Tornado Alley (PROG)

[fuagf]

Super article. Excerpt: Trump and his team are using a strategy called “impoundment” (basically refusing to spend money that had already been legally allocated by Congress). Impoundment had been used occasionally going back to Thomas Jefferson’s administration but was most widely and infamously employed by Richard Nixon. Congress found Nixon’s use of the tool so beyond the pale that it pushed back on it and asserted its constitutional prerogative with a law, the Impoundment Control Act of 1974.

Congress passed the ICA in response to President Nixon’s executive overreach – his Administration refused to release Congressionally appropriated funds for certain programs he opposed. While the U.S. Constitution broadly grants Congress the power of the purse, the President – through the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and executive agencies – is responsible for the actual spending of funds. The ICA created a process the President must follow if he or she seeks to delay or cancel funding that Congress has provided.

Nixon had tried to block Congress when it did things — passed laws — that he didn’t like or disagreed with. And in that context, David Dayen goes on to lay out exactly why what Trump and Vought are attempting to do here is not just dangerous, but illegal. This is breaking the law, pure and simple — illegal and unconstitutional.

To state clearly, Congress has the constitutional power of the purse. Presidents can sign or veto a budget; that’s the extent of their role. After that, they must take care that the laws are faithfully executed. Refusing to spend money because of a policy preference is the opposite of faithful execution. The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel in 1988 agreed that there just isn’t any authority for presidents to defy appropriated funding.

How is government meant to work? Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told Fox News that agencies are meant to call OMB director Russell Vought and ask, hat in hand.

https://the.ink/p/trump-tries-a-january-coup-again?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=70374&post_id=155949247&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=6zfhm&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

One earlier article on one of Trump's Orban-like efforts to get away with illegal activity such as illegal impoundment, h/t arizona1:

How Trump plans to seize the power of the purse From Congress
[...]
If Trump were to assert a power to kill congressionally approved programs, it would almost certainly tee up a fight in the federal courts and Congress and, experts say, could fundamentally alter Congress’ bedrock power.
[...]
The once-obscure debate over impoundment has come into vogue in MAGA circles thanks to veterans of Trump’s first administration who remain his close allies. Russell Vought, Trump’s former budget director, and Mark Paoletta, who served under Vought as the Office of Management and Budget general counsel, have worked to popularize the idea from the Trump-aligned think tank Vought founded, the Center for Renewing America.

On Friday, Trump announced he had picked Vought to lead OMB again. “Russ knows exactly how to dismantle the Deep State and end Weaponized Government, and he will help us return Self Governance to the People,” Trump said in a statement.

Vought was also a top architect of the controversial Project 2025. In private remarks to a gathering of MAGA luminaries uncovered by ProPublica, Vought boasted that he was assembling a “shadow” Office of Legal Counsel so that Trump is armed on day one with the legal rationalizations to realize his agenda.
[...]
A similar power grab led to his first impeachment. During his first term, Trump held up nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine while he pressured President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to open a corruption investigation into Joe Biden and his family. The U.S. Government Accountability Office later ruled his actions violated the Impoundment Control Act.
[...]
The Supreme Court has never directly weighed in on whether impoundment is constitutional. But it threw water on that reasoning in an 1838 case, Kendall v. U.S., about a federal debt payment.

“To contend that the obligation imposed on the President to see the laws faithfully executed, implies a power to forbid their execution, is a novel construction of the constitution, and entirely inadmissible,” the justices wrote.

During his cutting spree, Nixon’s own Justice Department argued roughly the same.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=175458594

Trump and McConnell didn't stack the SCOTUS for nothing. And let's
see how much farther to the right of Nixon's DOJ Trump's DOJ moves

Trump administration fires DOJ officials who worked on criminal investigations of the president
The Justice Department employees had been involved in special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation that led to Trump's classified documents and Jan. 6 cases.
[...]
“Today, Acting Attorney General James McHenry terminated the employment of a number of DOJ officials who played a significant role in prosecuting President Trump," a Justice Department official wrote to NBC News. "In light of their actions, the Acting Attorney General does not trust these officials to assist in faithfully implementing the President’s agenda. This action is consistent with the mission of ending the weaponization of government."

Among those let go, an official familiar with the matter told NBC News, were career prosecutors Molly Gaston, J.P. Cooney, Anne McNamara and Mary Dohrmann.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/trump-administration-fires-doj-officials-worked-criminal-investigation-rcna189512

How much closer to the Putin authoritarian-right model will the Trump administration be allowed to move:

Pam Bondi gets Judiciary panel nod to serve as Trump's AG
https://www.axios.com/2025/01/29/pam-bondi-ag-judiciary-doj .

How long will it be before enough Republicans in Congress say this enough is
too much enough, and we thankfully see impeachment effort number three.

Noted above Acting Attorney General James McHenry says the Presidents agenda. Not the agenda set by Congress, not the agenda set by the law - the President's agenda. And then absurdly justifies the firings as "consistent with the mission of ending the weaponization of government." it's a blatant conflict in itself, unless i am missing something.