There was a guy in the comments of the first article on this topic, who claimed to be an expert on this law and was adamant that the decision by the Trump admin was perfectly legal.

Not just for accountability sake, but if that gentleman could come back in here and outline what he thinks is going on that would be quite interesting.

▲

swingboy 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It’s possible this could go before multiple judges who won’t all agree with this particular one.

▲

protocolture an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Yeah but this was supposedly "Cut and dry" and no one familiar with the law could possibly mistake it, and it was all media manipulation that made it seem like there was a case where there wasnt one.

▲

goatlover 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's also possible the Trump admin has people commenting online.

▲

bruce511 2 hours ago | parent [-]

They don't need to be part of the administration.

More than 50% of voters voted for Trump. Even today >30% (of everyone) think he's doing a good job. (Ie about equal to the voters in absolute number terms). Lots of people believe eat he is doing is legal simply because he is doing it.

	▲	inigyou an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Well it is. They literally made a law saying whatever the president does is legal because he's the president.
	▲	jcranmer an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> More than 50% of voters voted for Trump. Only 49.8% voted for Trump in the 2024 US election.

▲

RoloBaron an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

You can hear the Department of War's pov on this controversy from the All-In Podcast here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzwRflcLPAA&t=2479s

Super interesting pov from the person who recommended the supply risk designation.