Can the company doing the actual destruction of OUR HOUSE be sued?

[niyad]

There must be any number of grounds to do so. Any REALLLLLLLY hungry, pissed lawyers out there?

[Walleye]

1. Trump is going to keep breaking stuff and fucking up our government until the Republicans in Congress grow a spine.

[chicoescuela]

3. that will be never

[Walleye]

5. Exactly, we need to make their lives miserable until they get some courage

I don’t know how exactly. Ridicule seems to help.

[haele]

2. Probably a fly by night Mob popup company

It's going to be a non-GSA bid, his "Billionaire friends" paid for the company that's doing it .

[Emile]

4. Trump would just pardon them.

[Ocelot II]

8. The question had to do with civil litigation, not a pardon for a crime,

so that wouldn't be relevant. But of course if there were criminal charges he'd pardon them. If he'd pardon George Santos he'd pardon anybody.

[Ocelot II]

6. The contractor was acting at the direction of the entity that calls itself the president.

What he (the entity) has done is probably illegal since "the demolition violates federal preservation law because no agency approval or budget authorization exists to alter the White House during a government shutdown. The National Park Service, which manages the property, and the National Capital Planning Commission, which reviews construction on federal grounds, are both shuttered and cannot issue permits or oversight. Without those clearances, they said, the work proceeds without lawful authority — making the demolition itself illegal under federal statute." https://www.milwaukeeindependent.com/newswire/construction-crews-demolish-part-white-house-without-approval-build-trumps-royal-ballroom/. Unfortunately, this DoJ will not enforce those laws, and Himself is likely to issue an EO conferring authority to proceed. If the contractor acts under the belief that the work was lawful they are probably off the hook as far as litigation goes. Also, there's the question of who has standing to act as plaintiff, since taxpayers don't have it.

[GoCubsGo]

7. I prefer to see them locked up on vandalism charges.

The work is being done illegally, and they're an accessory to this crime.

[niyad]

9. "vandalism" makes it sound like tp'ing or egging a house, not the utter

destruction of OUR HOUSE that this deesecration is.

[Irish_Dem]

10. I wondered the same. Destruction of a priceless historical building.

It is a CRIME.

[Retrograde]

11. Do they have a permit

for the work they’re doing? Most cities require one for demolition as well as construction . Moreover, the building does not belong to the person who hired them, which is a whole other can of worms

[niyad]

12. From what I am hearing, NO, they do not. Nor do they have NPS approval

for the new construction.

[tritsofme]

13. I can't think of any party who has suffered a particularized injury who would have standing to sue.

[niyad]

14. Oh, I am certain some really good attorneys can figure it out.

[leftstreet]

15. Is there a White House Historical Association?

Preservation society? Anything?

Emergency injunction, because Trump could probably be sued for fraud. He claimed this wouldn't impact any existing structure

[Ocelot II]

16. Standing is a major hurdle. Taxpayers don't have it

and I'm not sure who else would.