Warren: Trump transition 'already breaking the law'

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: msm/The Hill

11h


Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said on Monday that President elect-Trump “and his transition team are already breaking” a law on presidential transition. “Donald Trump and his transition team are already breaking the law,” Warren said in a post on the social platform X. “I would know because I wrote the law. Incoming presidents are required to prevent conflicts of interest and sign an ethics agreement.” “This is what illegal corruption looks like,” she added.

Warren was responding to a report from CNN on Saturday that said a conflict of interest pledge included in the Presidential Transition Act was, in part, keeping multiple transition agreements from being submitted by the president-elect’s team to the Biden administration.

The Presidential Transition Act instructs candidates from major parties to join in memorandums of understanding with the current president as well as the General Services Administration (GSA) so staff may get their hands on relevant resources like facilities, documents, executive branch employees and national security information in the period between the election and the inauguration. Those agreements also feature an ethics plan.

Last month, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) raised concerns in a letter to Trump and Vice President-elect JD Vance over their campaign’s failure to enter into presidential transition agreements with the federal government. Raskin warned that the delay could have an unfavorable impact on the transfer of power in the upcoming year.

Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/warren-trump-transition-already-breaking-the-law/ar-AA1tU04S

[CentralMass]

1. Trump will do whatever he wants.

[riversedge]

2. Who has the power to enforce this ethics agreement???

[COL Mustard]

10. How many division does Elizabeth Warren have?

Paraphrasing Stalin, I think.

[littlemissmartypants]

3. President Psychopath knows laws don't apply to him.

America's getting grabbed by the .... and that should not surprise anyone.

[Rebl2]

17. Thanks

Garland🙄

[mdbl]

29. he'll get right on it

[Rebl2]

36. Yea right

[RandiFan1290]

4. There are no "laws"

Time to wake up from this naivety.

[Karasu]

7. If there were, and if this country still gave a flying fuck about them...

...this wouldn't be happening. Of course these fascist clowns shouldn't be sworn in. But just what exactly is going to stop them? Who? How? We already refused to prosecute an insurrectionist and let him run for president with no strings attached, so...

[mdbl]

31. The voting public is stupid enough to take away the checks and balances by voting right wing whackos in

the senate, house and state legislators. They basically abdicated the rule of law.

[OldBaldy1701E]

13. Hear freaking hear! (n/t)

[Ocelot II]

5. What a surprise.

[Martin Eden]

6. I think Biden should violate part of the Presidential Transition Act

The Felon cannot be trusted with national security information, especially about our covert operatives. The missing maralago documents have likely already caused some of their deaths.

This would be an official presidential act, necessary for national security. Even if it broke the law, President Biden has immunity.

[onenote]

23. The Presidential Transition Act isn't a criminal statute and thus immunity is irrelevant.

If Trump's compliance with certain PTA provisions is a statutory pre-condition for Trust getting national security information, than Biden can and should take steps to prevent the transmission of that information until the pre-conditions are met. But if the portions of the PTA that Trump isn't obeying aren't related to the transmission of national security information, and the law would require Biden to make that information available, then Biden can't successfully prevent it from being transmitted to the Trump transition team. Trump could go to the courts for an order directing Biden to comply with the law and if Biden didn't comply, the court would direct the entities that are in possession of that information to comply at risk of being held in contempt

[Martin Eden]

27. Perhaps Biden could bypass those entities

In a well conducted covert operation, the identity of the accomplices and repository for the intel would remain unknown except to Biden and his accmplices.

The intel would be secure until a new president is in the White House is not treasonous.

Biden would make it clear he is responsible for this act, but he is immune.

Of course, the covert operation might not be possible, but the Trump cabal can't be trusted with national security secrets.

[Ninga]

28. It would be a patriotic action for Biden to withhold. If trump took him to court, wouldn't presidential immunity

hold?

[onenote]

30. As I indicated, the PTA isn't a criminal statute. Immunity is irrelevant.

If Biden is under a legal obligation to do something, the courts can enjoin in from refusing to do it and while he'd be immune from criminal prosecution, the courts would direct those who actually are the custodians of the information to provide it

Plus nothing could stop Trump from getting his hands on anything and everything once he takes office, so this isn't happening. Biden certainly isn't going to allow himself to be accused of endangering national security by denying an incoming president with information they may need on day one in office.

[FBaggins]

41. It looks to me as though Warren screwed up in drafting this legislation

My guess is that they created it with Trump-outgoing in mind and didn't even consider that he might be an incoming president.

I say that because she's incorrect - he isn't currently breaking the law. Because the law only puts obligations on the existing GSA/administration/etc. The only obligations placed on the president-elect are as a condition of receiving the assistance.

WHAT REQUIREMENTS ARE PLACED ON RECIPIENTS OF TRANSITION ASSISTANCE?

As a condition of receiving office space and related services, eligible candidates, the president-elect and the vice president-elect are required to disclose to GSA all non-federal contributions received for transition activities. The transition teams must also disclose to the public the identities and sources of funding of individuals who enter federal agencies after the election as part of the President-elect’s transition team. GSA, to the maximum extent practicable, shall enter a memorandum of understanding with each eligible candidate which includes the conditions for the services and facilities provided by GSA and designation of a transition representative to receive inquires related to transition team documents. Also, the administration (acting through the Federal Transition Coordinator), enters memoranda of understanding with the eligible candidates including conditions for access to agencies by the president-elect’s transition team, and agreement by transition teams to implement, enforce and publicly disclose ethics plans for transition team members.

The law seems to assume that the incoming administration will want to engage... but as I read it they aren't forced to.

And of course - I see no enforcement mechanism beyond the implied ability to deny them office space (etc.)

[Igel]

47. Looks a bit different to me.

She drafted what she drafted (or had a role in drafting or supporting).

What's left is how it's interpretation is presented or understood, and it seems that there's a slip between the text and the popular understanding.

Notice that in the event, most of the intelligence security rests on an EO and upon inauguration Trump's in charge and cannot be denied clearance, or the authority to authorize clearance. Congressional statute cannot override Constitutional provisions.

[multigraincracker]

8. Hope this is useful later on

when he wants a rule followed. Just bring this up and say FU.

[moniss]

9. So who is going to take action

at all? Merrick the Meek or just wait for the incoming stooge to do nothing?

[republianmushroom]

22. Merrick the Meek

Love it, and it does fit. As I shall call him from now on. Thank you.

[moniss]

24. You're very welcome and

Garland has pretty much always struck me like the guy who is there when something needs to be done, fails to do much and then writes a book about it years later about how he "would have done" this or that if he only had more time, resources etc.

Sort of the like the guy in a bar who watches a drunken patron attack the bartender and remains seated on his stool, or cowers some place, and then when the drunk is removed announces to everybody about how "if he came near me I would have kicked his ass" or "I was going to jump him but other people got there". "Would have" and excuses are the refuge of cowards.

[republianmushroom]

25. Thank you

You are polite with your description, I tend get a little harsher with mine. Thank you again.

[Yavin4]

38. He may write a sternly worded letter.

Or have Susan Collins do it.

[moniss]

39. I know I am

always chastened when I get those kinds of letters from people.

[Mike 03]

11. This really is happening, as bad or worse that

many of us feared.

How about that law Congress is attempting to pass, giving the president unilateral power to declare NGOs and "media" which I presume includes websites "terrorist organizations"? Or they could declare them "unpatriotic" in the next draft. That bill won't pass today, but it will blow through both houses in January.

We are going to see things we never thought possible for the United States. They really are going to do it.

[gordianot]

12. Watch a dictator worried about breaking a law?

[FormerOstrich]

14. The only conclusion is

intentionally grounding our face in the dirt. Him signing/agreeing wouldn't prevent him from anything. Not signing it is just one more way to drive that point home....

[33taw]

15. It is time to find real ways to resist.

[Lucky Luciano]

16. Yeah? Whataya gonna do 'bout it?

[mathematic]

18. President-elects become President whether they participated in a transition process or not

And it sounds like everyone's following the law? Trump's team haven't signed the agreements and are not engaged in a transition process.

This is a very confusing allegation. Is Warren saying that the law requires the incoming President to engage in the transition process? What would be the Constitutional basis of that?

[prodigitalson]

19. He's really gone and done it now

[ancianita]

20. Under transition laws that trump signed, he broke them both going in 2021, and now again in coming in 2024.

[republianmushroom]

21. So, what !

[Doodley]

26. The Biden administration should make a prime-time address to the nation and call out each time Trump fails to comply

with laws, and spell out the potential dangers any conflicts of interest may create.

[Farmer-Rick]

32. Laws? Who follows laws anymore?

Those are just for the little people. To put them in jail if they don't bow. Do dictator actually need to follow laws? If Trumpy Dumpy has a whim isn't that the law?

The Supremes have given him all the immunity from any laws his stinking soiled diapers will ever need.

Presidential transition laws be damned. This is a dementia ridden malignant narcissist who is control, just how Putin wanted.

[Solly Mack]

33. Am I supposed to be outraged? Trump breaks the law, people get outraged, he gets away with it.

I think I might just drop the gnashing of teeth part this time.

Oh, it's not that it isn't registering and sure, it's wrong. Of course he should be held accountable for is actions.

So, when is that going to happen?

How long am I supposed to stay outraged? Until the next law he breaks?

[ShazzieB]

34. Is there any way to enforce this law or not?

Last edited Tue Nov 12, 2024, 08:16 PM - Edit history (1)

The information in this article is a bit skimpy, imo. It doesn't say whether or how this law can be enforced.

If the law is enforceable, it should be enforced, period. If not, then, wtf was the point of passing it? Why would Elizabeth Warren go to all the trouble of writing and helping to pass a law that is unenforceable?

If any of this information is in the article and I missed it somehow, please point me to it. If not, I'm really disappointed in the author of this article for leaving so many unanswered questions.

[FBaggins]

37. Not really - or rather not very much

As I read it - signing the agreements is a precondition of receiving the transition assistance from the GSA (and the funding that comes with it). If they're willing to go without that - they don't have to agree to anything.

[ShazzieB]

45. I suspected sonething like that might be the case.

And that brings me back to the "what is the point?" Part of my question. Which I don't expect anyone to be able to answer, but I can't help womdering.

It just makes no sense to me to make a point of proclaiming to the world that "OMG, Donald Trump is breaking the law!" If there's nothing anyone can actually DO to him for breaking it. It's not like HE cares how many laws he breaks, and his worshippers certainly don't care.

My reaction to this is making me realize that I'm a lot more cynical than I used to be. Gee Golly gosh, I can't imagine why.

[FBaggins]

46. I largely agree

To me - the better response is to just point out the risk - that the new administration won't be ready to hit the ground running.

Then when something goes wrong early in the year - we can draw attention to this as one reason why the new administration is already stumbling out of the gate.

[GoYouPackersGo]

35. The "law." What a quaint concept...so 2023.

There is no law now. Just the Will of Trump.

[Bettie]

40. Does it even matter?

It seems that laws are not something that they ever follow or obey.

They do whatever they want and no one ever bothers to put a check on it.

[Aussie105]

42. Established precedents, the Constution, rule of law . . .

All things inconvenient to the new incoming 'administration', so Trump's number 1 rule will be:

All previous rules will be ignored, amended or reversed.

[alarimer]

43. It's nice that she thinks a piece of paper will stop him.

I mean, we keep crying about "He can't do that!".Then he does it. And nobody can really do anything buy complain.

[creeksneakers2]

44. Its way worse than that

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/11/12/2285783/-OH-NO?_=2024-11-12T16:57:35.000-08:00

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

48. Do you expect anything less?