And now the Kennedy Center

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cant someone stop this?????

I mean, if nobody is going to perform at the Kennedy Center and nobody is going to buy any tickets, can they really afford to leave it open?

The issue isn't that it will be closed -- it's what he plans to do with it. He's talking about using the steel girders, suggesting he plans to tear it down.

I think we all knew this was the plan all along, right?

It’s prime real estate. I understand he/Kushner want to flip the property into condos.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quick reminder that there is actual legislation that dictates what can be done with the Kennedy Center: the JFK Center Act. The name is set by federal statute, so changes typically require an act of Congress. Major shutdowns or extensive renovations often need congressional approval for funding and oversight.

Key Provisions of the JFK Center Act:

*Setup & Name: Bureau of Smithsonian; named "John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts" as national memorial to JFK (sole one in D.C.); changes require Congress.

*Board: Oversees ops, programs, maintenance; includes presidential appointees, Congress members, etc.

*Duties/Powers: Promote arts; manage site/events; accept gifts; major renos/expansions need congressional approval/funding.

*Funding: Annual appropriations for ops/maintenance/capital; big projects via Congress.

Someone needs to sue the Trump administration on behalf of the Kennedy Center.

They need to sue ASAP and get an injunction. Trump will bring the sledgehammers before you know it.

This is what I don't understand: why doesn't anyone ever sue him directly? He's ready to sue Jimmy Kimmel and Trevor Noah and now is suing HIS OWN DOJ due to tax records etc. Why doesn't someone with standing (Kennedy family, Dem congressmen/women etc.) sue him for illegal defacement of building and get injunction to prevent renovations?

Money. Decades ago, he would stiff contractors. He’d refuse to pay them. The contractors would threaten to sue, tnen realize how much this process might eventually cost. They would then settle for pennies. Same method. Trump would love the lawsuits, especially when he’s not spending his own hard earned dollars — but ours, and has the Supreme Court in his pocket. The Kennedy Center is an American icon, PP. If you’re an American, you could sue. What’s stopping you? Probably the same things that are stopping the people you’re hoping would take this on.

As horrible as this is, it’s also serving as a distraction from demanding that ALL of the Epstein files be released.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quick reminder that there is actual legislation that dictates what can be done with the Kennedy Center: the JFK Center Act. The name is set by federal statute, so changes typically require an act of Congress. Major shutdowns or extensive renovations often need congressional approval for funding and oversight.

Key Provisions of the JFK Center Act:

*Setup & Name: Bureau of Smithsonian; named "John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts" as national memorial to JFK (sole one in D.C.); changes require Congress.

*Board: Oversees ops, programs, maintenance; includes presidential appointees, Congress members, etc.

*Duties/Powers: Promote arts; manage site/events; accept gifts; major renos/expansions need congressional approval/funding.

*Funding: Annual appropriations for ops/maintenance/capital; big projects via Congress.

Someone needs to sue the Trump administration on behalf of the Kennedy Center.

They need to sue ASAP and get an injunction. Trump will bring the sledgehammers before you know it.

This is what I don't understand: why doesn't anyone ever sue him directly? He's ready to sue Jimmy Kimmel and Trevor Noah and now is suing HIS OWN DOJ due to tax records etc. Why doesn't someone with standing (Kennedy family, Dem congressmen/women etc.) sue him for illegal defacement of building and get injunction to prevent renovations?

The NSO might have standing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quick reminder that there is actual legislation that dictates what can be done with the Kennedy Center: the JFK Center Act. The name is set by federal statute, so changes typically require an act of Congress. Major shutdowns or extensive renovations often need congressional approval for funding and oversight.

Key Provisions of the JFK Center Act:

*Setup & Name: Bureau of Smithsonian; named "John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts" as national memorial to JFK (sole one in D.C.); changes require Congress.

*Board: Oversees ops, programs, maintenance; includes presidential appointees, Congress members, etc.

*Duties/Powers: Promote arts; manage site/events; accept gifts; major renos/expansions need congressional approval/funding.

*Funding: Annual appropriations for ops/maintenance/capital; big projects via Congress.

Someone needs to sue the Trump administration on behalf of the Kennedy Center.

They need to sue ASAP and get an injunction. Trump will bring the sledgehammers before you know it.

This is what I don't understand: why doesn't anyone ever sue him directly? He's ready to sue Jimmy Kimmel and Trevor Noah and now is suing HIS OWN DOJ due to tax records etc. Why doesn't someone with standing (Kennedy family, Dem congressmen/women etc.) sue him for illegal defacement of building and get injunction to prevent renovations?

The NSO might have standing.

They should talk to the lawyers for Lord & Taylor who sued the Lerners for tearing down White Flint around them when they still had a valid lease there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quick reminder that there is actual legislation that dictates what can be done with the Kennedy Center: the JFK Center Act. The name is set by federal statute, so changes typically require an act of Congress. Major shutdowns or extensive renovations often need congressional approval for funding and oversight.

Key Provisions of the JFK Center Act:

*Setup & Name: Bureau of Smithsonian; named "John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts" as national memorial to JFK (sole one in D.C.); changes require Congress.

*Board: Oversees ops, programs, maintenance; includes presidential appointees, Congress members, etc.

*Duties/Powers: Promote arts; manage site/events; accept gifts; major renos/expansions need congressional approval/funding.

*Funding: Annual appropriations for ops/maintenance/capital; big projects via Congress.

Someone needs to sue the Trump administration on behalf of the Kennedy Center.

They need to sue ASAP and get an injunction. Trump will bring the sledgehammers before you know it.

This is what I don't understand: why doesn't anyone ever sue him directly? He's ready to sue Jimmy Kimmel and Trevor Noah and now is suing HIS OWN DOJ due to tax records etc. Why doesn't someone with standing (Kennedy family, Dem congressmen/women etc.) sue him for illegal defacement of building and get injunction to prevent renovations?

Money. Decades ago, he would stiff contractors. He’d refuse to pay them. The contractors would threaten to sue, tnen realize how much this process might eventually cost. They would then settle for pennies. Same method. Trump would love the lawsuits, especially when he’s not spending his own hard earned dollars — but ours, and has the Supreme Court in his pocket. The Kennedy Center is an American icon, PP. If you’re an American, you could sue. What’s stopping you? Probably the same things that are stopping the people you’re hoping would take this on.

As horrible as this is, it’s also serving as a distraction from demanding that ALL of the Epstein files be released.

Well the Kennedys - and tons of big Dem donors - certainly have that. Point is to run his playbook - run out the clock and keep him from starting. Our judicial system is glacial at best and Trump has mastered kicking can down the road. Take $10m from DNC coffers and pick a real fight, something the public can understand and almost universally supports.

[Anonymous]

Can we do a class action by the citizens of the DC region? It seems like we're all negatively impacted by the elimination of this building and venue.

[Anonymous]

Is there a way to shift the legal liability to the contractors? If a contractor agrees to demolish the KC without proper legislative approval, could they be open to lawsuits? If every contractor understood that they'd be opening themselves up to massive liability, the White House might be stymied for a while.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there a way to shift the legal liability to the contractors? If a contractor agrees to demolish the KC without proper legislative approval, could they be open to lawsuits? If every contractor understood that they'd be opening themselves up to massive liability, the White House might be stymied for a while.

Good call. Or at least make some noise in the press about plans to do that ASAP because we know Donnie loves a wrecking ball.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can we do a class action by the citizens of the DC region? It seems like we're all negatively impacted by the elimination of this building and venue.

Just wait until he moves forward (likely next month) with his plans to build Arc de Trump near Memorial Bridge, completely overshadowing the Lincoln Memorial and blocking Arlington Cemetary. 250ft monument to himself built on National Park Service land. Anyone going to take any action then? Or just state their "concerns"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a way to shift the legal liability to the contractors? If a contractor agrees to demolish the KC without proper legislative approval, could they be open to lawsuits? If every contractor understood that they'd be opening themselves up to massive liability, the White House might be stymied for a while.

Good call. Or at least make some noise in the press about plans to do that ASAP because we know Donnie loves a wrecking ball.

This. Contractors need to know ASAP that they will be in the crosshairs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a way to shift the legal liability to the contractors? If a contractor agrees to demolish the KC without proper legislative approval, could they be open to lawsuits? If every contractor understood that they'd be opening themselves up to massive liability, the White House might be stymied for a while.

Good call. Or at least make some noise in the press about plans to do that ASAP because we know Donnie loves a wrecking ball.

This. Contractors need to know ASAP that they will be in the crosshairs.

This may be the most effective route. I wish we could threaten them with jail time but I'd take massive liability. Make it absolute poison to go along.

[Anonymous]

CNN: “the Kennedy Center does not have a 2026/2027 season. There would not have been any programming to announce."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a way to shift the legal liability to the contractors? If a contractor agrees to demolish the KC without proper legislative approval, could they be open to lawsuits? If every contractor understood that they'd be opening themselves up to massive liability, the White House might be stymied for a while.

Good call. Or at least make some noise in the press about plans to do that ASAP because we know Donnie loves a wrecking ball.

This. Contractors need to know ASAP that they will be in the crosshairs.

This may be the most effective route. I wish we could threaten them with jail time but I'd take massive liability. Make it absolute poison to go along.

Research derivative sovereign immunity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
CNN: “the Kennedy Center does not have a 2026/2027 season. There would not have been any programming to announce."

Wouldn’t at least the NSO have plans there? At least dates if the full programs are not decided yet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a way to shift the legal liability to the contractors? If a contractor agrees to demolish the KC without proper legislative approval, could they be open to lawsuits? If every contractor understood that they'd be opening themselves up to massive liability, the White House might be stymied for a while.

Good call. Or at least make some noise in the press about plans to do that ASAP because we know Donnie loves a wrecking ball.

This. Contractors need to know ASAP that they will be in the crosshairs.

This may be the most effective route. I wish we could threaten them with jail time but I'd take massive liability. Make it absolute poison to go along.

Research derivative sovereign immunity.

Does derivative sovereign immunity actually shield the contractor if the direction from the government violates Federal law? To quote from a legal site: "Yearsley immunity emanates from Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Const. Co., an 80-year-old Supreme Court decision, which established that a contractor is immune when (i) it performed acts pursuant to a valid authorization of Congress and (ii) the contractor did not exceed the scope of that authority."