Trump Redux: The Death of Democracy, or Overblown Hyperbole?

[SGR]

Yes, I don't think this a scandal that'll bring down bring down a government, but also, as a breach of opsec, I rank it as "emblematic" or "indicative" rather than "haphazard", as you are labelling it. The inclusion of a journalist in the chat could, charitably, be written off as a random blunder, but the chat being in Signal in the first place is a total red flag of the admin's attitude, "Why's everyone bleating about national security all the time?"

One of the interesting things to me, based on more reading I've done and what DJ said, is that this 'mistake' would be difficult to make. And as of now, as far as I'm aware, though Mike Waltz seemingly has taken responsibility for it, it's still not clear who actually added Jeffrey Goldberg. It's almost a mini-scandal in itself that we don't know

But I did ask you earlier what you found to be illuminating in the chat - there's one thing that's gone somewhat unsaid, and that's the dog that isn't barking. The strikes on the Houthis in Yemen. I think we can glean from this, based on the domestic response, that Democrats and Republicans alike are totally fine with Trump's admin bombing and killing them, but are upset at the opsec breach and the platform they used to discuss doing the bombings/killings. This seems to me to be part and parcel of the 2001 Bush-authorized AUMF. This shit has gone on since Bush, across every subsequent administration, essentially allowing the executive branch to bomb countries and people on a whim, without notifying congress or requiring input from public representatives.

There were no US troops in immediate danger, and thus, this was not an act of self-defense. JD Vance, in the chat, voiced his desire to delay the strikes and spend time doing the public messaging to inform the public why this matters (but then conceded he'd go along with the consensus). This would necessary imply that the Trump admin had plenty of time to at least publicly notify Congress, but that wasn't done, and instead it was bombs away - my understanding is that without clear urgency, the AUMF can't really be invoked - but the AUMF has become such a catch-all get-out-jail-free card, that executive policy has often become: "Bomb first, ask questions later".

Based on some of what I've read, this is to protect international shipping lanes - but these lanes account for somewhere around 3% of US shipping traffic; they're used much more frequently and are much more important to both Europe, Asia and Israel (surprise, surprise) [this is a little bit of an oversimplification, admittedly, to make a point - there are many things being shipped to Europe through here that subsequently become manufactured goods that are then shipped to the US]. If Trump wants to be the 'America First' guy, why are we essentially subsidizing Europe and Israel? Doesn't seem very 'America First' to me. Waltz admitted in the Signal chats that European navies aren't even prepared to defend against the military technology that the Houthis are using (bankrolled by Iran). And yet Trump and his admin have repeatedly called and urged for Europe to beef up its own defense spending and rely less on the US, but if they can continue to rely on Uncle Sam to take care of issues like this, they'll obviously feel less compelled to do so. But anyways, the Democrats haven't really made any hay of this issue, because it's more or less a direct continuation of what the Biden admin was already doing in Yemen with the Houthis. And it's what the Democrats presumably would be doing now if they controlled the government.

I'm not saying specifically that it was wrong in this instance to take the military action that they did - I obviously don't know for sure, nor do I have some clear and obvious alternative that would solve the problem - but what I am certain of is that it represents another instance in a decades-long pattern of executive overreach with the AUMF as their go-to justification and excuse. And despite the obvious mishandling of the opsec re: Signal, it feels like that should at least be part of the discussion/dialogue (especially since children are dying in these bombings). As this story has gotten a lot of press coverage, I'm guessing the majority of Americans who pay attention to the news could tell you a basic version of why this is a scandal, but I'd highly doubt that any more than 5 - 10% of them could provide you with a good explanation for why the US is bombing the Houthis in the first place.

^ I think your scandalometer is giving you false readings, SGR. First big scandal in my eyes was Trump placing Musk (unelected, unconfirmed by Congress and apparently unanswerable to anyone) in such a position of power. From that point on, there has been a scandal on an almost daily basis as he takes his quasi-legal chainsaw to one govt. department after another. If you think Signalgate is "the first true scandal" of this admin, you may be revealing how effective Bannon's "flood the zone" policy is as a method of getting people to swallow what was unthinkable during any previous presidency.

To your point Lisna, I suppose it depends on how we define and qualify a 'scandal'. Much of this stuff that Trump has been doing is largely things he said he'd do, or hinted at doing in various terms, on the campaign trail, including having Elon direct government cost-cutting measures - so much so, he brought him along to speak at many campaign rallies. I've heard it repeated ad nauseam that Elon is 'unelected'. While that is true, it's not like his eventual role or motivations were some kind of big mystery that voters only found out about after Trump won the election. The other thing is that there have been many, many unelected (and unconfirmed by congress) people who had major influence on the executive branch and the president throughout US history. Some examples:

• Andrew Jackson's 'kitchen cabinet'
• Sherman Adams (Eisenhower Administration)
• Valerie Jarrett (Obama Administration)
• Henry Kissinger (Nixon Administration) - originally serving as unelected National Security Advisor

and perhaps my personal favorite, in terms of mystery and mystique:

• "Colonel" Edward M. House (Wilson Administration)

So I think the whole 'nobody elected Elon!' schtick is mostly a Democrat soundbite - I can't say that it hasn't worked/been effective though, given how often it's been repeated, but when you start to dig past the surface, that baseline criticism doesn't really hold up in the sense that this isn't historically unique or unprecedented. What is unique is being the richest man in the world and being in charge of directing where the government should make cuts - and the more understandable concerns that Elon doesn't have the country's best interests in mind, but rather his own (and his various companies).

Back to the scandal (or 'scandals'), I certainly wouldn't claim that many of the things Trump and his admin have done/are doing are not controversal or haven't drawn much criticism, but most of these things are being done fairly out in the open and not by mistake. In other words, despite the controversy, they're mostly seemingly intentional, even if said actions ultimately find rebukes from judges/courts. This whole fiasco with Signal and the attack plans though was most certainly not done intentionally, and the exposure of this error to the public is what more tightly situates it as a concrete plain-as-day scandal in my eyes. From your perspective though, I think there's merit to the 'flood the zone' strategy causing a serious shifting of the goalpost for what even constitutes a scandal in the eyes of the public with the Trump administration. For example, if we went back 30 years, there's no way Bill Clinton would be crazy enough to say he's looking into ways to serve a third term and also considering the possibility of using the military to retake the Panama Canal. If he did ever say it, it would be in private. If one of those conversations had gotten leaked, it definitely would've been a scandal - but Trump says that kind of stuff out in the open, and for him and his admin, that's just a Tuesday. If Trump says something/does something that for presidents in the past would've been a big scandal, but for Trump, gets maybe 5 - 10 minutes of air time on late night comedy shows couched with jokes and jabs, is it even truly a scandal any more in the eyes of the public? Perhaps this is cynical, but Trump and his controversies in my opinion are sort of like a drug addiction for the public - in the sense that we eventually get dulled to the high, and we're left chasing that first high again - to get close though, we need bigger and bigger doses, otherwise it just leaves us with a dissatisfied and disappointing numbness.

[Jwb]

It's just relentless awfulness, isn't it? Very much by design as a shock and awe strategy to overwhelm opposition since this is the window to actually interfere with this stuff taking root. Once it does root in, it's going to take a lot more struggle to get rid of it. Hard way it is, I guess. Anyhow, this is a lot to have happened just over just a couple months. Anyone who is even slightly clued in and still shrugging off the severity of this and denying the obvious trajectory it's all moving on is kinda on the same level as Flat Earthers to me. At this point there's either personal denialism or other factors at play that is well-beyond any rando on the internet to break through. The architect of Project 2025 saying this is all "beyond my wildest dreams" (https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/03/16/project-2025-paul-dans-qa-00228890) is... concerning.

Aside from various historical parallels which we can pick over until the cows come home, the direction of this is into uncharted territory. In pretty much all modern instances of fascism and authoritarianism, it's emerged in nations that were truly on the ropes. Think of the devastated state of post WWI Germany that gave rise to Nazism as a means to restore national pride after humiliating defeats and imposition of severe austerity measures. This echoes across more recent authoritarian movements in Europe, Africa, and Asia... not to mention S.American dictatorships engineered and propped up through destabilization by the CIA and other western powers. The huge inflection point with the US is that it's the world's richest nation, the only superpower, and is at the seat of a global hegemony. Trumpism is still using the rhetoric of restoring the US to some former glory ("make america great again"), but the national humiliation and ruin it is reacting to exists pretty much as that... rhetoric. Neoliberalism is wrecking the US middle and working classes to enrich the few, but that's also happening everywhere. It is a brutal situation for many, but nothing compared to the socioeconomic conditions that previous authoritarian movements have emerged from. What fascism in a rich superpower with the capacity to wipe everything out many times over will look like versus historical examples coming from nations in tatters is anyone's guess. It's a wildly different starting point. Just a navel-gazing thought I wanted to put out and interested in other's thoughts on it.

It's an interesting question because the key difference in my eyes betwen modern America and Weimar Germany is in fact not how rich we are but how entrenched our institutions are. In the Weimar Republic,  'Democracy' made for an easy scapegoat because it was fairly new and was associated with the chaos, both political and economic,  that characterized the situation in Germany at the time.

There were multiple attempted revolts and numerous political assassinations during the short history of Weimar democracy,  so I guess with that in mind it seems much less surprising that the nazis would rise to power.

The Nazis never actually pretended to believe in democracy,  and there were many Germans at the time who might not have been nazis but similarly longed for something like a return to monarchy and putting and end to the chaos and humiliation associated with the new order.

The situation in the states could not be more different,  in this regard.  The institutions aren't some new experiment that we were basically forced to embrace after a recent and humiliating defeat in a war,  they are a long standing and evolving tradition that is firmly entrenched both in how political power is distributed and in how political thought is formulated and conceptualized in the US.

And what is the provoking incident? What is it that has actually changed that made it possible? It seems like the main issue is more the merging of politics and entertainment, the changing media environment and the shattering of the so called overton window.

The idea of somehow 'managing the bounds of acceptable discourse' through a hand full of massive media corporations and their decisions over which conversations to host and how to frame them seems rather antiquated at this point.  For a long time,  the fringe voices were just denied the platform to try to make their case.  On the internet,  even a relatively small niche of people with a specific interest is still large enough for someone to cash in on catering to them. 

And so now the basic premises of our society that have been taken for granted for decades are once more up for debate.  And in an information environment that instead of trying to put up guard rails,  will find what interests you most and feed you more of that. 

I know it's not exactly a hot take to just blame the internet and social media but... I think that is the most obvious and drastic change over the last 10-20 years that makes the current dynamic seem possible where it previously wouldn't have.

[Lisnaholic]

Thank you for your long reply, SGR, which, if you don't mind I'm not going to answer point by point,  though I would say this:-

i) on the Signalgate breach: US foreign policy regarding the Houthi's isn't particularly relevant imo.

ii)

Back to the scandal (or 'scandals'), I certainly wouldn't claim that many of the things Trump and his admin have done/are doing are not controversal or haven't drawn much criticism, but most of these things are being done fairly out in the open and not by mistake. In other words, despite the controversy, they're mostly seemingly intentional, even if said actions ultimately find rebukes from judges/courts. This whole fiasco with Signal and the attack plans though was most certainly not done intentionally, and the exposure of this error to the public is what more tightly situates it as a concrete plain-as-day scandal in my eyes.

^ I don't think your division of in-secret/accidental vs. in-the-open/intentional is a very useful way to grade scandals: what purpose does the distinction serve other than to allow a bunch of Trump/Musk scandals to be relegated to some lesser league in your perceived scale of scandals?

(iii) 'nobody elected Elon!' is not a schtick, it's a fact, regulary repeated by aghast Dems and hood-winked Trumpers alike.

(iv) When I said that the debating point of "...but what about what the Dems did.." is beginning to disappear, that was not a plea for you to dig up some precedents. Congrats on finding cases from the Andrew Jackson era, but forgive me for not following you on that particular historical journey. So it's true that Musk is not the first special appointment in US history, but comparisons with Valerie Jarratt don't really reduce the scandal of Musk's impact and lack of accountability. The scandals of unfair dismissals, forced entry of govt buildings and seizing of data are in the news every day, SGR. I am more persuaded by the real human damage that Musk is doing than whether there's an Andrew Jackson parallel or not.

[SGR]

Thank you for your long reply, SGR, which, if you don't mind I'm not going to answer point by point,  though I would say this:-

i) on the Signalgate breach: US foreign policy regarding the Houthi's isn't particularly relevant imo.

I agree it's not relevant to the focus and crux of the scandal (opsec breach/discussing attack plans on Signal) in any strict sense, and that was kind of the point; nothing in these chat logs will be strictly relevant to the primary scandal - we were discussing what we could find in the chats themselves that were illuminating in regards to other points of discussion/the mindset of the administration/etc - the only reason we can do so is because this scandal happened and the chats that were not meant to be public were exposed.

ii)
^ I don't think your division of in-secret/accidental vs. in-the-open/intentional is a very useful way to grade scandals: what purpose does the distinction serve other than to allow a bunch of Trump/Musk scandals to be relegated to some lesser league in your perceived scale of scandals?

Perhaps it isn't that useful when applied universally, just one way to look at it - as I'm sure you know, most 'scandals' in US presidential history historically have not been something that's done right in front of everyone's eyes, and then trumpeted by the administration as a great success (e.g. Teapot Dome, Iran-Contra Affair, Watergate, Monica Lewinsky, etc). Do you think there's nothing that provides any meaningful distinction between 'Signalgate' and the 'almost daily scandals' you referred to earlier?

(iii) 'nobody elected Elon!' is not a schtick, it's a fact, regulary repeated by aghast Dems and hood-winked Trumpers alike.

I told you that I agree that it's a fact. But you claimed that it was the first big scandal of Trump's second administration, largely because he was 'unelected and unconfirmed by congress'. Because you claimed it was a big scandal for those reasons, I provided multiple examples from the past of other 'unelected and unconfirmed by congress' figures who had very massive influence on presidential politics, foreign policy, and domestic policy. Like I said, I don't think the 'he wasn't elected' thing is the real criticism from Democrats, it's the fact that he's the richest man in the world and is seemingly in charge of directing cuts, with obviously dubious motives. So in other words, 'nobody elected Elon!' is a talking point...or a schtick. Like I said though, I think it does largely work, because many Americans don't have a grasp of that historical context, so it puts the deeper criticisms in a more digestible (if more inaccurate) form.

(iv) When I said that the debating point of "...but what about what the Dems did.." is beginning to disappear, that was not a plea for you to dig up some precedents. Congrats on finding cases from the Andrew Jackson era, but forgive me for not following you on that particular historical journey. So it's true that Musk is not the first special appointment in US history, but comparisons with Valerie Jarratt don't really reduce the scandal of Musk's impact and lack of accountability. The scandals of unfair dismissals, forced entry of govt buildings and seizing of data are in the news every day, SGR. I am more persuaded by the real human damage that Musk is doing than whether there's an Andrew Jackson parallel or not.

Lisna, respectfully, I didn't even respond to that part of your post.  I didn't need a 'plea' from anyone to present something I thought was interesting and could add some useful historical context to the discussions we're having. And furthermore, I don't know why you're running defense for Democrats here, I included both Republican and Democratic administrations in my examples - and I can dig up many more examples from both parties. The point is that this kind of thing is not unique or unprecedented - and that being 'unelected, unconfirmed by congress' alone is not some big unprecedented scandal. The criticisms towards Musk, I think, would be better suited to be focused on his actions (as you're referring to) than whether or not he was 'elected'. There's plenty of cases to be made there, and material to work with. That being said, I must take umbrage at how you're obviously sarcastically trying to minimize and belittle my point by focusing on the oldest example I presented and 'congratulating' me for finding it, even if it did give me a chuckle. 

[Lucem Ferre]

I'll 100% say that bombing the Houthis is wrong.

The Houthis put an embargo on Israel to stop the genocide.

The embargo is doing actual damage to put pressure on Israel.

When the ceasefire happened the Houthis stopped attacking ships headed to Israel.

When Israel broke the ceasefire, the Houthis started back up.

We're bombing Yemen because the Houthis dared to take action to try and prevent genocide.

And these are a people who have been victims of their own genocide at the hands of a Saudi coalition government backed by the US.

[Jwb]

I don't agree that the "embargo" has in any way been effective in putting pressure on Israel, but I also don't think that bombing the Houthis to try to get them to stop is going to work. So I also think this was wrong. But given that we are the ones facilitating the Genocide in Gaza, this is not that drastic of a departure from Biden's foreign policy, rhetoric aside.  Though in theory it could be the beginning of a larger escalation,  I would tend to think not.  Who knows.

That being said,  @SGR does have a point that Signalgate is the first big scandal in terms of something that they were exposed for rather than something they proudly advertised.  And because it deals with national security,  it's hard for the Republicans to play this one down,  try as they might.  But in terms of actual substance I still think disappearing people with no due process into a foreign prison should not be the kind of thing they can just advertise openly and get half of the population to unquestionably run with.  But that's where we are.  So the full on  frontal assault on the checks and balances and on the concept of rule of law is not a scandal in this country,  because it's inhabited by fat mouth breathing retards who are too stupid to understand the use of having due process for people who they assume are guilty. Shame.

I'm going to just go ahead and say it.  Americans deserve to be put into FEMA camps.

[Lucem Ferre]

It caused one of Israel's most important ports to go bankrupt so it definitely is putting economic pressure on Israel whether you agree or not.

[Jwb]

Sure,  fair point.  They are putting pressure on Israel economically, I just meant that pressure isn't remotely effective at hampering the Israeli war effort or bringing them closer to the negotiating table,  and the effects are also not necessarily concentrated on Israel. The same blockade that bankrupted that port also helped exacerbate the risk of famine in Sudan. So I think the net result is they just add to the suffering in the world,  not detract from it.

If anything,  Hezbollah was applying more pressure than anyone was, by directly displacing 60 or 70 thousand Israelis.  But we saw what happened to them, and now with Assad gone,  Israel is going to have free reign over Syrian airspace and Iran is within striking distance of the Israeli airforce.

[Lucem Ferre]

I don't think it'd stop Israel either. If the embargo is having that negative of an impact on Sudan then I'm against it.

But still against the US bombing Yemen.

[Lisnaholic]

As always, SGR, you are very calm and balanced in your responses to my somewhat scattershot posts. On this occasion:-

I agree it's not relevant to the focus and crux of the scandal (opsec breach/discussing attack plans on Signal) in any strict sense, and that was kind of the point; nothing in these chat logs will be strictly relevant to the primary scandal - we were discussing what we could find in the chats themselves that were illuminating in regards to other points of discussion/the mindset of the administration/etc - the only reason we can do so is because this scandal happened and the chats that were not meant to be public were exposed.

^ Well, perhaps you were discussing that, but I never was, : I was just revelling in the embarrassment that such a blunder was causing to chalatans like Hesgeth.

Perhaps it isn't that useful when applied universally, just one way to look at it - as I'm sure you know, most 'scandals' in US presidential history historically have not been something that's done right in front of everyone's eyes, and then trumpeted by the administration as a great success (e.g. Teapot Dome, Iran-Contra Affair, Watergate, Monica Lewinsky, etc). Do you think there's nothing that provides any meaningful distinction between 'Signalgate' and the 'almost daily scandals' you referred to earlier?

I told you that I agree that it's a fact. But you claimed that it was the first big scandal of Trump's second administration, largely because he was 'unelected and unconfirmed by congress'. Because you claimed it was a big scandal for those reasons, I provided multiple examples from the past of other 'unelected and unconfirmed by congress' figures who had very massive influence on presidential politics, foreign policy, and domestic policy. Like I said, I don't think the 'he wasn't elected' thing is the real criticism from Democrats, it's the fact that he's the richest man in the world and is seemingly in charge of directing cuts, with obviously dubious motives. So in other words, 'nobody elected Elon!' is a talking point...or a schtick. Like I said though, I think it does largely work, because many Americans don't have a grasp of that historical context, so it puts the deeper criticisms in a more digestible (if more inaccurate) form.

Lisna, respectfully, I didn't even respond to that part of your post.  I didn't need a 'plea' from anyone to present something I thought was interesting and could add some useful historical context to the discussions we're having. And furthermore, I don't know why you're running defense for Democrats here, I included both Republican and Democratic administrations in my examples - and I can dig up many more examples from both parties. The point is that this kind of thing is not unique or unprecedented - and that being 'unelected, unconfirmed by congress' alone is not some big unprecedented scandal. The criticisms towards Musk, I think, would be better suited to be focused on his actions (as you're referring to) than whether or not he was 'elected'. There's plenty of cases to be made there, and material to work with. That being said, I must take umbrage at how you're obviously sarcastically trying to minimize and belittle my point by focusing on the oldest example I presented and 'congratulating' me for finding it, even if it did give me a chuckle. 

You make various valid points, SGR, and have taught me to be very careful about using the word "unprecedented". My apologies if you think it unfair that I picked out your oldest precedent to have a little laugh at your expense, but in a way it illustrates a point:-
As I hope you know, I've enjoyed our long-running debates in the political threads here: you have always been extremely fair, patient and polite throughout, but I now feel that, with the rapid changes taking place in the US today, our debates are increasingly beside the point.
A recent commentator said that Trump is doing to US democracy in a matter of months what Erdoguan did over a period of 10 years to Turkey. Legit media companies are being blocked from White House press events. The AG, and by implication the DoJ, is now a tool of Trump, as can be seen from that partisan speech by Pam Bondi that I posted recently. Trump is calling for judges to be impeached if they rule against his wishes. People are being deported without due process. Trump is threatening to take over Canada and Greenland, and thousands of US citizens are losing jobs, benefits, etc, etc.

In light of that, I really don't have any appetite to talk about the niceties of precedents, or how scandals can be sub-divided into types, etc.

Sorry.










 

[SGR]

As always, SGR, you are very calm and balanced in your responses to my somewhat scattershot posts. On this occasion:-
^ Well, perhaps you were discussing that, but I never was, : I was just revelling in the embarrassment that such a blunder was causing to chalatans like Hesgeth.

You make various valid points, SGR, and have taught me to be very careful about using the word "unprecedented". My apologies if you think it unfair that I picked out your oldest precedent to have a little laugh at your expense, but in a way it illustrates a point:-
As I hope you know, I've enjoyed our long-running debates in the political threads here: you have always been extremely fair, patient and polite throughout, but I now feel that, with the rapid changes taking place in the US today, our debates are increasingly beside the point.
A recent commentator said that Trump is doing to US democracy in a matter of months what Erdoguan did over a period of 10 years to Turkey. Legit media companies are being blocked from White House press events. The AG, and by implication the DoJ, is now a tool of Trump, as can be seen from that partisan speech by Pam Bondi that I posted recently. Trump is calling for judges to be impeached if they rule against his wishes. People are being deported without due process. Trump is threatening to take over Canada and Greenland, and thousands of US citizens are losing jobs, benefits, etc, etc.

In light of that, I really don't have any appetite to talk about the niceties of precedents, or how scandals can be sub-divided into types, etc.

Sorry.

Thanks for the kind words my friend, right back at you. 

There's obviously a level of pedantry to many of our debates/discussions which we're both certainly guilty of engaging in, e.g. "I don't agree with this characterization", "that doesn't seem like the right word to use here", "this makes it sound like you're downplaying this, while this makes it sound like you're overstating that", etc. I don't mind debates/discussions on pedantic details; sometimes it leads to a more thoughtful and considered exchange of ideas - but yes, at other times it can simply wear on one's patience and desire to continue specific discussions. I totally get that. 

If this 'Signalgate' scandal topic has somewhat been exhausted, there are other recent/looming topics of discussion, in addition to the many issues you mentioned.

Today is what Trump calls 'Liberation Day', and by the sounds of it, there will be some level of new tarrifs announced - he'll be speaking about it at 4pm today while markets wait anxiously.

Yesterday, Susan Crawford won the WI State Supreme Court race, keeping a liberal majority in control, despite the tens of millions of dollars Elon Musk sunk into the race for her opponent Brad Schimel. People seemed to have various takeaways from this, all of which could be true, e.g. Elon Musk's involvement was actually toxic, and more than helping Brad Schimel, increased turnout for his opponent - and also, without Trump on the ticket, many of his supporters simply don't get out to vote (which would spell trouble for Republicans in the midterms, as it did in the 2018 midterms where we noticed a similar pattern). My understanding of why this race was so important is that one of the issues the WI Supreme Court will be dealing with is redistricting - which many are saying will give Democrats a serious electoral advantage in the state to the point that it could cost Republicans control of the house.

[SGR]

That being said,  @SGR does have a point that Signalgate is the first big scandal in terms of something that they were exposed for rather than something they proudly advertised.  And because it deals with national security,  it's hard for the Republicans to play this one down,  try as they might.  But in terms of actual substance I still think disappearing people with no due process into a foreign prison should not be the kind of thing they can just advertise openly and get half of the population to unquestionably run with.  But that's where we are.  So the full on  frontal assault on the checks and balances and on the concept of rule of law is not a scandal in this country,  because it's inhabited by fat mouth breathing retards who are too stupid to understand the use of having due process for people who they assume are guilty. Shame.

I'm going to just go ahead and say it.  Americans deserve to be put into FEMA camps.

Total tangent, but the bolded along with the rest of your post reminded me of this Killing Joke track. 

It's time of unrest and your rights are suspended
There's a list going round and it's likely you are on it
The names on the blue list are picked up later
And the red list goes to the incinerator
We'll never end up in the furnace of a (FEMA camp)
Burning in the fiery furnace of a (FEMA camp)

[SGR]

Speaking of Musk and White House drama:

Trump Tells Inner Circle That Musk Will Leave Soon

It doesn't really go into what this means, if anything, for the future of DOGE. Will it quietly just go away - or will someone else be appointed to lead it?

Edit: Or maybe not - press secretary claims the report isn't true - guess we'll see:

https://x.com/PressSec/status/1907476290438901863

This could be a game of semantics (war plans vs. attack plans anyone?) - 'stepping back' from his advisory role (Politico) does not equal 'departing' (WH).