Summary
The Democratic National Committee and two other party committees have sued Trump over Executive Order 14215, which claims authority to seize control of the Federal Elections Commission.
The lawsuit argues this violates federal law and threatens free elections.
The order also claims power over other agencies including the SEC, FTC, and NLRB.
Democrats contend this executive overreach contradicts constitutional principles and a century of Supreme Court precedent upholding Congress’s authority to insulate certain agencies from presidential control.
Judges can drain bank accounts of those who don’t respect rule of law. That’s kind of the point of draining their bank account.
Does the judge have a computer with a button on it that says drain? What’s the process, and can that process be disrupted?
I’m being quite serious.
I answered this elsewhere, but the upshot is that banks treat court orders like checks drawn from your account. Once they are signed, there isn’t any good way to stop the funds from being withdrawn.
I keep hearing arguments like this, and I’d love to be reassured by them, but they come after watching Trump receive 34 felony convictions with no actual punishment for those convictions, after which he was elected President of the United States of America. It also comes after watching a 4 year long failure to attach (or even try to attach) any consequences to him for Jan 06.
So, you’ll forgive me if I’ll wait until I hear about bank accounts being drained and that it has any measurable impact on the rate of progress at https://www.project2025.observer/ before I lull myself back into to believing Trump is in any way not untouchable.
There are a lot of things the system can do to stop something like this. So far it’s not doing very many of them.
Yeah, well, blame the courts for sentencing him to “Never mind, we cool bro.”
That gets tricky. The core argument would be that Trump’s speech before the attack is firmly within his 1A rights (and it almost certainly is, 1A speech rights are extremely broad and anything short of a direct call to immediate lawless action is usually protected) and that his not doing anything to stop it once it started is him doing a shit job, but not technically illegal (but hypothetically impeachable, if both houses would agree to it which was never going to happen).
You’d have to have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he planned for J6 to happen the way it did in a fashion that is definitely not attached to his duties as president in any even vaguely reasonable way to have anything to hang on him at all without an impeachment. Something like hard evidence of him coordinating specifically the attack on the capitol (as opposed to the rally or march to the capitol steps) with the people entering the capitol or their leadership and not merely an otherwise legal protest/rally. Which is a high bar to reach.
He also received an $83 million judgment, which he already paid. And a $400 million fine, which he will pay.
Also, keep in mind that Trump cannot act alone. Even if he could shrug off a million dollar fine, his employees cannot. And judges will target his employees, until nobody is willing to break the law for him.
I don’t think Trump is going to lose any sleep over his employees getting millions of dollars in fines or jail time. He can just preemptively pardon them no questions asked if he could be bothered to remember they exist. Also nearly 50% of voting aged adults actually support Trump ignoring the courts so I don’t think there’s much anyone can do.
Trump can’t pardon employees who are found in contempt of court. Trump might not lose sleep, but the employees will. Most employees, even Trump supporters, won’t take an assignment that will lead to losing their life savings.
And when they do, I’ll applaud for them as loudly as anyone else.
Until then, as they say, it’s vaporware.
There is no need for judges to target anyone yet, because the Trump admin hasn’t been found in contempt.
Ok now the judge is in jail for treason or has all their personal assets liquidated into the Sovereign Wealth fund. What next? A new judge is hand picked and installed, is he going to put his neck out like the last guy?
Jails are administered by judges. Put a judge in jail illegally, and another judge will immediately release them.
Ok, the judge gets swept up in a military tribunal or they just say anyone collaborating with this judge is also guilty of treason. This is all putting aside brownshirts straight up burning down their house and the FBI regrettably failing to catch the culprits.
You can’t arrest someone for treason without a warrant. And warrants are signed by judges.
The rest of your hypothetical describes kidnapping and arson. Kidnapping and arson are state crimes even if the perp is a federal employee. The brownshirts would be arrested by state/local police (who vastly outnumber federal agents btw) and tried in state courts.
Well, you can’t legally arrest someone without a warrant. We’re talking about a situation where the rule of law is being dismantled.
Although, I also wouldn’t put it past them to argue that you don’t need a warrant to arrest someone for “issuing a treasonous court order” on the grounds that it was done in plain view or that they have probable cause to believe the judge committed said treason, which is a felony and thus doesn’t require a warrant.
It’s obvious baloney but that doesn’t mean it’s not a workable veneer of legitimacy.
All arrests end with an appearance before a judge. If it’s obvious baloney, the judge will dismiss.
You do know who appoints the judges, right?
And you think the federal government doesn’t have the resources to pull off those crimes without plausible deniability? Or that the right wing militias aren’t perfectly constructed to take their own initiative, fight and die for their dear leader anyway?
State judges are elected or appointed by governors.
Judges aren’t healthcare CEOs: they are accustomed to being targeted by criminals, they have armed security details, and they have the chief of police on speed-dial.
The federal government might have “plausible deniability” but the perps are still going to be arrested and tried. “Plausible deniability” just means the government will abandon them.
Genuine question because I’m not a lawyer, but why would a state judge specifically need to issue the warrant? And could it come from any red state maga judge?
And yes, the government would absolutely abandon them. But all a dictator (or his public propaganda) needs to say is “unfortunate violence, but that judge got what was coming to him” and the lap dogs will eat it up. There are way more willing martyrs than judges.
Will the chief of police stop the feds from finding a hard-drive full of CP in the judges office, sourced back to some international investigation the feds have jurisdiction over?
Your phrasing keeps implying that naked unconstitutional acts would be met with armed resistance, but that’s not what I’m trying to get across. A state judge could pretty fairly label Trump an outlaw today, giving judicial sanction for violent arrest. That doesn’t put a bunch of state police on par with Trump engaging the national guard. All he needs is some thin veil of imagined legitimacy and he has the power to “defend” America from any threat.
For federal crimes, a federal judge would issue the warrant. But not a hand-picked federal judge, they would be randomly chosen from within the jurisdiction.
Even if a Trump-appointed judge were randomly chosen, I doubt they would go along with a bogus warrant against another judge. For one thing, judges (like cops) protect their own. For another, the warrant would be appealed and it’s quite unlikely that every judge in the line of appeal would play along.
That’s not the slam-dunk you seem to think. First, local PD would be present during the search and notice that a hard drive appeared out of nowhere. Next, the forensics team would notice that the only fingerprints on the drive belonged to federal agents. Finally, the judge’s password-protected computer would have no record of interfacing with that drive. All in all, those charges would likely be dismissed.
Trump might be an “outlaw” because he is not following the law, but that is not the same as a “criminal” (someone who has specifically violated the criminal code). And only criminals can be arrested.
The consequence for breaking the law is often not arrest, but a lawsuit. And Trump is being sued all over the place.
Trump isn’t going to successfully engage the national guard against the state police. For one thing, the national guard is paid by the governor’s office. What is Trump offering them?
If the governor tells the guard “Any guardsman who interferes with state police won’t get paid and/or will be demoted”, then nobody will interfere.