Or it could open the door to civil forfeiture of their crime money, with enough fines, penalties, and jail time to wipe the out for life. I like my way better.
this post was submitted on 13 Apr 2026
150 points (100.0% liked)
politics
29349 readers
2123 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I wonder what repairs are the Dems willing to make, and what safeguards would they try to put in place. No optimism here.
It should lead to prison and new laws and constitutional amendments.
No new laws needed. Just enforce the emoluments clause.
Most of the protections may only require legislation from Congress rather than Amendments, thankfully. I also suspect that Congress should be able to rein in the pardon power in a meaningful way without violating the Constitution. For example, I would think that requiring congressional approval would still be constitutional.
Yeah, thanks for the news flash... I kinda got that impression when they were advertising canned beans from the oval office.
So, those electric contraptions that catch fire and don't let occupants exit are called canned beans?
Learn something new each day.
I've not purchased a single goya product since that event.
Same!
Enforcement of the emoluments clause is all it takes. Enforcement is what's failing in the US.
You need to get the sycophants out of congress first. Theyre all intentionally complicit. Ds and Rs.
Yea. It seems wild the more I think about it that either party can be the same as the president. It's become clear that people on Congress think they work FOR the president when one of their duties is explicitly checking and opposing the president.
Never again let Republican pretend to give a shit about family corruption.
Just more projection... It's almost boring how it's always fucking projection every time.
It frustrates the hell out of me that our mainstream journalists (who are actually able to interview politicians on both sides of the aisle) never ask the Republican congressmen how they feel about Trump’s blatant corruption. Why have they not asked about UAE “investing” $100s of millions in the Trump shitcoin company, and Trump immediately authorizing the sale of super high tech chips to them, which we’ve known for years would be immediately sold to China… which in fact did occur.
We need to elect someone who, among other critical traits, is comfortable with approving bills to limit their own power and the power of their successors.
I don’t believe that will actually be possible.
More likely will be a congressional supermajority forcing through such bills. At any rate there are already laws supposed to stop many of these grifts, but they are not enforced.
Yeah, there's an outside chance that we elect enough progressive candidates to force some action. Definitely unlikely though, as long as money is speech. Its like the silver spoon is a megaphone now. Or a whole news organization.
If an individual person can limit their own power, the next person will be able to strip those limitations just as easilly.
What we need is more direct democracy instead of just relying on representatives to do the right thing.
That’s not necessarily true. We would need the next president to be proactive about working with Congress to design meaningful restraints on the presidency so that they can draft the legislation and the president sign it into law. That way the next next president wouldn’t be able to unilaterally cancel all of those safeguards.
Trump didn't unilaterally cancel the safeguards, though. He spent a decade forming a government of sycophants across all three branches of government. Combine that with the recent Supreme Court (6-3 conservative) ruling that the president is essentially immune from prosecution for a crime if it's an "official act" and Congress (both branches being majority Republican) essentially giving Trump unlimited power by means of not pushing back in any meaningful way, and you get a leader who is allowed to act in a unilateral way. Without that decade of sycophancy buildup, Trump wouldn't have the ability to act unilaterally.
We need to prevent this from ever happening again, and our current system just isn't built for that. We need direct democracy. We need a hard wealth cap. We need to prevent a few people from having extreme amounts of power over a populace.
I’d like to see the ability to recall a sitting president added. Waiting for congress to step in is getting ridiculous.
And we should be able to directly pass laws, bypassing all branches of the government (including the Supreme Court).
That is fucking dangerous
So is entrusting all power to representatives, who, as we've seen many times over, inevitably become corrupt and/or drunk with power.
We have laws against treason that just need to be enforced.
They will be, but only when a Democrat takes power.
We will need to hold their feet to the fire. Restoring normalcy will not be enough. Accountability for all of the crimes of this administration is crucial. We must make sure that they know that anything less would be interpreted as them being complicit.
This is naive. Democratic leaders are also rich pieces of shit that don’t give a shit about anyone.
Well, it looks like progressive Democrats are making inroads.
BTW, the fact that these new democrats are called progressive really shows how the Democratic party are now the conservatives, and the GOP are essentially far, far right.
APNews is nothing but trump sane-washing now...
The capability had always been there but most people who reach that office understand who they're there to serve: the people, not themselves. There's also a fairly obvious conflict of interest along with it not being a particularly principled thing to do.
All of these things the orange moron lacks.
Politics has always attracted way more sleazy types than honourable types. This just fortifies that. How do we attract the honourable types, who are capable, but want nothing to do with this current bullshit?
The door's been open...
It's just trump is so bad at hiding it, everyone can notice.
The problem is most people still don't understand it's not new, just being obvious is new.
It's not new, but the nazis are 100x more egregious... even more than Bush junior, who already deserved to be tried in the hague and imprisoned for life.
It’s not new, but the nazis are 100x more egregious
Yes...
That is a different way to say exactly what I had already said
Before Trump, the president who's wealth increased the most from their time in office, was Obama.