enable him. Midterms are here, time to do the one thing we are still allowed to. Be certain, Trump will cry foul on the elections unless they go his way.
It's less about who is doing it rather than that a US president is doing it at all. Obviously, once you find the right person, things can change quickly. Finding the right person when the other two branches of government are controlled by the same party, you can speed run the end of democracy. This is the part that's really shameful to me more so than just a single megalomaniac POTUS. The fact Congress has just capitulated its duties while overtly corrupt members of SCOTUS flaunt jurisprudence is something I thought we'd never have to see.
Congress didn't capitulate, it facilitated by obstructing any resistance. And we all saw this coming with SCOTUS as far back as the Obama administration. It's certainly horrifying to see it play out, but we've seen the warning signs since the W Bush admin.
I think it's a combo of both really. McConnel denying Obama's rightful SCOTUS nomination was not capitulating, but Johnson's rolling over for this administration is. Clearly, the situation we find ourselves is not the result of a single action. I think the speed run really started back with Speaker Gingrich.
At a certain point we just have to consider them all participants in a single oligarchic conspiracy to overturn democracy. If we cannot get justice through the system then it will have to be done by the masses themselves.
Careful, one or two more paragraphs down that slope and you might be accused of describing a Deep State and/or an insurrection
Congress is capitulating it's duties at least partially because anyone who tries to block Trump as a republican gets voted out. Oh sure, they stirred this shit up for 50 years and just reaping what they sew, but the train is free-running now and they can't really stop it.
The Voters want a Trump King. A government cannot ignore it's own people forever.
If the voters reward corrupt and horrific behavior, and punish law and order behavior, what the hell can you do about that?
It makes me happy every day that his clock is running out. Clocks. All the clocks running out.
But we need to do some serious rethink and work on curbing the power of the POTUS.
He is visibly deteriorating. I'll be surprised if he stays until the end of his term.
It's only a matter of time before there is a deal between Trump and Vance for a pardon in return for retirement.
I’m betting he will step down the day after the midpoint in his term. Giving Vance the opportunity to rule for 10 years.
Nothing short of sending a few hundred cronies to prison, and the ones responsible for murder to the firing squad will curb that power.
And he can do a lot of damage until he is gone. He is too old to face any of the consequences he caused
>All the clocks running out.
Hate to burst your bubble, but behind Trump there are quite a few people that are ready to take his place, with no real chance of voting ever being able to stop them. Don't get your hopes up that voting blue matters. Everyone had the chance in 2024, half the eligible population did not vote. Now we get to live with those consequences.
US is done for.
The fun thing about society and nations is that rolling over and giving up is literally the only actual failure state.
In this day and age, 100% of all presidential acts need to be documented publicly. It's no longer enough to wave a piece of paper around and say "see, it has his signature." Random cabinet secretaries and white house staffers running papers through the autopen should be a capital crime and the only sentence should be hanging.
Is this really something that has been happening, or just some nonsense that has been thrown out to see what sticks? Yes, using the autopen should be limited to the mass signing of trivial correspondence like annual christmas cards or form letter responses to anything received from the citizens that used a stamp. Has there been any one seriously concerned about legislation or executive order type of documents being signed this way?
It's hard to know. People have opinions that it might be happening, which is why I call for presidential action to be public, and not in the form of final signed papers. I want to be able to see the president making the decisions and taking the actions that affect everyone in the country.
He supposedly signed individual pardons for 1,600 people in one day.
That would give me quite a cramp and I'm not 80.
I wasn't aware of this supposedly. I had assumed that the EO signed covered it in a single signature. Not sure which is worse here, my assumption or your supposedly.
While Im not going to dissuade people from voting, everyone should be prepared for the following reality: true and fair elections in US very like to be a thing of the past.
There are 3 big factors in play
* 2020 attempted coup gave the Republicans valuable information on what to do this time around. Basically, the game is to put US into legal limbo and remain in power. They know nobody on the democrat side is going to think about using armed forces, and they are not going to use armed forces to keep their public image and keep economy from panicking, so they are going to just declare some emergency and keep power under the pretense of fixing that emergency. Reminder that Supreme Court is on his side.
* Trump has shown that he has no issue with having a private army operating with extrajudicial authority in public. Now imagine with what he is ok doing with a non-public army. You should fully expect people going against him to get "arrested" under some made up charges.
* Even with Trump gone, there are smarter, younger, non senile conservatives ready to take his place and grab power and do the same things, with way less mistakes. Vance is right up there with him.
As such, even if everyone gets out and votes blue, in the end its all pointless. Trump can get impeached, convicted, and either Supreme Court says nah, or he just won't leave. In 2028, he (or Vance) will declare election fraud again and do it successfully this time to remain in power.
And even if somehow Dems win the house and presidency, and manage to pack supreme court to take control of all the branches, the thing is the will be left with a insanely shitty situation to clean up that will result in economic downturn, and the idiots in US will vote republican again in 2032.
Just give me a sec to crawl into a hole will ya?!
But yeah, re-election without re-evaluation of the systems that failed to protect the public from abuse will just result in a replay anyway.
cough citizens united cough
Grump will cry foul on anything, because that's what he does. Normally for someone at his point in life, this would be confined to yelling at nursing home staff for the food being too cold and having the wrong color skin (because their family certainly wouldn't be visiting). But unfortunately, there are way too many gullible fools in this country who felt validated by his crying.
Recall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States for a moment:
"Court ruled in a 6–3 decision that presidents have absolute immunity for acts committed as president within their core constitutional purview, at least presumptive immunity for official acts within the outer perimeter of their official responsibility, and no immunity for unofficial acts".
Now, if there was any kind of consistency, there would be a ruling that the president's "personal" White House papers aren't above the law, but I expect another piece of legal Calvinball to happen again.
Ridiculous as it may be, I'm not sure the argument is incorrect under the law. The president is the ultimate classification authority. The only reason he was prosecuted for mishandling classified documents previously is because that was after he left office.
The American system of executive power needs a major rethink. For decades, Congress has given up more and more power to the executive under the assumption that the president will be a careful steward of those powers. This was a dumb decision at the time and it's made quite obvious now that an absolute cretin holds the office.
Unfortunately, I don't imagine we'll get that rethink. Instead, we'll just try to fix it by giving somebody else too much power and hoping they use it better.
The question is not around classification but of ownership and especially of the ownership of the documents after the president leaves office. The argument is that the documents generated during the presidency are the personal property of the president.
I wonder what is causing the centralisation around the executive branch in Western democracies? While the US is the more extreme example of the phenomenon, in the UK power has been consolidating in Number 10 for decades and the PM role has become more presidential than tradition dictates; compare say Tony Blair who was a very personal leader with Clement Attlee whose leadership style was more collaborative. The two systems are very different constitutionally, so it feels like there's broader factors causing this.
In the US, I think a big factor was world events getting so much faster while Congress did not. For an extreme example, the President has the authority to unilaterally launch a massive nuclear strike, because there wouldn’t be time to get Congress together in a crisis.
It also seems to be a way for Congress to dodge responsibility. If you pass legislation to fix something by giving the president powers, you can claim credit. If it goes wrong, you can blame the president.
Congress created the laws which allow classification & declassification. The president is the authority over what gets classified, but should still be required to follow the procedures for doing so.
Are those procedures described in law or were they created by the executive?
Declassifying documents is completely within Trump's purview, but surely selling classified documents runs afoul of the emoluments clause in Article II, Section 1.
It should, I agree, but in practice the enforcement mechanism no longer functions.
How are they selling classified anything if he's already declassified them? According to Trump, he can declassify anything be declaring he declassified them.
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
For selling his own personal documents? That's crazy talk.
Edit: This is obviously a politically charged topic, so I should be more clear. If we accept the (absurd) premise that a president can sell national secrets on eBay because they're his own personal property, I'd be mildly surprised if a court found that he had to give the proceeds to the state.
Take crayon. Write down secrets on piece of paper. Sell on ebay!
Only in America.
I don't think being able to sell secrets on eBay is a bad thing. The point of secret classification isn't to restrict trusted people - but to restrict *unathorized* access. And highest person in chain of command naturally has full authority to do as he sees the situation fit
What I don't understand how it's allowed is that money earned from such ebay sell would go to private pocket instead of the government
I feel like that latter point isn't accentuated enough
So national interest doesn't exist? It's all at the whim of a demented money grabber, just because a small majority of the voters (if there really was a majority) got riled up?
The king decides what national interest is, and in this case it is in the national interest for him to auction the government off into his own bank account.
I know this isn’t an argument but when I read this my first thought was: How can a real person hold this opinion?
Childlike wishful thinking. There is a disturbingly large number of people who think like this. And there are, as you might imagine, strong incentives for certain individuals and organizations to promote this kind of thinking. Look up Curtis Yarvin if you want to see some deeply disturbed promotion of these extremely dark, and fundamentally anti-American, ideas.
> The point of secret classification isn't to restrict trusted people - but to restrict unathorized access. And highest person in chain of command naturally has full authority to do as he sees the situation fit
First of all -- what? The exact legal authority between the President and Congress here is murky, yes (see https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/RS21900). But it's completely ridiculous to claim that the only criterion for authorization is that someone thinks a person ought to be authorized.
This is unitary executive thinking, grounded in the principle that, because the president is the sole and chief authority and executor of the law, the president may do just about anything in that capacity. It's utter unconstitutional nonsense, no matter what our (openly compromised by lobbyists) Supreme Court justices say.
The latter point is "not accentuated enough" because it's secondary to the primary point, which supersedes it. No the president's whim is not the same as executing the federal laws created by Congress within the framework of the constitution. It a mind-bendingly anti-American, anti-Constitutional line of reasoning on display here.