If American voters think the stakes are high enough to overlook corruption, isn’t that their prerogative? Voters are the source of truth in a democracy.
129,330 karma · joined December 29, 2010
Your proposal would replace petty corruption with institutional capture of elections by the legal profession. That’s a solution worse than the problem.
> If we trust voters to mind misconduct in office we should be able to trust them to read through charges.
You can’t trust a jury of 12 people in a handpicked jurisdiction, where evidence is carefully screened by lawyers and judges, to make such consequential decisions for the whole country.
As to the political makeup at DOJ, information about political donations at federal agencies is public.
You’re getting closer with juries. But the DC jury pool is extremely skewed. Its like Aragorn trying to get a fair trial in Mordor District Court.
[1] Every DOJ person I know is a great lawyer, phenomenal at their job, and the most upstanding, orderly, conscientious type of American. But they can’t be trusted with that much power over politics. It’s like how you can’t give the One Ring to Gandalf. You have to give it to the Hobbits.
Courts are designed to make decisions about individual cases, not ones that affect the trajectory of the whole country. It’s simply the wrong tool for the job.
> Literally the current DoJ and FBI
Not even close. I don’t think you can even find a prosecutor’s office and jury pool that’s as red as the DOJ and DC jury pool. AOC’s district is MAGA by comparison at 33% Trump voters.
The safeguards within the justice system are appropriate for prosecuting individuals. They are not set up to handle matters of national importance that could way the direction of the country or deprive tens of millions of voters of their preferred candidate.
If you don't believe that, then consider a hypothetical system where we allow prosecutions according to the standard you propose. Except only Texas courts and prosecutors have jurisdiction.
I’m not trying to be snarky. I spent most of my life as an atheist and it never occurred to me to think about the meaning of my existence. It was obvious that I’m just a wet bag of carbon. What else could I be?
Yes, that was the goal. But the statute expressly allows for that goal: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB11374.
> USAID, if anything, did plenty of good. I've seen it up close.
There was a time when it did that, yes. But it began as a State Department front to interfere in the politics of third world countries and ultimately returned to such activities. There's a reason Mexico's President, who hates Trump, supported shutting it down: https://www.newsweek.com/trump-musk-unexpected-ally-push-shu... ("During a press conference on Tuesday, Sheinbaum voiced support for shutting down USAID, criticizing the agency's role in funding organizations she described as working against Mexican interests.").
I'm deeply familiar with USAID. My dad worked for USAID contractors and my family came to the U.S. on an H1 visa from such a job. USAID did some great projects in Bangladesh. But it probably killed more people in the long run through political interference than it helped. USAID was one of the last bastions of Anglo-Protestants in the US, along with the CIA. Extremely upright, orderly, admirable people. I'd love to live in a country run entirely by USAID people. But, like the CIA, they deeply misunderstand third world people. Their Puritan universalism made them completely blind to the unique political requirements of the third world. And that caused major problems whenever they became involved in "democracy promotion" (i.e. political interference).
> Creative interpretation of the rules and using judges bought and paid for and installed on dubious grounds as ways to force through things that in any other administration would have you hollering
I've been on HN since the Obama administration, and you won't find a single post from me defending federal bureaucratic privilege under any administration. I simply do not believe that the bureaucracy is a branch of government in and of itself. The federal bureaucracy is not in our constitution--it is a European import from admirers of the Prussian bureaucracy: https://americanmind.org/salvo/the-german-stamp-on-wilsons-a....
Moreover, the impoundment rules don’t require congress to act first before the president acts. They require the money to be spent, but if the budgetary authority is provided over a year it’s hard to say when the president must spend that money within the year. (Unless there’s specific requirements in the statute.)
An acting administrator or agency head can then generally “detail” an employee from anywhere else in the government to serve as a deputy in a temporary basis, which Rubio did here. Agency heads generally have broad discretion to hire their deputies.
Yes, but the paperwork that decides who is the President or his appointee’s lawful agent is different than the civil service paperwork for employment. Lewin was appointed as an SGE. This article is about the HR details of his internal transfer into USAID. But there is no rule that says someone must be an employee of an agency to assist in shutting down the agency under delegated authority from the cabinet official that oversees the agency.
> If a "police officer" conducted a search without paperwork on file that establishes their authority to search, it would be illegal, right?
Yes. But if he was transferred within the department from vice into homicide and hadn’t done all his paperwork yet, would that be illegal? And also, doing a search is a potential impingement on individual rights. Very different from a doing an internal reorganization within a department. If a CEO pulls in someone from one department to clean house in another department, how much HR paperwork do you really need?
The USAID budget in 2024 was almost $35 billion annually. If you search the budget bill for amounts “apportioned to” USAID, you will not find $35 billion of annual budget authority specifically to USAID. Much of USAID’s funding is appropriated to the President and apportioned to State. State has broad powers to transfer the funds: https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-134/t22/s2675/
There is a complex web of statues and regulations that applies to the state department specifically. There is a reason these lawsuits have not gone anywhere.
Not at all. The founders were focused on having a vigorous executive who could “just do things.” https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed70.asp. The system they created is not based on the premise of cautious bureaucracy. It was based on having frequent elections that would empower a vigorous president and political appointees to carry out what they had campaigned on.
The founders were men of action. They would be horrified by how our government today is run by lawyers through APA litigation. The HR-ification of the American government is a mid-20th century invention.
The President isn’t a “king” he’s a CEO. A CEO doesn’t need permission from a court to spend the company’s own money or to take executive actions about the company’s own operations.
> I understand it, under the "unitary executive theory" the executive can legally do whatever it wants.
You’re right that this doesn’t have to do with the unitary executive. That’s my point. It’s about things like the impoundment control act.
The impoundment control act specifically provides for Congress to resend previously appropriate spending if the president doesn’t want to spend it. nothing in the empowerment control act that clearly prevents the president from freezing spending for a short period within a single given budget year before asking Congress to resend particular appropriations.
This is like saying “people should grow up and learn to solve their disagreements without war.” I’d argue that view is the one that exhibits a childish utopianism. It overlooks what actually drives the formation of coalitions.
And for 2026 the appropriations bills allocated the money directly to the state department.
There was a few months of overhang, but the Supreme Court ruled that the administration had to pay out billions of dollars that were already allocated to contracts during that period.
Sure, I agree with that. But the President doesn’t need a court ruling giving permission before he exercises his powers. The President is the chief executive in charge of government operations, not the courts. If he’s acting outside his authority, you can sue him and then the courts can figure it out.
> When you're firing thousands of people, some due diligence is in order, no
Not when those people work for the government. This is one of the few things I agree with FDR on: the nature of democracy means that government employees must have less employment protections than private sector workers, not more. Even if you have an expansive view of what the constitution allows in terms of Congress providing for independent executive branch agencies, at most that means the President can’t ignore Congress’s intent in funding certain programs. But that still doesn’t allow the bureaucracy invoking HR rules to protect itself against the actions of the elected branches. That effectively gives a small class of people more say over the operation of the government than the electorate as a whole.
The first line of Article II says: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” The first three articles all start with a similar line. For the legislature and Supreme Court, everyone understands that the powers of those branches can only be exercised by the constitutionally designated actors. Congress can’t create a law that creates bodies within the judiciary staffed by employees that exercises power independently of Article III judges. Similarly, Congress can’t create independent agencies within the executive that can exercise executive power independently of the President.
But funding is provided in annual appropriations bills, and Congress has since enacted appropriations bills that allocate funds directly to the state department.
That’s why the USAID litigation has not been very successful. The best legal argument is that the executive can’t cancel funding Congress has specifically allocated to an agency. But Congress eliminated that argument.
USAID still exists on paper. But under the current appropriations bills, the funding is allocated to the State Department.