politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
It's not. Those messages are a blatant violation of a law known as the Hatch Act.
In theory, this is enforced by the office of special counsel, which is an independent federal agency. In practice, Trump fired the head of the OSC back in February, and appointed one of his cabinet officials to the role.
In theory, this was completely unlawful, as the OSC was setup by Congress post Watergate [0] specifically to be independent of the President. Indeed a lower court ruled as such; but was overturned on appeal. The problem is that the Supreme Court has recently embraced a view of near unlimited presidential power, including explicit rulings against the constitutionality of laws preventing the president from firing heads of independent agencies. [1].
The court also ruled that the president has near complete immunity to commit crimes (Trump v US 2024). That ruling gives the president literally complete immunity for "core" acts such as issuing pardons. So, he could pardon everyone involved.
In theory, the recourse here is impeachment. But there isn't much stomach to impeach him again after his prior impeachments failed to remove him from office. Those impeachments being for: withholding military aid to Ukraine because they wouldn't investigate the son of his political opponents; and directing a violent insurrection on January 6 to try and remain in power despite loosing the election.
[0] Where then president Nixon directed a break in of the headquarters of his political opponents.
[1] Although, I will note, the Court has made a point of clarifying that the Federal reserve is fine. Undoubtedly because they care about the amount of money they would loose in the economic carnage of that particular agency loosing independence.