this post was submitted on 17 Feb 2024
380 points (95.7% liked)

politics

18651 readers
3415 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
 

Two recent verdicts have now left Donald Trump on the hook for nearly half a billion dollars.

On Friday, a New York judge handed the former president a $355 million penalty, and banned him from serving in a leadership position in any business in New York for three years, for fraudulently inflating his net worth to lenders in order to receive more favorable loan agreements. And in January, a Manhattan jury ordered Trump to pay the writer E. Jean Carroll $83.3 million for defaming her after she accused him of raping her. (A separate jury in May had found Trump liable for sexually abusing Carroll in the 1990s.)

“It’s pretty scary from an ethics perspective,” said Virginia Canter, the chief ethics counsel at the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a nonpartisan watchdog group that has chronicled Trump’s abuses of power and filed lawsuits against him.

You don’t have to look far to find the reasons why. Trump’s first term was riddled with conflicts of interest, and that’s in no small part because of his financial well-being (or lack thereof, depending on how you look at it). At the time that he tried to overturn the 2020 election, he was hundreds of millions of dollars in debt, largely stemming from loans to help rehabilitate his struggling businesses, and most of which would be coming due over the subsequent four years. Throughout his presidency, he refused to divest from his businesses, which made millions of dollars in revenue from taxpayers and continued to do work with other countries while he was in office — a practice he indicated he would repeat in a second term.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 14 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The funniest thing is that he could have replenished his coffers on Inauguration Day with one phone call to the Saudi embassy.

"Hey, here's the deal. $20 billion in my account by tomorrow night, or I call for the Green New Deal AND accuse you guys of being part of 9/11."

Even Fredo Corleone could have handled that.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 6 months ago (5 children)

And when that recorded call is leaked? It would be damning enough Republicans might consider impeachment.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago

The leaked bribery call he made to Ukraine resulted in impeachment, but because Democrats were in charge. His trial in the Senate found he wasn't guilty. And ever since, Republicans have been trying to get revenge.

So I have no idea why you think that.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago

Oh, don't be so dramatic. Americans don't do shit about corruption in their government unless it's a blowie from an intern.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago

I mean, I am thoroughly unconvinced that any amount of damning evidence will erode his suppose among Republicans. He just has to keep running the same plays and claim it's "fake news", that it was some kind of deep fake, let QAnon float around a conspiracy, or even at this point maybe even sit back and let the base contort itself from condemning the move to hailing it as a political master stroke of putting pressure on an American adversary.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago

Are we talking about the same republicans?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago

Now you're just nitpicking. A few minutes consideration could come up with dozens of ways of securely getting the message across.