DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus DOGE | Updates etc

Needlessly calling people back into the office isn't going to help that furniture bill, though.

I have nothing to say this isn't true, but as I sit in my 100+ year old building, on a chair that is from the 1990's, and occasionally take breaks to an unclean bathroom that has no paper towels, I remain skeptical.

Oddly enough, though, when it comes to furniture, the biggest red flag is with political/Presidential appointees - and that has been consistent with both parties. Here's the rub: Congress has to be notified of any furniture purchases over a certain threshold (I want to say $10,000 for a specific office). If they aren't notified, it's an Anti-Deficiency Act violation. Congress and the President both have to be notified of any ADA violations as well. So, in either event, Congress has to be aware that those expenditures were made, AND, those expenditures had to have been made with Congress' authorization/appropriation of those funds.

Here's an example of a furniture purchase gone bad from the 2021 ADA Violation compilation:

Agency No.: None Reported Date Reported to GAO: January 14, 2021
Agency: Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD)
Date(s) of Violation(s): Fiscal Years (FYs)
2009, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2017, and 2018
Account(s): Executive Offices,
Management and Administration;
Administrative Support Offices,
Management and Administration;
Community Planning and Development,
Program Office Salaries and Expenses;
and Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity,
Program Office Salaries and Expenses

Amount Reported: $158,850.74

Description: HUD reported that it violated the Antideficiency Act (ADA), 31 U.S.C.
§ 1341(a), in FYs 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2017, and 2018, when it incurred obligations
and expended funds without providing advance congressional notification in violation of
a statutory prohibition.

According to HUD, on a number of occasions, HUD staff made obligations and
expenditures for offices and other spaces assigned to presidentially appointed officials
that were covered by then-applicable advance congressional notification requirements.
HUD reported that advance notification was not given to Congress before making such
obligations and expenditures. HUD noted that the failures to notify Congress occurred
due to a lack of written procedures regarding the statutory notification requirements.
According to HUD, the HUD Office of Inspector General conducted an investigation and
issued a report with respect to office furniture purchased for the Secretary’s dining room
that found no evidence of misconduct and made no recommendations because of
remedial actions proposed by HUD and HUD’s intent to report an ADA violation.2
Additionally, HUD reported that the purchase contract for the Secretary’s dining room
furniture was canceled.

https://www.gao.gov/assets/730/720129.pdf

This was not the only furniture violation for a political/Presidential appointee that year. This also seems to happen every year.

I think the overarching point in me saying this is that I don't want this to turn into another thing where the agencies and departments - especially those working in them - get blamed for that type of expenditure. Those funds are authorized/appropriated by Congress, who has to be made aware of those expenditures, and the actual concrete evidence we see of malfeasance on this front pertains mostly to Presidential/political appointees. As far as that actual figure she is throwing around, and me personally witnessing anything of the sort, I work at the largest single site employer in Ohio, and I have not been in one building anywhere here that has nice - or even new - furniture. If it's happening, I'd be curious as to where.

I don't think the RTO has made a difference in the furniture front, where I work at least. It's been Lord of the Flies scrambling around trying to find any chair that can work. We were already informed by the four star that our budget for facilities and O&M (operation and maintenance) will not be increased from COVID levels.

Where it is crushing us, though, is all the actual office space we've had to lease so that people can have a place to sit and actually work.

What does really suck is that one of my friends who's a Contracting Officer - and a damn good one - is about to lose his position because he accepted a remote package 2 years ago and his time is coming to an end. He has access to a federal facility where he can do work, but they added further stipulations that it now has to be a federal facility within your sub-command. So, if you're USAF Life Cycle Management Center, you can't just work at any USAF location, you have to work at one that is specifically seated to house USAF LCMC. The guidance keeps changing and we have to keep guessing.

I actually think we need to hire ten more people just to interpret that bs -- and therein lies a large part of the problem.

Also, you're funded to the tune of 30 billion per year, why do you think there are no paper towels? No business in the world, or household for that matter, would cut health and hygiene until they were moments from bankruptcy or eviction.

Anything more than "people are saying" would be nice. But for some of you that's all it takes. Depending on who says it of course.

Where did you get $30B per year? What is that funding for?

The reason I ask: it's not the "how much" that's at issue as much as the "for what, exactly?" If you make me king for a day when it comes to efficiency, this is where I really take everything apart. Congress appropriates funds on a per-department/per-agency basis. Every purchase is so particularly limited by the "colors of money" and the fiscal year expirations that there is no room for common sense. It goes all the way from appropriations, to allotments. For instance, if I get an allotted budget for new office chairs, but our desks are all broken, I can't shift the budget funding from buying new office chairs to buying new desks, because I don't have that power. So, enjoy your broken desk, here's a new chair.

It also isn't so much that they cut health or hygiene. It's that they're not increasing it back to pre-COVID levels. When we only had to come in once or twice per week - or when they just catered to all the people who had to be here because they worked in SCIFS - the cleaning schedule and soap/paper towel supply was more appropriate because you had far less people in the buildings. Now that they mandated we all be back 5 days/week, it's no longer appropriate, but they have declined to increase that portion of the budget. I can't give you a firm answer as to why they are declining it. If you want my honest speculation, I believe it's because they want to cultivate more natural attrition. If you go from a telework environment to working in an old, dirty office with poor hygiene (and no applicable OSHA rules), you are more inclined to get natural attrition from the workforce that you are seeking to downsize, with less severance benefits if they leave on their own volition. It seems overly nefarious, but it also makes sense.

It harkens me back to the day when Chuck Hagel made us do "Furlough Fridays" in 2013. They had the money to pay us to work on Fridays, but it was a way to put financial pressure on us to utilize us as PR pawns against the TEA Party demand for budget cuts.

Also, when it comes to the ridiculous single expenditures, like the ones in that Ingram tweet, you can almost always trace those back to Congressionally directed expenditures. Personal story, without giving away too much details, VERY early in my career, I worked on an aircraft platform and we were directed to spend tens of millions to test the utilization of a sensor on that aircraft. The more I became involved in the program, the less I understood why we were doing it. I asked the Program Manager why the hell we were doing it, because it didn't make sense to use that sensor on the subject aircraft. He said that it was a "Congressional add" effort where MegaCorp lobbied for Congressman and Senator So-and-so for my agency to spend money on this project. I can just imagine how that headline would read now, though: "Dawglover05 and his agency spent tens of millions on wholly unnecessary project!" So I take the fall and Congress is like "Yeah, can you believe the waste this agency has!?!?" (wink-wink). I'd be willing to bet my stock portfolio that the "solar powered picnic table" was in that same vein.

Bait. And. Switch.

Oh, and the Defense Budget is expected to increate to around $1T...so there's that...

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-drastically-drops-doge-112308234.html

Elon Musk drastically drops DOGE’s savings goal from $2 trillion to $150 billion for the year

Musk had previously projected savings as high as $1 trillion. · Fortune · Photo by JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images
Beatrice Nolan
Fri, April 11, 2025 at 6:23 AM CDT 3 min read

Elon Musk appeared to dramatically lower DOGE's savings goal, projecting $150 billion for the year—far short of his earlier trillion-dollar claims. However, questions remain about the savings claimed by the team with critics pointing to inflated numbers, retracted claims, and a growing list of controversial cuts.

Elon Musk has said DOGE is drastically scaling back its savings aims. In a cabinet meeting on Thursday, Musk told Trump the group expected to slash $150 billion from the federal budget over the fiscal year, which runs from the beginning of October 2025 to the end of September 2026.

“I’m excited to announce that we anticipate savings in ’26 from reduction of waste and fraud by $150 billion,” Musk told Trump in the meeting. The world's richest man said these cuts "will actually result in better services for the American people."

Musk, who has emerged as the public face of the DOGE team, had previously projected savings as high as $1 trillion. Earlier, during campaign trail appearances, Musk floated an eye-popping $2 trillion figure.

According to DOGE's website, which tracks canceled contracts, grants, and leases and publicly displays a sample, the team has already saved an estimated $150 billion. It's unclear if Musk meant to say the $150 billion was the final goal or just what the team had already found.

The White House did not immediately respond to Fortune's request for comment, however, an official told the New York Times the $1 trillion figure was still "the goal."

Trump praised the team's efforts during the cabinet meeting, telling Musk: "Your people are fantastic. In fact, hopefully, they will stay around for the long haul."

Musk's role at the White House is due to come to an end in May. He's classed as a special government employee and is nearing the end of his 130 period in the federal government. The White House has said Musk intends to leave when his time runs out.

DOGE's website has been full of errors

DOGE's website has been plagued with errors and miscalculations, making it hard to know if the team's top-line figure of $150 billion can be trusted.

According to DOGE’s website, the savings are a combination of “asset sales, contract/lease cancellations and renegotiations, fraud, and improper payment deletion, grant cancellations, interest savings, programmatic changes, regulatory savings, and workforce reductions.”

However, the team has deleted several contracts from its wall of receipts after reports undermined some of their claims. In one case, DOGE had to revise its largest contract down from $8 billion to $8 million after the contract’s vendor explained that the $8 billion listed on its procurement record was likely a clerical error.

One of the largest savings highlighted on the DOGE "wall of receipts" is a $1.9 billion figure, attributed to the cancellation of a Treasury Department contract with Centennial Technologies. However, the company previously told The New York Times that the deal had already been scrapped during the Biden administration—long before DOGE existed. After media coverage, the savings claim was briefly taken down, according to ABC, but has since reappeared. (Centennial Technologies did not respond to Fortune’s request for comment.)

In addition, DOGE staff quietly removed more than 1,000 contract cancellations from its records last month, wiping out about $4 billion in previously reported savings.

Musk has claimed DOGE's efforts are "maximally transparent" but the team only published around a third of the cuts they've made, making a more thorough analysis more difficult.

Some of DOGE's cuts and agency closures have been controversial, such as the shutdown of USAID and proposed changes to social security. Experts have warned that DOGE's plans for the social security administration are essentially a 'backdoor' way to cut payments.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

This is what it looks like when you base what you claim to be doing on "waste and fraud" and put people in charge of it that care only about reaching a stated goal rather than actually addressing waste and fraud. On top of that they are not qualified for the job. This is a job for forensic accountants who have been educated to do exactly this. That's why we are seeing the mess we see now.

Trump has always stood for one thing and one thing only, what’s good for Donald Trump. I can’t believe MAGA dolts can’t see that.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-doge-federal-savings-goal-b2732504.html

Musk admits that DOGE may only cut 15 percent of its stated $1 trillion goal - and even that figure may be high

Musk’s DOGE continues to include significant errors on their public savings reports

Elon Musk has admitted his Department of Government Efficiency may only cut $150 billion in spending — just 15 percent of his original $1 trillion goal.

Musk told President Donald Trump’s cabinet the revised number in a meeting Thursday, back-tracking on his previous promises to cut $1 trillion in government spending by September 30, the end of the fiscal year.

However, a new analysis from The New York Times reveals that even Musk’s much-smaller goal likely isn’t feasible because DOGE has been inflating its progress with billion-dollar errors and making assumptions about future federal spending that isn’t set in stone.

DOGE continues to publicly report its savings on its website, labeling it the “Wall of Receipts.” The site, which was last updated Tuesday, is heavily error-ridden and shows a total of $150 billion in estimated savings, according to the Times.
Elon Musk has lowered the Department of Government Efficiency’s savings goals from $1 trillion to just $150 billion
Elon Musk has lowered the Department of Government Efficiency’s savings goals from $1 trillion to just $150 billion (Getty Images)

While DOGE has cleared up some mistakes — including entries that mistakenly triple-counted some savings or reported billion when they meant million — others still remain, the outlet reports.
RECOMMENDED
Bill Maher makes surprising Trump claim after dining with president
Sir Alan Bates urges victims to take Government to court over redress delays
Cleveland: These New Senior Living Apartments Are StunningBestSearchNow | Search Ads |
Sponsored
Most Budget-Friendly SUVs On The Market (See The List)PopularSearches | Search Ads |
Sponsored
Powered by Taboola

These errors include a reported $1.9 billion in savings from a canceled IRS contract. But the contract they cite was actually canceled under former President Joe Biden.

Another error includes a touted $1.75 billion in savings from a supposedly canceled grant to a vaccine nonprofit, according to the Times. The nonprofit has reported they were already paid the grant in full, meaning DOGE saved nothing by canceling it.

Now, even groups that support Musk’s goal are saying they’re frustrated with DOGE.

“They’re just spinning their wheels, citing in many cases overstated or fake savings,” Romina Boccia, the director of budget and entitlement policy at the libertarian Cato Institute, told the Times. “What’s most frustrating is that we agree with their goals. But we’re watching them flail at achieving them.”

Musk’s $1 trillion goal has been clearly impossible for a while. Last month, The New Yorker reported that DOGE would only save $245.8 billion a year if it fired every single federal worker outside the military or USPS.
Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, accompanied by U.S. President Donald Trump (R), when Trump signed an executive order implementing the Department of Government Efficiency's (DOGE) "workforce optimization initiative," on February 11, 2025.
Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, accompanied by U.S. President Donald Trump (R), when Trump signed an executive order implementing the Department of Government Efficiency's (DOGE) "workforce optimization initiative," on February 11, 2025. (Getty Images)

Meanwhile, the Government Accountability Office has been investigating DOGE since last month, according to Wired. Their audit is specifically targeting DOGE’s access to sensitive government data.

The audit comes after Congressional leaders requested it in light of “alarming” media reports of DOGE infiltrating federal systems, a congressional aide told Wired.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

DOGE is a Joke

Are most of the savings coming from laid off workers? Just wondering

I wonder what software he's referring to. I'm unaware of any software in the DoD that is 50 years old, but that doesn't mean it can't exist. Just that I don't see it.

My computer is 1.5 years old. Most of the computers run by our contractors are up to date.

I'm skeptical of what he is saying about the SS database. On top of that, though, the GAO is the investigative arm of Congress. So, any reports that they issued have been seen by Congress, likely for years, if not decades.

We just learned a couple months ago that nearly all Air Traffic Control towers still use floppy discs. I guess nothing would be all that surprising at this point.

That's most likely the single example he is using to try and use a broad brush and paint the picture that it's wide spread.

It might be that bad, but at the same time, context is also everything. Diminished manufacturing sources are a big thing for Government platforms because we stretch out legacy items over decades, and there isn't the same "pressure" to modernize them that you have in the commercial sector.

For instance, we have been flying the B-52 since the 50's. A lot of the manufacturers who made parts for it either went out of business, or just stopped making those parts altogether and moved on to something else, or the "widget" that they manufactured for our fleet has changed configurations six ways from Sunday from the time it was originally produced. So, 10 or 20 years down the road, when certain subparts start needing updates or refreshes, we might have to find something old that can fit into the configuration, or spend $$$$$$$$$$$ to redo everything.

That is kind of an extreme example, but looking at the floppy disk setup, if you have a software integration system that is not modular, or reconfigurable when it's built, and it's not in critical need of reconfiguration, you pretty much just roll with it, because the cost of reconfiguring and reproducing that design is prohibitive. Now, when it comes to ATC, I don't really know the whole situation, or how critical it is to move on from the floppy disk setup, but I'd be curious to know the whole situation.

Across the entire government acquisition setup, we are trying to aim toward being more modular, so that we can adapt to commercial plug and play much better and start streamlining these issues. It also helps us to naturally access competitively priced end items vs the sole source hell we keep finding ourselves in. Problem is...our sole source industry doesn't like that idea and they lobby like hell against it, and they seem to keep getting their way. For instance, a lot of our major weapon systems will have one sole source prime contractor and then a myriad of sole source subcontractors each providing their own end item (radar, mission computers, electronic warfare suites, etc.). Hopefully the more systems we develop, the more we can graduate from that, but it will take time and gumption. Until then, we get screwed on pricing as a matter of pure leverage.

Also, just want to add, if we can adapt to a more commercial platform in the acquisition sector, it would completely upend the defense industry. We have already seen them have issues with a lot of what they are providing sole source, and a lot of them have been doing it for a while. Lockheed, Northrop and Raytheon almost exclusively make all their money from the Government.

They have gotten very comfortable with not competing and jacking up their prices. The data is all over the place. If you allow players into the acquisition realm who have to go out and compete against other industries every day, it would be a complete game changer. If Lockheed/Raytheon/Northrop had to compete against companies like Microsoft, for instance, they would get absolutely destroyed.

We have also tried to organically grow industries with things like Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) where smaller R&D companies or even just dudes in their garage get funding to grow prototypes that have the potential to be real difference makers. It's a 3 phase project (white paper, prototype, low-rate initial production). Phases 1 and 2 have to be with a small business. Phase 3 (post-lobbying) no longer requires the entity to be a purely small business. The problem is any small business that usually makes headway is almost immediately purchased by the Big 5 after Phase 2. Lobbying has also resulted in the company maintaining exclusive IP rights to the end product now for 20 years (used to be 5). So if BIG BIZ purchases that innovative company, they now withhold access to that IP data, even though the Government essentially paid for it.

Anyways, I'm going down the rabbit hole now. Just thought I'd share.

Still posting that government propaganda I see. How may times do you have to be shown they continually lie about those things until you stop believing everything they spoon feed you?

This is 100% illusory wording, especially considering the IDIQ setup of the contract. That actually angers me quite a bit that they would phrase it this way.

Does any part of the premise anger you?

Had a whole response typed up and it just got Thanos'ed.

Anyhow, here's what I think I was going to say:

Sorry, could you clarify what you mean by premise? If you're talking about canceling wasteful contracts, then no, not at all. In fact, I would even offer my abilities to cancel those contracts. The problem with most of those contracts is the originator. For instance, that anecdotal story I mentioned before where I was part of program that bought a sensor that we didn't need, I would have cancelled that in a heart beat, but it was mandated spending by Congress. Congress however, seems all too happy to essentially hide behind the agencies and departments, pointing the finger at them for being the culprits while it's Congress often-times mandating the wasteful spending.

If I'm off in what you asked, my bad.

My problem with DOGE is two-fold:

1. Overpromising. This is the Elon-special. Think full-self drive with Tesla. Everything is going to be amazing. Everything is going to be revolutionary, and then it isn't. With DOGE, it was "We should be able to cut $2 trillion" which became "We can cut $1 trillion" which then became "We'll cut $154B........maybe."


2. The false-light PR. This has been done repeatedly by DOGE. An IDIQ or a BOA is essentially an ordering platform on which you can base orders or contracts. They have ceilings, which often times are crazy high because it allows the buying command to place orders without constantly having to go back to the well and spend months upon months having to go all the way back up the leadership chain to get approvals for every single acquisition, and sometimes they can allow for flexibility in bundling procurements to save money on things like bulk pricing. DOGE referring to saving billions of dollars on efforts with "ceilings" is essentially them looking for "Attaboy!" PR credit based on false premises. I can't come up with a great analogy, but the closest popping into my head right now is someone getting approved for a mortgage worth $2 million. Then they go ahead and buy a house worth $500K and then yell "I just saved myself $1.5M!!!!!" When there have been comparisons done so far of what DOGE claims they have saved vs what is listed in FPDS, there have been a lot of discrepancies not in DOGE's favor. I get angered because I think it makes those who don't know any better excited about falsely conveyed information.

I'm sure you know this is 100% deliberate and the entire point. It'll get those Trumptards frothing at the mouth. It doesn't matter if the truth comes out later... A portion of them will never hear what the truth is. And a portion will hear the truth and choose to ignore it.

Don’t bother responding, they are all coming here in bad faith to spread TRUMPIAN NONSENSE AND HATE. None of them want a strong democracy, they want a daddy. I’ve never seen so many so-called men want a daddy to make the bad go away… it’s pathetic. It’s sad. It’s spineless. It’s unAmerican.

They’ll never pwn this lib.

They'll never need to. lmfao

I’m changing my approach.

I was pretty upset with how this administration got kicked off and there are certainly still things that make my blood boil. But rather than rage out, I think I realized that not a lot of people can identify with where I’m coming from, and rolling around in the mud never helped make anything better.

I’m sure I will still fall prey to that from time to time. I think I used to be able to objectify a lot more of these topics because I both saw them as less urgent at the time and I wasn’t so personally affected by them, and I mean smack dab in the face affected by them like I am this time around.

But I think it’s more constructive, even if on a micro scale, for me to try and relate firsthand knowledge, experience and talking through things before letting reaction get the best.

Sure that will often fail to get my point across to everyone. But I also need to stop taking bait from people who A) just want to fight and/or B) people who just put everyone on Ignore and just throw out troll posts. Talking to P on here the other day kinda gave me that epiphany.

So I’ll just keep doing what I’m doing. Who knows where it’ll go.

US judge temporarily blocks mass firings at consumer bureau

WASHINGTON, April 18 (Reuters) - A federal judge on Friday halted the mass firings carried out Thursday afternoon at the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, saying she was deeply concerned that the Trump administration had violated court orders setting conditions on dismissals.

On Thursday, the agency fired between 1,400 and 1,500 workers, eliminating as much as 90% of its workforce.

A witness statement filed Friday morning also accused senior officials and an administration official associated with billionaire Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency of disregarding the court's orders. The witness said a DOGE member also demanded staff work a 36-hour shift without breaks and verbally abused staff.

An appeals court last week ordered that firings at the CFPB could only occur after a "particularized assessment".

Mark Paoletta, the CFPB's chief legal officer, said in a sworn statement that the agency had followed court orders and had conducted a detailed assessment of staffing needs. This evaluation found that the agency's resources significantly exceeded both its needs and legal authorities, he said.

The White House and CFPB did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

President Donald Trump and Musk have called to abolish the agency, accusing it without providing evidence of politicized enforcement and waste, but administration officials have said in court the CFPB will persist in some form.

"I am deeply concerned given the scope and speed of the agency's action...about whether the agency is now in compliance with the preliminary injunction," U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson said during a hearing called after Thursday's dismissals.

Jackson ordered that Thursday's mass dismissals be suspended pending a decision on whether the government is in violation of her order. She said CFPB employees would not lose access to computer systems on Friday evening, as agency leadership had told them in Thursday's notices of dismissal.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/do...-mass-firings-statement-says-2025-04-18/

A question that should cross the mind of everyone is why would billionaires with many varied business ventures like trump and Musk try to destroy an agency specifically designed to help protect consumers?

As long as the Trump administration gets away with defying court orders we’ll be slipping down the fascist slope.

This might seem like a dumb question, but why would a president, any president, want to fire those people in the Government that are charged with protecting citizens from Scams and such...People that got over $19 Billion back for consumers. WHY?

I'm not sure what happens? What can SCOTUS (or any court) do if he continues to ignore those court orders? Can they send in the cops to arrest him? Or maybe department heads like the guy from ICE or whatever.. What's the recourse?

The recourse is to uphold the law. If someone breaks the law they must be held accountable. That isn’t happening because everyone on Capitol Hill is terrified of bully Trump, and nobody will smack him down. Nobody is above the law, nobody.

So the supreme court ruled that the sitting Potus essentially cant commit a crime while carrying out his job. So isnt it the case that he can do whatever the F he wants and crap all over any SC decision he doesnt like .... And the SC have only themselves to blame.

You are right about that.

The only recourse would be if the republicans grew a backbone and impeach him
Defying a SC order would certainly qualify as a high crime and misdemeanor

I wouldn't count on the party of "law and order" upholding the law

Clearly that isn't true

I get that is what is supposed to be. What I'm asking is what is the steps to take to hold him and his regime accountable?

Do they send a team of Law Enforcement Officers into the Oval and say, sir, you are under arrest for contempt? Is that the method?

I guess what I'm looking for are "acton items"!

I agree by the way, Nobody is Above the law... Or at least that's the way it's supposed to be.

Boy, they certainly backed themselves into a corner with that didn't they.

I don't see it as that cut and dry. The SCOTUS is the law of the land. When they determine that the POTUS has gone too far with his actions they aren't simply "part of his job" but run afoul of the law or the constitution it's obvious they don't feel such actions are just "carrying out his job".

I think we saw that with their decision that trump must facilitate getting Kilmar Abrego Garcia back from El Salvador. And it was a unanimous decision from all nine justices. Had they determined he was just doing his job such a ruling never would have been handed down. Thus far trump has shown no evidence he is complying with the SCOTUS. Now what will be done about it? Probably nothing just like every other time trump has run afoul of the law.

Thats nice and all. But the SC gave him immunity. Without someone in the administration to highlight it enforce what you wrote ... Trump is going to do what the hell he wants. Karma can be a bitch. It would be quite fitting and not at all unsurprising if a democrat in the future abuses the office as badly as Trump has done, using all the same manoeuvres and with disregard to anything except their whims.

** I should add that I agree with your sentiments. I just don't see it happening, nobody is holding Trump accountable for anything. And those that previously beat their chest about law and order and the Constitution nowadays just make excuses.

There’re will never be a democrat elected again. The trump family will continue to rule forever.