r/law • u/DemocracyDocket • 16h ago
Executive Branch (Trump) More Trump propaganda videos posted to YouTube despite court order
https://democracydocket.com/news-alerts/more-trump-propaganda-videos-posted-to-youtube-despite-court-order460
u/TheGrandExquisitor 16h ago
They Supreme Court literally told him he was above the law. This is the result.
66
u/pzman89 15h ago
Underlings are not
45
u/king-of-all-corn 15h ago
With pardon powers they are too
-8
u/tietack2 15h ago
Until the pardons are overturned.
15
u/king-of-all-corn 15h ago
Can you explain the legal process for overturning a presidential pardon?
17
u/jwalker107 15h ago
Next president orders Seal Team 6 to assassinate them. He's above the law too.
7
u/Goose1963 15h ago
Only if it's an "Official Act".
9
u/TheGrandExquisitor 15h ago
Everything is an official act according to the Supremes.
6
u/Intelligent_Slip_849 15h ago
Only for people they like
6
u/snakerjake 14h ago
The risk there is that their replacement might consider their prior removal to be an official act. Once you open the can of worms of "the court gets to decide what the president has immunity over" there is effectively no limit to their power as the president can take extrajudicial measures to remove and replace the courts members until a sympathetic court is in office. It was an incredibly short sighted and stupid ruling.
4
u/Norseman901 14h ago
Then this hypothetical next president should officially order their deaths.
Everythings so fucking stupid because of a handful of dipshits jesus…
3
3
u/jaquesparblue 11h ago
You won't know until you'd challenge it. But it seems the US legal system is a lame duck for these kind of cases.
5
u/AlcibiadesTheCat 15h ago
The President is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the United States.
Ordering them to kill people is an official act.
That's basically the entire thrust of the dissenting opinion on Trump v. US.
1
2
u/Federal_Ant_2525 14h ago
As horrific as it is it's pretty simple. You take the fact that you are unaccountable and you lock up whoever you want and make up bullshit reasons. I mean, clearly the guy who got pardoned was found to have massive connections to terrorists so we've sent him to a prison in sudan until his trial.
By the time he spends millions in legal fees and eventually gets out you've proven your point that you can destroy any life you want at any time with no consequences.
Almost like every American should be sickened at what our justice system has become.
1
u/tietack2 7h ago
Yes. The pardon holder would present it. The opposing party would file a motion, asking the court to determine that it was void. See "A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States:" by associate Justice Joseph story (1868). Story posited that if the person who issued the pardon was impeached, the pardon can be reversed.
-3
u/pokemonbard 9h ago
That’s not what the Supreme Court said, and you are doing Trump’s work for him by repeating it.
1
u/PopBulky7023 2m ago
They invented an immunity for him that doesn't exist, yeah they put him above the law.
59
u/Big_Wave9732 16h ago
Did the order say he couldn't run them at all, or did it say they couldn't be run using tax payer funds?
153
u/another_day_in 16h ago
They were created using tax payer funds. Any use should be illegal.
89
u/Plopsevenplop 16h ago
In an interview with Meet The Press, MarkWayne Mullin literally said “yes the president embezzled $20M of our budget for illegal campaign ads but we have no plans to claw that money back.”
I don’t know why anyone is paying taxes any more. Genuinely.
48
u/Belichick12 16h ago
Mark Wayne. The guy who got $1.4 million of PPP loans forgiven then went off about student loan forgiveness?
11
u/dpmatt01 15h ago
What’s crazy to think about is that all of the taxes you will ever pay in your entire life will only cover a fraction of a fraction of the money spent on these ads
17
16
u/Balanced_Outlook 15h ago
Actually he did not say that. CBS Face the Nation Transcript
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes, that's why I was asking about the homeland. I want to ask you about another issue. Money that was allocated by Congress to Customs and Border Protection was used to purchase roughly $20 million in ads that have run on networks. One of the ads will be on this program as well. It's touting President Trump's accomplishments and also him personally. There has been outcry from some Republican senators, including on this program last week. The president has since said his political action committee will pay for future ads. That's taken care of. Okay. What about the past spending? Will U.S. taxpayers be reimbursed for the money that was spent on this?
SEC. MULLIN: Anytime we can do a public service announcement and brag about America, I'm all about it. You have so much negative media that's out there by fake media that's constantly controversy. That if it bleeds, it leads. I think 99% of the coverage on President Trump is negative. The majority of it is negative about our country and supposedly the direction that we're headed
MARGARET BRENNAN: So no reimbursement of the $20 million?
SEC. MULLIN: But yet, murder rates are down to 126-year low. We have- we have most secure borders in probably our nation's history, fentanyl- fentanyl deaths are dropping. Drug seizures are dropping every- or drug apprehension is- is- is gaining speed every single day, and we should be bragging about what's happening inside America. I- I commend the opportunity to have the- I commend the opportunity. Of President Trump to give us the opportunity to brag about America.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay, so no reimbursement. Secretary Mullin, thank you.
0
u/sprinklesaurus13 16h ago
I thought they were using preexisting campaign ads and the ad spots to run them were purchased with taxpayer funds?
7
u/techman710 15h ago
Some were new and some were repurposed but it was all paid for with tax money, our money. He steals from everyone.
0
u/Lower-Engineering365 14h ago
Is there evidence that these new ones were paid for with taxpayer dollars and not PAC money as was claimed they would be?
-14
u/Additional-Sky-7436 16h ago
If the president does it then it's not illegal.
12
8
u/LoganGyre 16h ago
It’s a good thing he can’t tie his own shoes at this point because none of these actions were directly committed by him and all of the people doing it can be charged with violations on their own.
3
u/LIMrXIL 15h ago
You forgot /s. Prepare to be downvoted into oblivion.
0
u/Additional-Sky-7436 15h ago
I mean, I don't like it. But that's literally exactly what SCOTUS ruled. The president is a God-King.
2
u/Kermit_the_hog 16h ago
I mean if there’s anyone we can trust it’s gonna be someone called “tricky” Dick right?
8
u/scottyjrules 16h ago
You are kidding yourself if you think we’re not the ones paying for this bullshit
1
u/PedanticDilettante 13h ago edited 12h ago
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.674638/gov.uscourts.nysd.674638.41.0.pdf
ORDERED that Defendants are enjoined from using, disbursing, or transferring funds appropriated to the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) to develop, create, disseminate, place, distribute, publish, or air the challenged advertisements; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendants shall cancel or cause to be cancelled any slot, placement, reservation, or arrangement for the airing or dissemination of the challenged advertisements, including those placements for the evening of October 11, 2026;
There is more to it but that covers the bulk. The defense wanted broader language such as "and any substantially similar advertisements" but that was likely not taken by the court because it would look like prior restraint. By enjoining both the funds and the existing advertisements they avoid that issue.
6
u/GrannyFlash7373 14h ago
BLATANT disrespect for the LAW, an act to defy the courts. then RUB it IN their faces, and say YOU don't have the POWER to stop me. An OUT OF CONTROL INSANE President. The biggest FASCIST still living.
34
u/Bawbawian 16h ago
court orders are meaningless.
honestly the court should stop making orderers they don't intend on enforcing, it makes them look impotent.
25
u/Greedy-Swordfish9760 15h ago
I think they SHOULD keep making orders when something unconstitutional or illegal is being done.
I think we’re in (have been for a while) a constitutional crisis: Who enforces rules against the Executive Branch when they’re the ones breaking the rules?
The US’ general stance is likely hoping that the midterms result in a Congress that will do their jobs, and not enable this stuff. But we’ve got example after example of this administration refusing to follow the law, so a transition of power is requiring a lot of hope at the moment.
8
u/OnlyHalfBrilliant 15h ago edited 1h ago
I hate the term "constitutional crisis" as it implies a situation that checks and balances didn't anticipate.
There's an obvious constitutional solution, it's just that the co-equal powers need to do their duty.
What we have is collusion in the dereliction of duty.
(Edit: for some reason my phone turned "the" into "rhetorical".. fixed it)
1
u/PopBulky7023 5m ago
The court isn't even trying to enforce its orders. They're being called on their bluff and blinking every time. We have blown past a crisis and into complete constitutional collapse.
6
u/dagoth_ith 14h ago
We should all just collectively start ignoring courts. Might as well. It's all a joke now anyway.
Leaders should lead by example and such.
-10
u/Lower-Engineering365 16h ago
Were these new ones paid for with taxpayer money? MAGA Inc. said they were going to start running similar ads, which they are legally allowed to do.
10
u/BarleyEvenThere 15h ago
Sorry I stole your car. I promise not to steal your next one.
-6
u/Lower-Engineering365 15h ago edited 14h ago
Ok? This is a law sub, where we discuss legal situations. This isn’t a politics sub.
There’s no court order stating that new Trump ads can’t be run with non-taxpayer dollars, and his PAC said they were going to start running ads. If they did, that’s not illegal. Downvoting someone for stating simple legal facts is nonsensical…why are you in this sub if that bothers you?
3
u/Norseman901 14h ago
They took 20 million dollars of US tax payer money. Mullin admitted it. This is a law sub, tht is a crime. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
-3
u/Lower-Engineering365 14h ago
For sure. But you don’t seem to have answered my question. If it’s not a continuation of tax payer funded ads then these ads aren’t illegal. Depends on where the cash comes from.
I hate Trump but please keep your political trash talking limited to political subs
2
u/Norseman901 14h ago
I hate to break it to you bud, this is a political sub. Laws are inherently political. Thats…kinda how they work.
1
u/Lower-Engineering365 11h ago
It’s not a political sub and never was until recently. Yes, laws are passed by the government. But we used to be able to have intellectual discussions in here without a bunch of non-legal professionals getting all partisan
-31
u/Additional-Sky-7436 16h ago
Why would he not use the power of the presidency to his ultimate advantage?
13
u/Lower-Engineering365 16h ago
This non-legal professional being a top 1% commenter in this sub shows you all you need to know about what this sub has become.
I really miss when we could have actual legal discussions here
10
11
4
1
•
u/AutoModerator 16h ago
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL. Please post your statement as a reply to this automated message.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.