I wonder if civil forfeiture will work against Trump once he's out of office. Trump's net worth before becoming President was under US$1 billion. Now it's over 6 billion. A civil claim for the difference based on the Emoluments Acts.
"The Foreign Emoluments Clause bars the president and other federal officials from accepting “any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State” without the consent of Congress. It reflects the framers’ desire to prevent federal officials from succumbing to foreign influence.
The Domestic Emoluments Clause provides for the president to receive a fixed salary and bars him from receiving “any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.” It was designed to insulate the president against undo pressure from Congress or any individual state."
[1] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/emol...
You dont live in a country where Rule of Law matters anymore.
[dead]
Rule of law? Anymore? No president has ever been punished in any meaningful capacity in our entire history. Washington used loopholes to avoid setting his slaves free[1] for christ sake.
[1]: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/george-washington-...
What about Nixon’s impeachment and resignation? What about Trump being a convicted felon 5 ways to Sunday (yes they overturned this since he won again, but I doubt it would have gone this direction if he’d lost.)
1. There is no downside to impeachment. It has the same impact as a strongly worded letter. 2. Nixon decided to resign and not the alternative for doing something so insane: A restoration of damages. 3. Like I said, they were overturned. I mean even the NYT was trying to figure out the result: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/23/nyregion/trump-trial-hush...
The reality is the system will bend itself to avoid the problem, because it's been designed to avoid that problem.
How much time did Nixon spend in prison? Or did he opt to be caned instead?
No, this is pretty squarely outside the scope, and only specific amounts received from in-scope parties (i.e. governments) would be subject. And there's a standing issue. Basically the emoluments clause doesn't have real teeth for most purposes, even where it applies.
> only specific amounts received from in-scope parties
Like Quatar and the used 747.
It should apply there, though the first Trump admin argued a very narrow interpretation that mostly exempts the president in the first term, at the end of which the case was declared moot (leaving us in suspense about what SCOTUS would have said). Great commentary on emoluments and needed reforms in light of this here: https://www.execfunctions.org/p/trump-20-and-the-foreign-emo...
I hope so. That way we can rebuild the White House the way it was and pay for it by seizing Mar-a-Lago and selling it off.
Trump is a corrupt idiot and a terrible president, but the White House controversy is dumb too. I'm sure the addition will be ugly like everything Trump builds, but that building is not exactly a historic artifact that mustn't be mutated. It's been gutted more than once.
Bit like suggesting the controversy over bombing boats in the Caribbean is dumb because the U.S. has bombed ships before. The way it's happening is completely unprecedented and absurd.
Comparing extra judicial murders to tearing down part of a building is absurd, please get a grip.
Of course murder is worse. I didn't suggest otherwise. I was responding to the claim that "the White House controversy is dumb" because the building has been modified before. Flagrantly violating the law while blowing a half a billion dollars in transparent bribes on a vanity project while the government is shutdown is beyond outrageous. It's not "dumb" that it's a controversy. It would, in any other administration, be a slam-dunk impeachable offense.
Agreed. They saw how successful the silly rose garden thing was at diverting attention away from serious issues (Epstein files) and will happily keep pulling that lever until it stops working.
My main issue is how Trump said one thing and did another:
> “It won’t interfere with the current building,” Trump said on July 31. “It’ll be near it, but not touching it, and pays total respect to the existing building, which I’m the biggest fan of.” - NBC
It seems probable he ignored any number of laws about how he did it, too.
Just imagine if Biden did this.
> I'm sure the addition will be ugly like everything Trump builds
Maybe it will serve as a reminder
It would work in a situation involving Supreme Court-packing, and that’s about it
I suspect Trump will leave office in a box, not on his feet. Such a civil claim would then have to be against his estate, which probably complicates things.
It would be against whomever is in possession of the stolen wealth, which will not likely be his estate. And yes, this should be a priority of any platform for rebuilding our country. Justice needs to be served. And by the time we're finally rid of these America-last fuckers, people still supporting the Trumps are going to be as rare as people still supporting the Iraq War.
I'd love to believe you--yet folks support the cult of personality and forget the policies. It's not hard to find people that'll say Nixon should've stayed in office, and Reagan might as well have his own religion.
> I wonder if civil forfeiture will work against Trump once he's out of office.
He's only out of office if he dies. There's no way he's leaving voluntarily.
[flagged]
Why not start with the obvious example and collect the whatsbouts during the trial.
Yes, and everybody who enriches themselves using their political positions. These jobs are as public servants. They're supposed to be working for the people. That's why the emoluments clause is there.
Interestingly I have never seen someone with a Pelosi hat, shirt, or mural painted on the side of their RV.
I don't think there would be much outcry from either side if Pelosi, along with others who did the same things, were to be blocked by new legislation or prosecuted for breaking existing law.
Although the Domestic Emoluments Clause currently applies specifically to the President, so we would likely need new legislation to generally prevent things like congressional insider trading.
This not the "gotcha" you think it is; yes, we should get anyone that is committing a crime. Nobody is deifying Pelosi as some god above the law.
> Why would we want to?
Because crimes should be prosecuted.
> Should we do the same to her?
Obviously yes. Why would we give a damn? See also: Epstein files & Clinton. Release them, round him & the rest of them up.
Yes.
(And I say that as a Democrat in California)
It really does seem like folks on the right assume that people who vote Democrat have a lot more love for Democrats than we actually do. The whole Bill Clinton in the Epstein files thing is another example—like yeah man let him hang.
There's very little loyalty, there's some truth to the party being a bunch of minorities nervously huddled around the DNC for warmth.
Some people treat politics like a tribal sport where "morally OK" is determined solely by which team did it.
Their mental model of the "other side" is someone who is similarly team-driven.
These folks get really confused when "whatabout your team?" falls flat on people who want to live by principles or morality, rather than hat color.
It's also a rhetorical trick. The moment you admit "Yes, Bill Clinton should go to jail if he's on the list," they will start to pester you, "You admitted Clinton should also go to jail, so why are you only protesting Trump? You hypocrite!"
I think it's best not to engage. These people aren't here for logical arguments, and they won't be persuaded by logic.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Yeah I agree, we should be holding the ruling class accountable for building generational wealth while average Americans can barely afford basics.
Every time someone digs into this, it turns out Pelosi’s large wealth is much more tied to buying SF real estate long before the tech boom sent the real estate prices soaring. It doesn’t take insider trading for someone to have gotten rich in the SF real estate market. Plenty of people became millionaires just by owning a condo they bought in the 1970’s. It is no surprise that someone whose career has been real estate investing in SF since the 1960’s made some money…
i beg you to reject the team-sports political mentality.
yes, we should absolutely do the same to her. why would you bring up nancy pelosi when no one else has?
Not just yes, but fuck yes we should.