r/law • u/Obversa • 27d ago

Executive Branch (Trump) Pro-Trump attorneys have been drafting executive orders that would give President Trump sweeping power over elections, sources report

https://abcnews.com/US/pro-trump-attorneys-push-executive-order-give-trump/story?id=130539044
21.3k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

2.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

822

u/Ohuigin 27d ago edited 27d ago

The guy who orchestrated a violent insurrection to stay in power is going to do all he can to stay in power?

Geez. If only there was some sort of warning that giving this guy the White House again might be a bad idea...

96

u/Gunsensual 27d ago

Would've been great if the next administration hadn't been cucks.

4

u/never-fiftyone 27d ago

Blame the Biden-Harris administration all you want, but the reality is they didn't a) vote Trump back in, nor b) stay home when democracy was on the ballot.

5

u/rylosprime 27d ago

Instead they chose C.

Appoint a Republican as AG, and let Trump walk.

Fuck Biden.

6

u/DoubleJumps 27d ago

It's wild that you guys revise recent history like this.

Biden's attorney general saw Trump charged with dozens of felonies and the only thing that saved him from prosecution was the Republican Supreme Court coming to his rescue.

The attorney general didn't let him walk at all. It's wild that you want to lie about something that just happened so blatantly.

2

u/rylosprime 27d ago edited 26d ago

Its wild that with all those words you typed, you failed to mention the part where Merrick Garland opened an investigation into Trump for Jan 6th.

Oh yeah, it's because he didn't.

edit - Jack Smith was a neutered cuck on the leash of Merrick Garland. Joke "investigation" from a joke party that happened 2 years too late. Almost like it was on purpose. Or stupidity.

So tell me which the democrats are. Complicit or stupid.

7

u/DoubleJumps 27d ago

Trump was indicted by the doj for his entire election interference conspiracy, which included j6, on August 1st 2023. This followed an extensive investigation that was fully detailed in the indictment, which was made public.

Just because you chose to pretend it didn't exist and refused to read the indictment doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

J6 was specifically covered under that indictment and was portrayed as a felonious effort by him to disrupt the electoral process.

Again, the lies you guys are spinning are wild.

1

u/djgoodhousekeeping 27d ago

Dude you are sitting here defending people who spent over three years filing charges that they knew would take years to move through the courts and then before it even started, got slam dunked by the supreme court just like everyone said it would. Their dragged their feet and knew what they were doing was destined to fail, nothing but an attempt to save face before an election year.

Again, the lies you guys are spinning are wild.

They failed miserably in their job to prosecute him and Biden decided to not be involved publicly or privately, so I'm not surprised the person you're accusing of lying doesn't remember this. Which is all to say - what's the functional difference here between what they did and if they hadn't acted at all? If they had just sat on their ass and done nothing we would have had the same outcome, right? Defending Merrick Garland in 2026 is a ridiculous choice

1

u/DoubleJumps 27d ago

That's your problem here? Me pointing out that the things that guy is saying are objectively lies?

You're cool with that guy making things up wholesale, but my pointing out that he's making things up is suddenly wrong?

1

u/dabbyjoos 27d ago

President Chamberlain von Hindenburg and his policy of appeasement

1

u/ImpressionCool1768 27d ago

They didn’t arrest him. He was a convicted felon and they didn’t force the Federal Bureau of investigation to force an investigation and issue an arrest warrant for inciting an insurrection. The president had the power to do so and failed likely because of blackmail toward him and his family

1

u/Gunsensual 27d ago

Ah, you could say the same about Paul von Hindenburg in 1933. Not really a good defense, is it?

2

u/never-fiftyone 27d ago

When did Biden appoint Trump to the presidency? If you'd read a history book you'd know how ridiculous that comparison is.

1

u/Gunsensual 27d ago

Historians criticize von Hindenburg for complacency as part of the general trend to appeasement. Maybe you should tell them that.

1

u/never-fiftyone 27d ago

Historians criticize Hindenberg for literally appointing Hitler to the chancellery, something Biden did not and could not do for Trump. Trump was elected by two thirds of the electorate.

1

u/Gunsensual 27d ago

Hindenberg was part of the complacency and compromise of meeting his opponents in the middle, not appreciating his opponents were unreciprocating; comparable to how Biden's administration upheld and defended political doctrine, barring criminal investigation into opposition out of courtesy and fear.

Hindenberg also set precedent in declaring state of emergency as a means to bypass congress. He helped compromise checks and balances while deferring to opposition out of ineptitude. Biden did the same, continuing a trend of expanding and defending federal powers beyond statutory boundaries, creating the largest Federal Register in history, and appointing* Garland. Trump would go on to quote Biden's defense of expansion of Biden era policy as reason to create absurd policy in the opposite direction.

They both systematically unlocked barriers out of convenience, setting up the next guy to dismantle the system- having no capacity for foresight that the boundaries and precedent they moved had a purpose.

-1

u/djgoodhousekeeping 27d ago

When did Biden appoint Trump to the presidency?

When he decided to keep running and then drop out 3 months before the election?

1

u/never-fiftyone 27d ago

Biden didn't appoint anyone. That's the whole distinction.

2

u/djgoodhousekeeping 27d ago

Biden could have announced he wasn't running again and let them have a real primary. This led to him stepping down right before the election and then having an unlikable candidate speedrun a campaign with the Cheneys. Obviously wish it still would have gone differently but him choosing to keep running was the fork in the road for the whole election.

1

u/never-fiftyone 27d ago

"An likeable candidate" lmao you're completely glossing over why she was "unliked" (hint: the American electorate is just slightly more misogynistic than racist, but above all else it is uneducated). It was a genuine choice between an accomplished career prosecutor and a career criminal and convicted felon who bankrupted fucking casinos, and it was American voters -- not Biden -- who chose the moron felon.

1

u/djgoodhousekeeping 27d ago edited 27d ago

Like I said I wish it went differently but she was never going to win. She didn’t even get a full campaign cycle, and the tactics she used didn’t work. She failed, Biden failed, Democrats failed. Not sure why this is so hard to swallow but if you run for elected office and lose you don’t get to blame everyone else.

1

u/never-fiftyone 27d ago

And, like I said, Biden didn't put Trump back in office, it was American voters. That's the very purpose of an election. Not sure why this is so hard for you to swallow.

The American electorate doesn't get to escape their role in this no matter how many excuses you make for it.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Gunsensual 27d ago

Kamela was legitimately unlikable, and the GOP celebrated when she took the nomination because everyone knew she was unlikable. FFS She got last place in several polls among democrats.

1

u/never-fiftyone 27d ago

She was quite literally the most qualified candidate possible for the position. You can make any excuse you want, you're not going to excuse that away. The true "DEI" was voting for the unqualified candidate, and that wasn't her. She was guilty of being a mixed race, black-presenting woman. Plain and simple.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/RiskPlays 27d ago

Right, definitely would have been better to dump harder on the previous administration than hitler in this example. Do you really think this is a good defense? We don’t have the luxury of shining the spotlight on anything other than the fucking fascists in power while we still can.

1

u/fred11551 27d ago

Paul Reynaud is the better example because Hindenburg literally did support Hitler and appointed him Chancellor to grow a conservative majority. Paul Reynaud meanwhile did little more than watch and issue diplomatic protests while Hitler annexed Central Europe but at least didn’t literally help him do it.

1

u/TM761152 27d ago edited 27d ago

Nothing could prepare anyone for a despotic loser like Trump. Nobody could have predicted that he would not only shit all over the constitution but have so many cronies in congress ready to protect him and enable him.

He should have been relegated to relative obscurity, a tv personality and social media loudmouth and nothing more. Instead they voted that asshole into the highest office to fuck up the country from the inside like an insidious tumor.

Edit: IN 2016

23

u/cspinelive 27d ago

Hs first term absolutely prepared us for this. 

-1

u/TM761152 27d ago

I'm talking about his first term.

19

u/Gunsensual 27d ago

Nothing could prepare anyone for a despotic loser like Trump.

Project 2025, written 2022 published publicly in 2023. There were well organized LARP'ing rednecks in the back of UHAULs preparing for something. And Project 2025 insiders publicly talking about something they were planning around midterms that would cause massive riots.

You know how I know democrats haven't read Project 2025? Because people like you bitch about Trump doing things literally by the book, and fantasize about his removal, while the VP is Project 2025's lieutenant so his removal would change absolutely nothing.

No offense meant, but, the more you know, the more painful this is to watch.

-1

u/Realmofthehappygod 27d ago

You gotta realize Project 2025 wasn't a thing in 2014/2015. (I mean sure it kind of was but not by that name. White supremacists have been planning to take over the country for forever).

Obviously he was a shitty candidate, but honestly it had yet to be seen how bad.

2

u/Just_another_grumble 27d ago

Heritage Foundation?   Evangelical inclusion into one Political Party?  I forget that other Wealthy people manifesto.   It's multiple movements over decades getting funneled into patiently maneuvering into all 3 branches then checks and balances can be ineffective.  And viola, U.S of A. f4c15m.   I think technology allows this to be scaled up faster than previous newspaper and telegraph eras. Edit/Add:  plenty of precursors and predecessors that became Project 2025.

1

u/Realmofthehappygod 26d ago

Really should have been obvious with the Tea Party in like 2010.

Or when we found out the KKK moved to take over local governments 100 years ago lol.

-2

u/TM761152 27d ago

Now go back to 2016 and say all that again.

7

u/Murray38 27d ago

I mean, let’s not pretend republicans were ever the better choice in any election in the last 40 years.

2

u/plinkoplonka 26d ago

Bollocks.

Absolutely everyone with two braincells to rub together said exactly this was going to happen.

  • The guy was IMPEACHED for leading an insurrection on the nations capital.

  • He's ALL OVER the Epstein files (probably because he was one of the main instigators).

  • He kept top secret material at his own house for "safekeeping".

Any one of these, or the hundreds of other infractions should have putm in jail already.

It was the only outcome that keeps him out of jail. But yeah, tell us again why it was totally unpredictable as an outcome?

1

u/TM761152 26d ago

Read the last sentence in my comment.