"DOJ says That Trump Could Shit in a Hat, but He Can't Reach His Own Ass, So Someone Else Would Have to Hold the Ha- Nevermind, Lindsey Graham is Here Already."
this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2026
156 points (97.6% liked)
politics
29969 readers
2164 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Clearly it's enough even though people are dying in ICE camps and random bombings at Venezuela boats but a statue? Yeah, I somehow don't see that moving people to do what needs to be done still. Somehow.
It might. The US is all about symbols and the Statue of Liberty is one its greatest symbols.
The Statue of Liberty USED to be one of its greatest symbols, nowadays its all about getting your panties in a bunch over some culture war bullshit with the other side of the aisle. Only difference is one side thinks they're protecting 'the American Dream' (even though the fantasy they have in their heads never existed in the first place), and the other side (which has legitimately been marginalized for decades if not centuries) just wants the equality they've been promised since birth.
Regardless to all the above, we the American people have proven time and time and time and time again that we truly do not care about anyone other than ourselves and our immediate families, not even the rest of the country and certainly not anyone else in the world. If it means having to make any change from the status quo, the vast majority of voters will simply abstain and push the issue onto the next generation. God I'm fucking tired of living here
I'm with you. I've been emailing Cornyn and Cruz every week about Trump. Everything from USAID , to Iran, to Venezuela, to Cuba, to Iceland, to the Lincoln center, the arch, the East Wing, the whales in the gulf of Mexico, the slush fund, the $250 dollar bill... on and on. I always get a form letter back but I know their staffs have to keep a tally of how many voters feel each way about every issue. This libertarian republican is voting straight Democrat this fall. This maniac has to be stopped.
This libertarian republican is voting straight Democrat this fall.
Hopefully a trend that will continue in the future.
Because this maniac isn't doing it alone. All the other Republicans (or damn near all of them) are right in there with him, providing cover and blocking any attempts to stop him.
Well the Epstein files are bad, no doubt, but the chubby Cheeto-in-Chief just keeps getting worse and worse by killing more and more people.
I don't think that the acts of his last 2 administrations can be compared to the Epstein files. I think they are just a furtherance of his psychopathic personality.
Sexual slavery is really, really, really, really bad. No doubt. Murdering people (like the Venezuelan boat strikes, Iranian school girls...) and starving people (like the Cuban embargos) is just a whole 'nuther level of evil, that is just a further step into a mountainous shit load of psychopathy.
It's not one (Epstein files) or the other (Iran war, boat strikes, starving Cubans); it's both and!
To wit: He did all of that shit to children and sex slaves AND did all of that other crap to other human beings. It is additive, not exclusive or separate or explanatory.
Hope I'm clear.
Like what would republicans impeach someone for. Just being a democrat and nothing else I guess.
I wish he could see these meme
They should return it to France until they decide the inscription at the base is worth living up to again. You know, "give me your tired, give me your poor"? Doesn't really jive with the whole immigration gestapo thing.
No. It was a great and kind and beautiful gift. We'll keep it. Thank you all the same. Instead we'll get rid of the current tennant of the Whitehouse by impeachment or 25th amendment or whatever works.
I'm pretty sure a cardiac episode will remove him sooner than any legal proceedings.
I just hope that something he does goes so apeshit bad that he dies on the golden shitter in the middle of a Temu Twitter rant.
Mario, it'sa me!
Lol you have so much faith in our raped, broken, shattered, and non-functional system that's barely hanging on with MAJOR life support. I mean at this point we're honestly 20 years into the "Weekend at Bernie's" portion of the US decline, where its just 5 corps in a trenchcoat.
It would be appropriate given that trump is a fascist
Apparently there's a paywall. Here is the entire article:
You could try this link:
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/06/05/white-house-ballroom-donald-trump-00951892
Or: here's the text:
Trump could also tear down the Statue of Liberty, DOJ argues in defense of White House ballroom Justice Department lawyers said the courts are powerless to intervene in the dispute over the former East Wing.
The White House, including the West Wing and construction of the new ballroom, is seen from the Old Eisenhower Executive Office Building on the White House campus Wednesday, Feb. 25, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Tom Brenner) The White House, including the West Wing and construction of the new ballroom, is seen on Feb. 25. | Tom Brenner/AP
By Kyle Cheney and Josh Gerstein 06/05/2026 01:22 PM EDT
A federal appeals court panel expressed skepticism Friday about the Trump administration’s view that courts are powerless to stop the construction of the White House ballroom now that the East Wing had been demolished.
Two members of a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit repeatedly pressed administration lawyers about its argument that President Donald Trump’s pet project — now well underway — could not be stopped by the courts even if it was found to be illegal, because it was too far along and involved significant national security interests.
“When did it become a fait accompli?” Judge Patricia Millett asked. “If this were complete lawlessness by the government … it couldn’t be stopped?”
“On these theories, I think that’s right,” replied Yaakov Roth, a Justice Department attorney.
Millett, an Obama appointee, peppered Roth with questions about the extent of the Trump administration’s view of its power to “move fast and break things” without being subject to legal challenge.
“If the government decides, very quickly, to bulldoze the Statue of Liberty — the people whose ancestors that was the first thing they saw coming to this country, but the government moved too fast — nothing can be done?” the judge asked.
“I think that’s right, yes,” Roth responded.
A federal judge in March halted construction on the ballroom during the legal battle, but the D.C. Circuit quickly paused the ruling, allowing construction to continue while the litigation is ongoing.
The Friday exchange underscored the Trump administration’s full-throttle effort to defend Trump’s massive reconstruction project, which the president has made clear is a personal priority, along with other aesthetic and architectural ambitions he has across Washington. Millett was joined in her skepticism by Judge Bradley Garcia, a Biden appointee.
Judge Neomi Rao, a Trump appointee, questioned whether the plaintiff in the lawsuit, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, had a basis to sue in the first place, especially when set against Trump’s claim that the ballroom would serve as a critical national security bulwark in addition to an event space.
Roth told the panel that the Trust’s “aesthetic” concerns about the White House must take a back seat to the security issues at stake.
Watch: The Conversation Play Video33:01 Brian Armstrong on Dimon, Trump, and crypto’s future “The balance of harms and public interest are so lopsided in favor of this project,” Roth said. “It’s an architectural preference on one hand and the safety and security of the president of the United States on the other hand.”
Roth also asserted that it would be overreach for the courts to take any steps to halt the ballroom project at its outset or now, even if it was clearly illegal under federal law. Rather, he said, if a court found the project illegal, the only remedy would lie with Congress.
“Congress can figure out how to deal with that, given the fact that we have these national security imperatives,” Roth said. “It’s well along. They’ve installed like 3 million pounds of steel rebar. … Congress would be the appropriate entity to decide: How do we balance these considerations at this juncture?”
The National Trust’s lawsuit argues that the White House grounds, a designated national park, cannot be updated without congressional approval. The park, like Yellowstone, they contend, can’t simply be repurposed at the whims of the administration.
“They just don’t want to go to Congress,” the trust’s attorney, Tad Heuer said, stressing that, under the Constitution, “Congress controls federal property.”
While other, more modest changes at the White House, such as the installation of tennis courts and a pool, may well have been unauthorized, they were never challenged in court, Heuer said. But the ballroom, which required the demolition of the White House’s entire East Wing, is of a different scale.
Trump has repeatedly ridiculed the lawsuit over the project, asserting in a social media post that it was “brought by a woman walking her dog, who has absolutely No Standing to bring such a suit.” In fact, the National Trust has claimed standing through Alison Hoagland, a historian and retired professor who has volunteered on various preservation boards and regularly visits the area.
Hoagland’s court declaration says nothing about a
Thanks for posting the text. Not surprising to see Neomi Rao lobbing softballs to the DOJ and signaling what she needs them to say to vote in favor of Trump.
I think it's a threat. Let me build the ballroom, no questions asked, or I'll tear down the statue of liberty.
Another distraction from The Trumpstein Files.
He could do a lot of hypothetical things. Drink water with both hands, rape underage girls, kill people out of a limitless ignorance, get shot in the face - let’s face it, the world’s his hypothetical oyster.
Do it, then back to the Epstein Files
Hoagland’s court declaration says nothing about a dog.
Didn’t expect this to close article. Woof.
Well played!
Yabba dabba doooooo!
Well since he's already metaphorically done it, I guess they figured they might as well set a literal precedent.
Edit: Also, gives me Man in The High Castle vibes. Did we switch to a timeline adjacent or something somehow?
2012 actually ended the world and we live in a simulation built by aliens based purely on remnants of preserved internet data. Most of what survived was social media incl crap like 4chan, which would explain the sudden uptick of Nazis and Nazi-adjacent views.
It was a hypothetical.
Yeah. I guess he hypothetically decided to tear down the West Wing of the Whitehouse, without permission, where he was just a tennant. Hypothetically speaking.
Dude. You tear down a part of my house where you are a temporary guest and we'll see how that goes.
Hypothetically speaking.
No, that was not hypothetical. That actually happened.
No it didn't happen.
But you've got to nip this guy in the bud, because he will do some crazy ass shit before you know it. Before he tells you.
Iran war, west wing, no audits, 1.776 billion dollar slush fund... kind of come to mind.
You cannot "nip in the bud" random hypothetical situations all day. Its a waste of time. There are too many actual problems to be freaking out over something no one expressed any intention of doing.
Like hypothetically taking over Greenland? The dude is off his rocker. If he, or his cabinet even hints at doing something, you can bet he's already discussed it, and probably had someone draw up plans for it.
That was not a hypothetical. It was not even a suggestion. He said that many times in the affirmative.
You are right. I misread the order of the responses. He did completely demolish the East Wing (i mistakenly said West Wing) as a temporary tenant of the Whitehouse, without permission. That is a fact. His lawyers (DOJ) spuriously argued that he could pretty much destroy whatever he wanted to, provided he did it quickly enough and without notice, regardless of its legality. Therein lies the danger with this man.
-
He just does illegal shit without permission, before anyone is even aware of it.
-
The DOJ defends his illegal actions as though they were his personal lawyers, by offering specious arguments.
The point is, that we can't discount any hairbrained idea he or his staff can cook up. Because they will try it. Those attorneys at the DOJ who argued for this on behalf of the the Whitehouse should be disbarred with prejudice.
The point is, that we can't discount any hairbrained idea he or his staff can cook up. Because they will try it.
It wasn't an idea and no one "argued for this". It was a hypothetical, used for demonstrative purposes. No one expressed any intent or made any suggestion.
I won't "argue with you" but Roth did argue the point under the theory of "non- redressability". While some make think it's purely speculative, I say no it's not.
It is just as preposterous for the president to destroy the East Wing of the Whitehouse (a national monument (landmark) that he doesn't own or have legal authority to damage) as it is to raze the Statue of Liberty. Both are kept in the trust of the National Park service, which he controls.
Damaging the Whitehouse is equal to damaging any other national monument. He did it in a rush so no one could/would stop him. It is absolutely no different than blowing up mount Rushmore so he could put his face there.
It's not his to destroy!
I'm done arguing.
Right, that is the point that the SoL was being used as an instrument to argue. It was not a suggestion that it was something they were considering doing, as the title suggests.