this post was submitted on 11 Jan 2024
452 points (97.1% liked)

politics

19088 readers
3866 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] hperrin@lemmy.world 189 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, while he was president. That’s the problem.

[–] BajaTacos@lemm.ee 45 points 10 months ago (1 children)

And the Supreme Court waited until he was no longer president to call it moot.

[–] OlinOfTheHillPeople@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 19 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] OlinOfTheHillPeople@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Thanks! I somehow missed that one. Since the cases were vacated, future emoluments suits can still be filed, right?

[–] quindraco@lemm.ee 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Yes, but they'll also be moot. The only saving grace here is that the way SCOTUS mooted these suits by definition can't set precedent, so once the current justices die in office there'll be hope again.

[–] Theprogressivist@lemmy.world 118 points 10 months ago (2 children)

He wiped his ass with the Emoluments Clause.

[–] theodewere@kbin.social 53 points 10 months ago (1 children)

find a Clause without Trump's shit on it, i challenge you

[–] thefartographer@lemm.ee 17 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The Santa Clause?

Wait... Tim Allen! NOOOOOOOOO!!!!

For a former drug dealer, you're pretty uncool...

[–] Gaspar@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 10 months ago

For a former drug dealer

Who snitched on his buddies, don't forget. He's always been trash. (Which, really, breaks my heart. I loved Home Improvement and The Santa Clause as a kid and I have to admit he's good in Galaxy Quest.)

Sigourney Weaver wrote it best... "Go fuck yourself, Tim"

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 26 points 10 months ago

It turns out the President can do whatever he wants as long as 34 Senators let him

[–] Chemical@lemmy.world 94 points 10 months ago (3 children)

The more we look, the more we find, the more the crazy’s love him. I don’t get it. Will be happy when he is no longer in front of my face at every turn.

[–] Wrench@lemmy.world 44 points 10 months ago (2 children)

If a Democrat does it, it's vile corruption that warrants vigilante justice. If a republican does it, it's being smart.

[–] mastefetri@infosec.pub 28 points 10 months ago

If a Democrat's son allegedly does it while not actually being in office himself, it means you have to impeach the father.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

Which, of course they don’t even believe or say that, because a logical system of ideology is not what they’re playing at. It’s just straight up smash-n-grab while the right wing propaganda flows unimpeded.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 22 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I'll be happy when he's dead or in prison.

Same, although I'd be even happier if he got a stroke which lead to locked in syndrome for a decade or so.

[–] eestileib@sh.itjust.works 11 points 10 months ago

Exactly, all this stuff is either irrelevant or a positive to Republicans.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 93 points 10 months ago (1 children)

For those wondering why this is a big deal:

US Constitution, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8:

"no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

Emolument:

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/emolument#Noun

emolument (plural emoluments)

(formal) Payment for employment or an office; compensation for a job, which is usually monetary. synonyms ▲quotations ▼Synonyms: compensation, fee, payment, remuneration

[–] AstridWipenaugh@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

I wonder how this will go down in court. It clearly says "person" and the money was paid to a corporation. Trump's businesses aren't holding any office, therefore the constitution wasn't violated. That's obviously horse shit, but they're arguing that the presidency isn't an office (CO ballot case). So if they win that it seems likely SCOTUS will drop a nuke on the emoluments clause too.

[–] Rakonat@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago (1 children)

According to Citizens United Supreme Court ruling, Corporations are people. So lets put it to the test. If you can give unlimited campaign contributions to a PAC through a corporations, than a corporation, and it's executives, would equally be liable under the law for violating the constitution.

[–] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 53 points 10 months ago

What service was he providing when they booked rooms, paid for them, but didn't use them?

[–] DigitalTraveler42@lemmy.world 45 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

"It's treason then..."

Meanwhile Left wing voters in 2024: "So this is how liberty dies . . . with thunderous applause"

[–] Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone 23 points 10 months ago (2 children)

And entirely too many lefties, "I don't like either candidate so I won't vote."

Or worse (and thankfully a much smaller number), "I'm going to let trump get power again so things can really bad really quick so we can get The Revolution™ started."

Picking the lesser of 2 evils is unfortunately how our system functions. And not voting at all ensures that the candidate you hate the most has an easier time winning. And I'd prefer if the worst candidate doesn't get power so we can actually change things for the better.

[–] TimeSquirrel@kbin.social 12 points 10 months ago (1 children)

“I’m going to let trump get power again so things can really bad really quick so we can get The Revolution™ started.”

"Revolution now?"

"Not at the moment, I have too much shit going on and I don't need to go to prison or anything for some dumb shit. There are people depending on me."

Destroys society

"How about now?"

[–] Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 10 months ago

"I can't, I've got to keep my head down to survive"

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I’m not buying that yet. I think the whole “oooh gen whatever is turning on biden” is a truckload of bullshit printed up by The Usual Suspects.

Voter participation has been very high even recently.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 5 points 10 months ago (4 children)

I will definitely vote for Biden, but his disgusting simping for Israel makes me a lot less inclined to donate money to his campaign. I might end up only donating to anti-Trump PACs instead.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] TechyDad@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

Also, it is easy to say "I'm not voting for Biden, I want someone else" right now. There aren't any consequences.

But come November and suddenly the consequences become more immediate. Many more people say they will vote third party than actually do it once in the voting booth.

[–] rubicon@lemmy.ca 35 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Can I just say that this is my absolute favorite picture of him. It's the exact same expression my kids made when they shit in their diapers.

[–] TechyDad@lemmy.world 20 points 10 months ago

I knew I recognized that expression.

"Are you pooping?"

"Nnnnnnoooo?"

"You're pooping aren't you?"

"Not anymore!"

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 33 points 10 months ago (2 children)

A rare true statement from his puckered asshole of a face.

[–] Nougat@kbin.social 33 points 10 months ago (1 children)

"I don't get $8 million for doing nothing," he said.

Yeah, we know.

[–] Techmaster@lemm.ee 16 points 10 months ago (2 children)

It's literally why the emoluments clause exists.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] thefartographer@lemm.ee 3 points 10 months ago

Tooooooooooooooot

- Trump's B-hole mouth

[–] FanciestPants@lemmy.world 31 points 10 months ago
[–] Jaysyn@kbin.social 22 points 10 months ago

Yes, destroying the democracy of the USA.

[–] cabron_offsets@lemmy.world 21 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Just a little light treason.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Chainweasel@lemmy.world 20 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The only "services" Trump provided during his presidency were under Putin's table.

[–] Techmaster@lemm.ee 7 points 10 months ago

Hey at least he didn't do it at a Beetlejuice play!

[–] wigginlsu@lemm.ee 18 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I do enjoy that he just keeps admitting to the things that he is in trouble for.

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (6 children)

He's not actually in trouble for this one, is he?

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] TheJims@lemmy.world 16 points 10 months ago

“Services”

[–] LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago

He spelled “spying” wrong

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 9 points 10 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Trump was at a Fox News town hall on Wednesday, commenting on a recent report from Democratic lawmakers on the House Oversight Committee.

The report, published on January 4, said Trump's businesses had received at least $7.8 million in foreign payments during his presidency.

Foreign governments and government-controlled entities had made payments to Trump's hotels in Washington, Las Vegas, and New York.

"President Trump never sought or received Congress's approval to keep these foreign payments, as the Constitution requires," the authors wrote.

Trump was indicted in four separate prosecutions last year and faces 91 criminal counts, ranging from falsifying business records to election interference.

Trump remains the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination, and recent polls suggest a close fight between him and President Joe Biden.


The original article contains 319 words, the summary contains 126 words. Saved 61%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] squirrelwithnut@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

So what is the current count up to now for Trump willfully and blatantly admitting to corruption and/or treason? It's in the double digits now, right?

[–] carl_dungeon@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

Yeah of course it was. He wasn’t blowing people for free.

load more comments
view more: next ›