By law, we had to make certain redactions.… But we said to Congress, any congressman can come in and spend as much time as they want looking at everything unredacted.

  • showmeyourkizinti@startrek.website
    73·
    2 days ago

    And that seems like a clear cut cause for impeachment. If the Democrats gain control of the House a solid strategy would be to start impeachment proceedings against lower level appointees before going after Trump

    • 8oow3291d@feddit.dk
      10·
      2 days ago

      He is “acting AG”. Not even confirmed yet. The purpose of impeachment is to take an appointee from “confirmed” to “non-confirmed” status. I am not even sure impeachment would make sense? Couldn’t Trump just make him acting AG immediately again?

      • BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today
        12·
        2 days ago

        He’s the AG. This was a trick they pulled in the first term. You make a guy the “acting” head of the agency, and he does the job until the new guy gets appointed, and approved by the Senate.

        So what happens if you name an “acting” head, and then never choose a final appointee? Nothing. Nothing happens. Your chosen guy remains the head of the agency, without ever being vetted or approved by the Senate.

        Todd Flintstone is the new AG, for all ill tents and porpoises.

      • Janx@piefed.socialEnglish
        3·
        2 days ago

        No, that’s not correct. “Impeachment is a process by which a legislative body or other legally constituted tribunal initiates charges against a public official for misconduct.”

        https://www.britannica.com/topic/impeachment

        Landau, Sidney; Brantley, Sheila; Davis, Samuel; Koenigsberg, Ruth, eds. (1997). Funk & Wagnall’s Standard Desk Dictionary. Vol. 1 (1996 ed.). United States: Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. p. 322. ISBN 978-0-308-10353-5. “1. To charge (a high public official) before a legally constituted tribunal with crime or misdemeanor in office. 2. To bring discredit upon the honesty or validity of.”

        • 8oow3291d@feddit.dk
          2·
          2 days ago

          From your own article:

          In Great Britain conviction on an impeachment has resulted in fine and imprisonment and even in execution, whereas in the United States the penalties extend no further than removal and disqualification from office.

          So removal only. Which might even nor make sense, because he was never confirmed by the Senate. Trump can just immediately appoint him again.

    • BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today
      4·
      2 days ago

      Yeah, that a good plan.

      I’m not so keen on replacing Trump with Vance/Theil. Trump can be better for us going into 2028, as long as we can keep him under control, and that will require getting rid of the sycophant loyalists, and making him pick a new crew, who won’t get appointed unless he chooses people who will reign him in.

      If we get rid of him, we give Vance 2 years to normalize MAGA, and make them viable for 2028. I’d rather have 2 more years of suppressed Trump chaos, to amp up the outrage going into Election Day 2028 - as long as we can keep him under control. Running his mouth can’t hurt much, and it gives us lots of ammo to humiliate him with.