US Why Dems aren't fighting Trump's "illegal" shutdown workarounds - Donnie is scheming

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Democrats in Congress say President Trump's methods for paying military service members and funding food stamps for vulnerable communities are clearly illegal. But they're not keen to fight him on it.

Why it matters: It's a rare instance where Trump is going mostly unchallenged as he ignores Congress' constitutional role in controlling federal spending.

Driving the news: The administration is planning to divert $8 billion in previously appropriated funds for military research and development to pay the troops after Oct. 15, according to Reuters and Politico.
  • Trump said Saturday in a post on Truth Social: "I am using my authority, as Commander in Chief, to direct our Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, to use all available funds to get our Troops PAID on October 15th."
  • The White House also plans to use tariff revenue to pay for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), Axios reported last week.
State of play: House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said at a press conference the administration has "every right to move the funds around, duly appropriated dollars from Congress to the Department of Defense."
  • "If the Democrats want to go to court and challenge troops being paid, bring it," the House speaker added with a smirk.
  • Democrats have been pressing Republicans for standalone votes on things like troop pay and WIC, but House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) took a pass on calling Trump out at a Tuesday press conference.
  • "In previous shutdowns, funding has always been identified to make sure that the women, infants and children program has been funded, and we expect that that should happen at this moment in time as well," he said.
What they're saying: House Democrats largely told Axios in interviews Tuesday night they disagree with Johnson's assessment that Trump's actions are legal.
  • "Only Congress has the authority to appropriate money to a federal expenditure," said Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee.
  • "It's not like a big fungible fund of money that Donald Trump can take from here and put over there," he added.
  • "It's almost certainly illegal to move money around," said Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.).
Yes, but: Progressive and moderate House Democrats alike also told Axios not to expect much pushback on Trump's plans.
  • Himes said he expects litigation against Trump's moves — but that he doesn't "know who the plaintiffs will be" because "it is politically tricky."
  • "This is what we would've wanted to do anyway. We would've voted for it if it came up [in Congress]," Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wisc.), a progressive member of the House Appropriations Committee, said of Trump's plans.
  • Said Rep. Greg Landsman (D-Ohio): "Yes it's chaotic and yes it's illegal, but ... you don't want to see anyone get hurt. Speaking personally, yes, they should find a way to pay folks."
Between the lines: Several House Democrats in battleground district said privately that it would be a massive political headache for them if party members challenged the payments.
  • "The legality is questionable, but politically I hope Democrats don't do it," said one lawmaker who spoke on the condition of anonymity to provide candid thoughts about the political dynamics around the shutdown.
  • Said another vulnerable House Democrat: "I'd say that it's a good thing we're helping poor people who are facing food prices and it's good that we're paying the troops."
  • "I don't see people raising the legality question," the second member said, predicting "somebody will, ultimately" but that they "can't imagine" it will be a congressional Democrat.
The bottom line: Unlike Trump's cuts to agencies like USAID and the Department of Education, Democrats see little of substance to quibble over despite disapproving of Trump's methods.
  • "That's probably why we're not saying as much," Pocan acknowledged.
  • Said Rep. Joe Morelle (D-N.Y.): "There's general agreement that people want to see active duty personnel paid, so I think it's less likely people use this as the example."
  • "But there's no question that Trump is essentially lawless," he added. "So he'll trip the wire on things people do care about."
L / A
 
Click to expand...
He wouldn't have to do this "illegal" deed if Dems would stop this puerile hissyfit and open the government.

You got felted in the election at all levels. You are now the Minority party. Get your fucking shinebox.
 
Meat Target said:
He wouldn't have to do this "illegal" deed if Dems would stop this puerile hissyfit and open the government.

You got felted in the election at all levels. You are now the Minority party. Get your fucking shinebox.
Click to expand...
shinebox work is to glamorous for the dems send them to the coal mines
 
I'm highly suspicious he's not doing anything 'illegal', or if he is, it's because Congress has let that power go to the Executive and they don't want to call it out and have to do actual work
 
Biden's four years: defies SCOTUS, threatens people with unemployment unless they get the clot shot, weaponizes the DOJ to attack parents demonstrating at school board meetings, keeps J6 defendants imprisoned without trial, etc etc you get the idea-crickets. Or halfassed justification.

Trump sneezes: OMG ILLEGAL HITLER FASCIST NAZI AUTHORITARIAN!

I hope Republicans are compiling some primo soundbites because at this point, the midterms and 2028 are theirs to lose if Democrats keep carrying on like this.
 
Last edited:
I totally believe what Trump is doing is illegal when even Axios puts it in quotes to cover their asses. Nothing suspicious about that at all.
 
Rykel22 said:
I'm highly suspicious he's not doing anything 'illegal', or if he is, it's because Congress has let that power go to the Executive and they don't want to call it out and have to do actual work
Click to expand...
Even if it is "illegal", it's a victimless crime. A procedural violation.

And no, Dem politicians aren't "victims", because they're the ones who made it necessary. This is "How dare you free the people I rightfully took hostage!"

It all checks out, though, since we know liberals deep down despise the military, and expect the troops to thank the likes of Jamie Raskin for the privilege of spitting on them.
 
Because it's not illegal.

We had shutdowns with both Republican and Democratic presidents, simply because Congress couldn't agree on a budget.

Politics is all about compromises, but Democrats are too fucking retarded to understand that. Except Fetterman, that stroke apparently made him think straight.
 
kiwirevolving said:
Except Fetterman, that stroke apparently made him think straight.
Click to expand...
He has his moments.

Fetterman justifies — but does not apologize for — chasing down and brandishing shotgun at Black jogger while Braddock mayor (a)
In Dec. 2013, Fetterman chased a Black jogger in his pickup truck after hearing what he thought were gunshots while playing outside with his son, according to media reports. He then held up the unarmed man, Chris Miyares, with a shotgun while waiting for police to arrive.
Click to expand...
 
Rykel22 said:
I'm highly suspicious he's not doing anything 'illegal', or if he is, it's because Congress has let that power go to the Executive and they don't want to call it out and have to do actual work
Click to expand...

That is exactly it, they want you to think its illegal when they know it either isn't? Or would likey be judged legal (depriving them of the "illegal!!!" card) if they took him to court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom