Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> to try and revert something from under the previous administration

More-importantly, it's nowhere close to "normal" try-to-reverts, where one President tries to replace an equally "soft" policy put in place by another President.

Here the newly-installed crooks are trying to deny a hard "money shall be spent on X" law passed by Congress, which is an unconstitutional attempt to seize the "power of the purse".

Same legal-vibes as if Trump declared people on his Friends List were exempt from taxes.



> … as if …

This hasn’t happened already?


Not precisely: Trump fired so many people that the IRS can't check whether the rich are submitting fake paperwork to cheat on their taxes.

Related outcome, but different in mechanics/constitutionality.

[0] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/a-hamstrung-irs-is-a-gift...


> as if Trump declared people on his Friends List were exempt from taxes

I'll pencil that in for April. After all, the president can direct who is and is not prosecuted..


I was about to say, “don't give him any ideas”, but it probably wouldn't have mattered anyway.


[flagged]


No he didn't. If he had, you would have posted a credible link.


I hate that I know this, but he probably half remembered this conservative brainworm[1], the reality of which is “recently founded weirdo groups claiming nonprofit status are sketchy, get audited more, and the right has more of them”

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy


I searched for a while and haven't been able to figure out what you're referring to, can you explain?




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

Search: