Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> Why are high level figures in these departments just letting them walk in

The better question is what are all the Congressmen doing cozily on Capitol Hill. Like, not one has walked over to these departments to try and physically stop these kids from gaining the keys to the kingdom?

(EDIT: Whoops, they have.)





Thank you—missed this. I’d still say there is an escalation step missing in trying to stop the DOGE bros from entering the premises, up to and including getting arrested.

Look at Seoul. The balls on those lawmakers saved their democracy. I’m not seeing that strength or resolve in the Congress anywhere.


Resistance in democracy needs to be well-timed. Too early, and you don't have a critical mass of force to oppose the ruling regime and appear unreasonable. Too late, and it's too late to do anything.

The right moment is only obvious in retrospect.


This, plus you must consider the risks of taking bold action that can be framed as insurrectionary. I don't see a lot of haste to immediately and unequivocally declare the elected President, a usurper. Some would say the trouble is, the man got large numbers of legitimate votes under false pretenses, in a system where such an act is expected to lead to buyers' remorse and midterm losses through the political system.

Instead, we have whatever this is. Doesn't look like it's complying with the normal process of the political system, which is designed to punish an electoral bait-and-switch. Looks more like Russian elections and populace-management.


Hungary's PM Viktor Orban gave speeches to Republicans to teach them how to destroy democracy so it is more like Hungary than Russia


The democratic leadership has allegedly advised the members on congress to not get arrested, as they are already in the minority. Given too many arrests, the republican majority will be able to easily pass nearly anything through congress.

Now it's my understanding that members of congress can't be truly arrested during session; so the above argument doesn't entirely stick for me.


I don't know, keeping people in prison definitely sounds like an official act for which POTUS is now immune.


> Given too many arrests, the republican majority will be able to easily pass nearly anything through congress

Source? The House isn’t close enough to a supermajority, and the Senate goes by actual votes.


Regarding USAID: That is under Rubio now, who was confirmed unanimously. So I suspect it will be resurrected in some form and continue at least regime change operations.

MAGA outlet Tucker Carlson had Mike Benz on this week. Mike Benz had been vocally opposed to all CIA or foreign interference programs during the election campaigns. This week he recanted, talked without his usual eloquence and said that USAID is not all that bad! So MAGA is being reprogrammed.

If nothing really changes, the Democrats (who were avid neocons in the past four years) won't mind. Which could explain the meek protests of Schumer etc.

The treasury story is way more difficult, we have to wait for more information.


> Regarding USAID: That is under Rubio now

Almost certainly not. The President can’t reorganise e.g. the CIA and Federal Reserve under HHS, for example.

Where I agree with you is in USAID not being politically worth the fight. And after the last 8 years (and Biden’s twilight) it’s hard for Democrats to argue for the rule of law per se.


Almost certainly not. The President can’t reorganise e.g. the CIA and Federal Reserve under HHS, for example.

Any sentence that begins with "The President can't" can safely be disregarded. The executive branch has all the lawyers, all the guns, virtually all the media, and (now) all the money.

Everything we were taught was an ironclad law of American constitutional governance has turned out to be a "guideline," a "custom," a "tradition," a "gentlemens' agreement," or "nothing that my pet judges can't fix."


> Any sentence that begins with "The President can't" can safely be disregarded. The executive branch has all the lawyers, all the guns, virtually all the media, and (now) all the money.

Not to mention the blanket ruling from the supreme court that says "if the president does it, it's legal."


Poor Nixon, just 60 years too early


> The executive branch has all the lawyers,

Judges do exist, and they matter more than any lawyer.

> virtually all the media

How does the executive branch control the media?


If you weren't paying attention when people like Patrick Soon-Shiong and Jeff Bezos were elbowing each other out of the way to pay tribute to Trump (1) -- or when CBS 'settled' a lawsuit that was widely seen as a certain win for them (2) in exchange for a $15M donation to the Trump Presidential Library, matching an earlier contribution in the form of an unnecessary 'settlement' from ABC, you probably aren't going to pay any attention to this comment, either. But for the record:

1: https://www.npr.org/2025/01/04/nx-s1-5248299/cartoonist-quit...

2: https://www.npr.org/2025/02/06/nx-s1-5288181/why-cbs-stands-...

Also, bear in mind the history of America's most popular cable news network. Fox News is the propaganda arm of the Republican Party, and that was always the idea. After Watergate took down Nixon, the GOP swore the same oath that the Holocaust victims did: Never again. Never again would something like Watergate be allowed to play out in an unbiased, uncontrolled media environment. Ailes and Murdoch answered the call (https://theweek.com/articles/880107/why-fox-news-created) and the rest is history.


From Wikipedia:

>Statute law also places USAID under "the direct authority and policy guidance of the Secretary of State".[4]


> Statute law also places USAID under "the direct authority and policy guidance of the Secretary of State".[4]

Source?


They did and they were not allowed into the building.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: