1. Any construction or monument not funded by Congress gets torn down. ALL OF THEM.
2. Any contractor or business who accepted a contract to build any of these illegal structures has all funds paid clawed back that were not appropriated by Congress.
3. The head of the US Mint who okayed the recent Trump coin needs to be criminally prosecuted for breaking the law against including living Presidents on legal tender. (The 1866 Thayer Amendment, Presidential $1 Coin Act)
4. Any administration official who took part in any of these illegal projects need to be publicly prosecuted for breaking the relevant laws and disobeying their oaths of office.
If SCOTUS is going to adopt a posture of learned helplessness on enforcing the law against a sitting POTUS, the next POTUS and Congress need to establish a precedent that "just following orders" is not a defense against breaking the law AND the next Administration will do everything in their power to go after those enablers to set an example for the next crop of toadies who find themselves in positions of authority.
If SCOTUS and Congress are not going to do their jobs, then it's up to the rest of us to turn these people into Cautionary Tales that has the NEXT crop declining to take part in these brazenly illegal schemes.
As far as Congress is concerned, representatives and senators are elected to perform their duties as outlined by the Constitution. They have repeatedly failed to do so, but their failures have fallen on the deaf ears of the populace who continue to re-elect incumbents who haven't done much good for the country or special interest nominated candidates representing extreme views.
Trump's activities have been documented over the last 10 years. While there can be some understanding of his getting elected in 2016, there is no excuse for his winning a second nomination or second term other than in each of the 3 campaigns he participated in, the Democratic was as poor a choice as he was.
This leaves the American people and what do they want out of their elected officials. If registered as an affiliate of a political party, people need to understand they have a responsibility to participate in primary elections as much as they do in a general election. As it stands, the primaries have maybe 20-25% participation most of whom are focused on a special interest group or 2. If there's more participation maybe then the quality of the nominees will improve.
As it stands today, the John Adams quote “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” appears to be accurate and too many citizens of this country do not have the religious belief or moral standing to elect the quality of candidate the Country requires.
I opened your link Curtis and saw there was a notice to click on a link to update the initial report, hopefully you did that before posting. Either way, here's just one of the changes:
"3. Contractor internal estimates: taxpayers could cover about half of rising cost :
Clark Construction’s internal project summary, obtained by reporters, estimated the project could cost about $600 million with roughly $293 million from private sources and the balance from public accounts — specifically about $155 million from Secret Service funds, $149 million from the White House Military Office and $3 million from the Executive Residence — which, if borne as planned, would mean roughly half the project would be taxpayer-funded.
Yeah, I have read that. It could work that way, or it could be funded mostly by private donations. I do not believe the contractor is responsible for funding, so their speculation and the speculative reporting by news outlets is as reliable as that about Natalie Harp.
Even assuming that it was all privately funded, Trump is dealing with property that belongs to the nation as a whole. He's a caretaker, not an owner. He does not have the right to demolish it and rebuild it in his own image.
Presidents and their cabinets have been repurposing federal property for their own political reasons for decades. The back and forth on mineral leases and grazing rights and windmills on federal lands are good examples. So is the renaming of military bases.
So i'm totally clear about your response Curtis: You posted a link to explain how the projected will be funded, it goes into great detail how private funding won't be much more than 50% and the link YOU POSTED is "speculation and speculative." Got it.
Here's what needs to happen:
1. Any construction or monument not funded by Congress gets torn down. ALL OF THEM.
2. Any contractor or business who accepted a contract to build any of these illegal structures has all funds paid clawed back that were not appropriated by Congress.
3. The head of the US Mint who okayed the recent Trump coin needs to be criminally prosecuted for breaking the law against including living Presidents on legal tender. (The 1866 Thayer Amendment, Presidential $1 Coin Act)
4. Any administration official who took part in any of these illegal projects need to be publicly prosecuted for breaking the relevant laws and disobeying their oaths of office.
If SCOTUS is going to adopt a posture of learned helplessness on enforcing the law against a sitting POTUS, the next POTUS and Congress need to establish a precedent that "just following orders" is not a defense against breaking the law AND the next Administration will do everything in their power to go after those enablers to set an example for the next crop of toadies who find themselves in positions of authority.
If SCOTUS and Congress are not going to do their jobs, then it's up to the rest of us to turn these people into Cautionary Tales that has the NEXT crop declining to take part in these brazenly illegal schemes.
I can only say, imagine if Biden….or (gasp) Obama did this. Republicans in Congress would be clutching pearls to the point of crushing them into dust.
But cuz it’s Trump, and cuz current republicans in Congress are eunuchs, anything goes.
Let’s hope voters exhibit a bit of buyers remorse in a couple of months.
You touched on a number of great points David.
As far as Congress is concerned, representatives and senators are elected to perform their duties as outlined by the Constitution. They have repeatedly failed to do so, but their failures have fallen on the deaf ears of the populace who continue to re-elect incumbents who haven't done much good for the country or special interest nominated candidates representing extreme views.
Trump's activities have been documented over the last 10 years. While there can be some understanding of his getting elected in 2016, there is no excuse for his winning a second nomination or second term other than in each of the 3 campaigns he participated in, the Democratic was as poor a choice as he was.
This leaves the American people and what do they want out of their elected officials. If registered as an affiliate of a political party, people need to understand they have a responsibility to participate in primary elections as much as they do in a general election. As it stands, the primaries have maybe 20-25% participation most of whom are focused on a special interest group or 2. If there's more participation maybe then the quality of the nominees will improve.
As it stands today, the John Adams quote “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” appears to be accurate and too many citizens of this country do not have the religious belief or moral standing to elect the quality of candidate the Country requires.
Whole story so far.
https://factually.co/fact-checks/politics/white-house-ballroom-funding-public-money-involvement-d0b75e
I opened your link Curtis and saw there was a notice to click on a link to update the initial report, hopefully you did that before posting. Either way, here's just one of the changes:
"3. Contractor internal estimates: taxpayers could cover about half of rising cost :
Clark Construction’s internal project summary, obtained by reporters, estimated the project could cost about $600 million with roughly $293 million from private sources and the balance from public accounts — specifically about $155 million from Secret Service funds, $149 million from the White House Military Office and $3 million from the Executive Residence — which, if borne as planned, would mean roughly half the project would be taxpayer-funded.
Yeah, I have read that. It could work that way, or it could be funded mostly by private donations. I do not believe the contractor is responsible for funding, so their speculation and the speculative reporting by news outlets is as reliable as that about Natalie Harp.
Even assuming that it was all privately funded, Trump is dealing with property that belongs to the nation as a whole. He's a caretaker, not an owner. He does not have the right to demolish it and rebuild it in his own image.
Presidents and their cabinets have been repurposing federal property for their own political reasons for decades. The back and forth on mineral leases and grazing rights and windmills on federal lands are good examples. So is the renaming of military bases.
So i'm totally clear about your response Curtis: You posted a link to explain how the projected will be funded, it goes into great detail how private funding won't be much more than 50% and the link YOU POSTED is "speculation and speculative." Got it.
My link shows the reporting is speculative. That's all. If you have any facts to add, please do.
Is Congressional approval needed if the funds are donated? We have been told the entire build is donated. Is that a lie as the article implies.
Taxpayer funds are being used so the question is moot, but I’d say yes, it’s public property so Congress should be involved,