Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
The move marks a striking departure from government procedure for funding the military, which traditionally relies on public funds appropriated by Congress.
"Departure from government procedure"? There are laws in place that determine government procedure. Not "traditions". Laws.
How fucking hard is it, to state a simple fact? This is illegal.
Yeah, this is super illegal and sketchy as all hell, the country's military being beholden to some private oligarchs is some "end of the Roman empire" type of stupidly corrupt and destabilizing idiocy
However (and I only noticed this after posting and kinda feel bad for being misled), this is also some stupid fascist theater that's trying to make the administration and their dipshit oligarch friends look more powerful than they actually are
The $130 million donation is unlikely to make any meaningful impact toward covering salaries of the roughly 1.3 million active duty military troops, netting out to about $100 per service member.
They want us to despair and think that everything is all over and they've won everything forever, but in reality they're morons who ruin everything they touch who have to keep doing terrifying performative fascist bullshit to keep their followers from noticing how stupid and incapable they are. Don't get me wrong, that performative fascist bullshit hurts and kills people, but these scumbags do not have resources or the competence to hurt and kill all of us as much as they try to project that image.
We all know they're evil, but what we need to remind ourselves and constantly remind all of their supporters is that they are weak. The fascist mind cannot handle that.
It also is probably more likely to piss folks in the military off more than not paying them, which is funny. It's like complaining about gas and then being handed 70 cents and a bad scratcher.
$130 million can bribe a lot of officers in key places. That's where this money will go. Those officers will then forget any and all oaths they've taken when the fascist coup enters the end stage.
I bet it gets distributed from the top down, too. Trickling down, some would say.
Well, no, actually, and that's part of the problem. Part of the reason he's gotten away with so much is that a lot of stuff isn't plainly illegal. Like how Congress is refusing to seat Grijalva. There's no law that says they must swear someone in in any particular timeframe.
In the case of who funds the military, and where that money comes from, there is no ambiguity...it is established law. In fact, there are actual prison sentences for anyone who tries to circumvent those laws.
It's certainly possible that there is a law against someone donating money to the account from which military salaries are withdrawn, but it's also quite possible that there isn't. It's one of those things that just never would have come up. Are you aware of such a law?
It is technically legal to make a donation to the Military Personnel Appropriations Fund, but not by some anonymous donor. There would have to be an investigation into their background, to determine whether or not there were any conflicts of interest, and it would typically still need to be approved by Congress.
At the end of the day, it is and always has been, Congress that funds the military. That is the law. The President getting a "friend" to pay the military without Congressional approval, is a clear violation of the separation of powers required by the Constitution. It's not up to him to "find money" for this purpose. That is not his job. The Constitution is explicitly clear about the President not having that power.
How could there be a conflict of interest? Were money being spent then it's pretty obvious, but putting money in? I'm not saying I don't see a problem here, but I don't think existing law was written to handle this situation.
I doubt separation of powers is relevant since it hardly matters who "found" the donor or who's "friend" they are. Had the president ordered a private citizen to make the donation (perhaps as a settlement with the DOJ or something) that would be different. If Trump did any favors for the money that would also be an issue, but that would be as hard to prove as bribery in the current system.
This response makes such little sense and is such sophist bullshit that it basically sounds like AI being stretched too far. Either that or it's a motivated troll trying to muddy the waters, but then again, said trolls would be the ones using AI.
You don't think there would be an expectation of getting something in return? That's pretty naive. You're basically assuming no favors were given, despite the fact that no information about that donor has beenade public, and Congress had no involvement in accepting the money. There was literally no oversight involved. When it comes to funding the military, that is illegal.
And the separation of powers is literally one of the foundations of US law. Each branch of government has its own separate responsibilities and the authority to carry them out. The other branches do not have crossover authority to simply take charge of what another branch is responsible for.
According to the Constitution the president does not have the authority to fund the government. That authority belongs to Congress, who are ultimately responsible to their constituents. It's set up that way, so that the government...and in particular, the military...is ultimately responsible to the public. Not the president. He is the commander in chief...but the military itself belongs to Congress, who in turn answer to us.
If Trump just bypasses Congress in order to fund the military, then they no longer serve us. They serve him alone. And that is the definition of a dictatorship.
You don't think there would be an expectation of getting something in return? That's pretty naive.
I didn't say that. However, that's not how it works legally. Unless there is a law specifically restricting deposits in that account, whatever ulterior motives might be involved are irrelevant. Proving bribery is also nearly impossible in our current system, without solid evidence that the transfer of funds was explicitly tied to the abuse of power.
And the separation of powers is literally one of the foundations of US law.
I didn't question it's existence, only it's applicability in this circumstance. We're talking about a private citizen making a donation to a public fund. The president isn't even involved except that they happen to be a "friend". The separation of powers is irrelevant.
However, that's not how it works legally. Unless there is a law specifically restricting deposits in that account, whatever ulterior motives might be involved are irrelevant.
No. That's exactly how it works, legally. It would be a violation of the Antideficiency Act. And to be clear, it isn't about who can make a deposit...it's about who has the authority to spend the money. That's Congress, and only Congress. That's why the separation of powers matters here. Without their approval, the president has no authority to use that money for any purpose, regardless of where it came from.
And by law, it has to be spent from that fund, which is under the explicit control of Congress. Using any other fund, is also illegal. There is no legal way for him to pay the troops without Congress. Period. That is the law.
So, all the way up and down, this is simply illegal.
We aren't talking about that money.
It applies though. You asked for specifics and that article goes into specifics.
In plain terms, the federal government can’t spend money on something unless Congress has provided money for that specific purpose.
This severe conflict of interests is unlikely to get the attention that it should because objecting to paying soldiers is not a good look for someone who wants to be re-elected. But I hope that I'm wrong, because the potential to compromise America's security interests is huge here.
Those lower intelligence individuals who cutter for the orange fuck won't mind. He took their healthcare, raised irises of their food and yet, they support him. Unless someone takes him out, he'll be here for some time.
He didn't take away Mike Johnson's healthcare
So... $100 per military member? Interesting.
Oh hey, just keep the government shut down and privately finance proceedings. I'm sure there's no giant, obvious, terrifying problems and consequences with that.
It’s a bribe
The government will never fully come back, this is how they will fund what they want to keep. At least till they condition people to just accept taxes without representation. Everyone else will either not be paid ever or will permanently remain furloughed so they don’t have to say they are laying everyone else off.
Only way it changes is through a change of government, which we know Republicans will never do peacefully.
it was timothy melon a billionaire.
Is the friend Putin?
How about congress does their fucking job instead of us giving IOUs to billionaires. Just a thought.
I don't want this government reopened until Trump has been removed from office, personally. I hope mutual aid networks are able to support people who need nutrition housing and healthcare insurance and support good government workers, but giving a budget to the administration of Donald Trump can not happen, it will only be used to cause further suffering.
Totally get the sentiment "let Trump's government stay shut down to limit the harm it does", but remember they don't actually follow the rules. This article is a prime example! They'll fund the military, ICE, pretty much any authority with a gun. Trump will still get his ballroom, Kisti Noem her multiple luxury jets, etc. Meanwhile food safety standards will plummet, support to disadvantaged people will dry up, and people will suffer. Just not the Republicans that caused this shutdown...
Convenient how this happens at the same time the trump pulls the Navy's "most lethal combat platform", the USS Gerald R. Ford, out of Europe to go play drug cop in the Caribbean. Meanwhile, Russian attacks against Ukraine escalate. Kinda makes one curious about where this $130 million is coming from. At least we know that the government will be funded, somehow, even if Congress itself stays shut down "indefinitely"...
Oh no! More illegal stuff! Someone stop that man over there committing crimes please. Law enforcement? Military? People? Fairies?
Out of all those options, fairies are our best bet.
For these dark days, we need the Unseelie Court!
Ooooo cool. Today I learned a thing! Yes indeed, they will do.
If I were to wildly speculate I'll bet it's Saudia Arabia. Or maybe Israel, AIPAC has some cash on hand since Democrats are souring on receiving money from them.
What is even happening!
Fascists are trying to terrify us with stupid shit that I fell for (at least for a minute there)
The $130 million donation is unlikely to make any meaningful impact toward covering salaries of the roughly 1.3 million active duty military troops, netting out to about $100 per service member.
Informative. Thanks!
It's still bullshit
They are buying an army.
Sounding more like an average day in the Russian Mafia oligarghy every day..
The $130 million donation is unlikely to make any meaningful impact toward covering salaries of the roughly 1.3 million active duty military troops, netting out to about $100 per service member.
So will they even disburse it since this pittance is basically useless?
NOW they want to pay taxes and fund the government?!
Just the military