5 ms·

The only way the US can fix our reputation will be to try and imprison our current leadership after they are eventually removed from power. And in particular, t

The only way the US can fix our reputation will be to try and imprison our current leadership after they are eventually removed from power. And in particular, the Trump family needs to have all of its assets seized.

nxm 7mo ago
Imprison based on what and seize assets based on what exactly? You not liking the administration is not a valid reason for asset seizure
- FpUser 7mo ago
  >"You not liking the administration is not a valid reason for asset seizure" Civil forfeiture would do just fine. Such a wonderful tool. /s
- _bohm 7mo ago
  Starting illegal wars and engaging in extreme corruption, for starters.
  - terminalshort 7mo ago
    The war isn't illegal. The president has that power. I don't like it either, but since the Korean War this is simply a statement of fact.
    - vrganj 7mo ago
      The president of the US does not have the power to start a war without getting it approved by the UN security council. You're arguing internal implementation details, but the legality is not determined by your courts.
      - terminalshort 7mo ago
        I care less about what the UN says is legal than I do the local traffic cop
        vrganj 7mo ago
        International law is not about what you care about. It just is. If you break it by starting a war, then it is an illegal war, ad definitionem.
    - _bohm 7mo ago
      The war is certainly illegal. Our systems are just so atrophied at this point that we treat congressional approval as a formality. This is a choice we make over and over again that we need to stop making.
      - AnimalMuppet 7mo ago
        Not even a formality. A formality means that he would get it from Congress, without Congress judging the war on merit. We don't even have that.
        _bohm 7mo ago
        Speaking not just of this administration/war but also of past ones
    - jacquesm 7mo ago
      > The war isn't illegal. You're going to have to specify a framework if you want to make statements about legality.
      - terminalshort 7mo ago
        US law, which is the only relevant law to discuss the actions of the president of the US.
        bdangubic 7mo ago
        Under which "law" is President allowed legally to start a War - citation needed :)
        terminalshort 7mo ago
        It's been the established president since the Korean War when the US began ignoring the constitutional provision that gave congress the power to declare war. Additional examples are the Vietnam War, Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq I & II, the Libyan regime change, and the current Iran conflict, and there are plenty more. The written law still states that the president does not have this power, but the actual unwritten law has been that he can. And that is the only law that matters.
        bdangubic 7mo ago
        > US began ignoring the constitutional provision First, not US but Presidency and second, breaking Constitution is not very legal last time I checked but I could be wrong... /s
        terminalshort 7mo ago
        Yes, the US and not just the presidency. If it was just the presidency then he would have been impeached by congress for usurping their constitutional authority.
    - Detrytus 7mo ago
      US constitution says that starting a war must be authorized by Congress, president has no authority to do it on his own. The problem is: over time the US grew so powerful, that the definition of "war" became blurry. "No, we are not at war, our soldiers are just dropping bombs on Iran for fun and profit". EDIT: Another problem, of course, is that current member of Congress have no balls to stand up to Trump and reclaim their constitutional powers.
      - terminalshort 7mo ago
        Congress made its mistake a long time ago. Power is very difficult to reclaim once it has been relinquished. And it didn't even take a Caesar crossing the Rubicon in our case.
    - FpUser 7mo ago
      >"The war isn't illegal. The president has that power" Well you can say the same about Putin then. All nice and dandy
      - terminalshort 7mo ago
        Of course I can. He even uses the same trick of not calling it a "war"
- aaomidi 7mo ago
  Epstein files for one
- ivan_gammel 7mo ago
  There’s probably a huge case for corruption. And of course he can be declared national threat and foreign agent. I mean, just look what Putin does within his constitutional limits. When there’s choice between the bad (block Trump and allies) and the worse (his ideas stay alive even if he is no longer in business), you have to choose something and then reflect not on what you just did, but how did you get there in the first place. Legal matters are secondary, as long as majority is convinced that justice is served.
  - terminalshort 7mo ago
    > There’s probably a huge case for corruption Yes > And of course he can be declared national threat and foreign agent There is no evidence of that he is a foreign agent and there is no legal procedure (nor should there be) for declaring someone a "national threat." > When there’s choice between the bad (block Trump and allies) and the worse (his ideas stay alive even if he is no longer in business) This is inevitable and any government that tries to act against holders of an idea is a tyranny > Legal matters are secondary, as long as majority is convinced that justice is served. That is mob justice
    - chneu 7mo ago
      There is absolutely evidence he is a foreign agent. He is likely too stupid to realize it, tho. Israel and Russia both have paper trails on him going back decades. People around trump and his businesses have deep ties to russia and that isnt private. His own sons have bragged about being close to russia. Oh, plus the eastern european wife. This isnt a conspiracy. Epstein was an israeli agent and him and trump were bffs for years. Trumps family is also heavily in debt to Russia and theyve been very open about it. You seem to be a weird trump supporter who is mildly trolling by saying false stuff like the iran war isnt illegal when it very clearly is. Your comments are either very ignorant or youre trolling. The only folks still defending trump are p silly folks. The evidence is overwhelming at this point.
      - terminalshort 7mo ago
        You can't be an agent without realizing it and you don't get to call me silly when you list having a foreign wife as evidence that someone is a foreign agent.
- JoshTriplett 7mo ago
  Open bribery and corruption (both the direct pay-for-play and the indirect via insider information), openly violating the law and ignoring the courts, betrayal of public trust, mishandling of confidential information, war crimes, take your pick of the many different choices. And the asset seizure would be for the proceeds of all the open bribery, at the very least.
  - niels8472 7mo ago
    Sadly, these are all fairly "safe" things for a US president to do. Either because there's no law against it and if there is he can just pardon himself and his partners in crime. I know a presidential self-pardon is controversial but realistically Trump will be dead before that legal question is settled.
    - mcv 7mo ago
      There should be a law against it. It's blatant corruption. The fact that lawmakers and supreme judges have the power to make their own corruption legal, doesn't make it any less corrupt. The Nazis made their crimes legal, and they were tried anyway.
      - Jensson 7mo ago
        > The Nazis made their crimes legal, and they were tried anyway. They were tried after being beaten militarily, who will lead the rebellion against Trump and the American military backing him? The military doesn't dislike what he does and those are the main ones that could oppose him.
        mcv 7mo ago
        Plenty of soldiers and veterans hate what he does. The current leadership doesn't because Trump purged them and promoted loyalists. But ultimately, it's the people of the US who have to do this. You're absolutely right that nobody else is going to do it for them.
  - 7mo ago
- fzeroracer 7mo ago
  Well, his administration has ignored the constitutional rights of this country multiple times at best, and at worst outright violated them resulting in killing American citizens with zero justice or recourse. There's a million different alternative reasons people could come up with, but we can just go with the classic 'treason' and line them up accordingly.
  - terminalshort 7mo ago
    [flagged]
- goodpoint 7mo ago
  Treason.
- InsideOutSanta 7mo ago
  It's peculiar to me that after Nixon, Americans just don't hold their presidents accountable for their illegal actions anymore. It seems like they've just given up; they no longer behave as if the president was the head of the executive branch. They behave as if he was a king with absolute power. This is such a long-standing problem that people no longer even notice the crimes happening right in front of their eyes. It's just become normal.
  - chneu 7mo ago
    Americans turned the presidency into a pop figure. Our president should be boring and relatively quiet. Congress should be our focus, not the president.
- HighGoldstein 7mo ago
  If you hold the belief that the Trump administration (and Trump himself personally) have not commited a rather long list of crimes openly, you are either willfully ignorant or complicit. I do not care if this statement irritates you in any way. After a certain point, we are firmly in the realm of personal responsibility.
- megous 7mo ago
  Who cares? Just stop enforcing laws on little guys completely, if you can't even think of what to put any of the US admin members on trial for. It's nuts that there are long complicated trials and TV series and movies about like a single person murdering one other person, yet people ask what we could even try nutjobs that murder and kill by thousands and/or support mass crimes all around the world for. Let alone all the financial crimes that are being perpetarated for sure, with all the crypto scams and insider trading on the insane volatility they themselves create and know in advance about.
jazz9k 7mo ago
[flagged]
- jjtwixman 7mo ago
  Lol they are definitely all criminals. There's no way they aren't. For starters it's common knowledge that Trump is a paedophile and a rapist. > Obama bombed kids in the Middle East You are aware that Trump is bombing Iran right now, and bombed a girl's school in particular?
- Hnrobert42 7mo ago
  False equivalence.
roenxi 7mo ago
On what principle would the Trump family's assets be seized? Just to pre-empt the idea that he corruptly became rich in office, that is actually fairly usual for US presidents to become suspiciously wealthy after their time in office [0, 1]. That's never been a reason to start talking about asset seizure. Although given the current lunatic escapade it does seem like a good moment to remove him from office. There must be someone somewhere in the administration that thinks another forever war is a bad idea, even if they aren't worried about WWIII. I've never seen a presidency implode so quickly - this has to be the most illegal, unconstitutional, unmandated, immoral and ill-advised war of choice the US has launched in decades. [0] https://www.newsweek.com/chart-shows-net-worth-us-presidents-before-after-office-1992975 https://www.newsweek.com/chart-shows-net-worth-us-presidents... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_the_United_States_by_net_worth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_the_Unit...
- soco 7mo ago
  I don't know about the rest, but Clinton when he left the presidency was actually in (legal) debt. He raised to the actual 100+ million way after his presidency, so Newsweek is presenting it wrong.
i80and 7mo ago
The absolute lack of consequences Trump faced after his first go-around all but guaranteed the crime spree we're now seeing, and will probably go down in history as the primary blunder of Biden's DOJ.
- mcv 7mo ago
  The precedent was already set by Nixon's pardon. The signal was clear: presidents suffer no consequences for their crimes.
ramon156 7mo ago
Lets also include the Rothschild and BlackRock then
mcv 7mo ago
I don't know why this is voted down, because it's absolutely true. The only way for the US to regain the lost trust is to finally clean house, hold its corrupt leadership accountable. Throw them in prison, seize their illegitimately gotten assets, reform that broken political system, and educate your people so this doesn't happen again.
srean 7mo ago
Nuremberg style judicial proceedings. Not necessarily with similar judicial executions. Fair trials and fair and exemplary punitive measures would be enough for me. I lost respect when Obama let Bush Jr administration off the hook. It essentially set the tone that it is ok to behave like that, that there would be no consequences.
- iso1631 7mo ago
  Bush wasn't great with Iraq, but it was hardly the first bad foreign policy move the US has made, and Obama wasn't squeaky clean. Jan 6th 2021 was the turning point.
  - srean 7mo ago
    Abu Ghraib, and deliberate violent destruction of a nation is a deeper offence than being "not great".
- red-iron-pine 7mo ago
  nah the world needs to see there are consequences, and that the US can be trusted to follow through on them. this kind of corruption and extortion, if in China, would see executions, e.g. https://nordictimes.com/world/china-executes-senior-official-convicted-of-corruption https://nordictimes.com/world/china-executes-senior-official...
  - srean 7mo ago
    Death sentences worry me because they are irreversible and can be abused and they have been, see Pakistan, Bangladesh. At most, old Singapore style corporeal punishment added to the mix perhaps.
    - srean 7mo ago
      I am very eager to understand the down votes. Corporeal punishment too harsh to allow in exceptional cases or too mild for the warcrimes and other crimes in question ? I will not judge the responses. Just curious.
bregma 7mo ago
Following the precedents of imprisoning and persecuting the previous regime on "corruption" charges established by the likes of much of Latin America, Pakistan, the Phillipines, and other similar countries will definitely mark the USA as a second-rate tin-pot dictatorship. Maybe the predecessor regime is corrupt. Maybe not. But the first thing the new regime always does is to arrange the show trials to establish their own bona fides.
- jacquesm 7mo ago
  They don't necessarily have to be show trials. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Yoon_Suk_Yeol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Yoon_Suk_Yeol
sschueller 7mo ago
And change the constitution to fix the issue of an administration just ignoring the law.
- chneu 7mo ago
  Lol we cant even change the electoral college. No way we amend the constitution.
Flip-per 7mo ago
It was very obvious that Trump is a highly corrupt and incompetent person at the second term election. His voters do not disappear when he is in prison, neither would the US reputation suddenly be way better. Who will these people elect next, why should anyone trust the US anymore? Imprisonment would be a good starting point though. Together with education, regulation and reforming the political system. But this takes decades.

nxm 7mo ago

Imprison based on what and seize assets based on what exactly? You not liking the administration is not a valid reason for asset seizure

FpUser 7mo ago
>"You not liking the administration is not a valid reason for asset seizure" Civil forfeiture would do just fine. Such a wonderful tool. /s
_bohm 7mo ago
Starting illegal wars and engaging in extreme corruption, for starters.
- terminalshort 7mo ago
  The war isn't illegal. The president has that power. I don't like it either, but since the Korean War this is simply a statement of fact.
  - vrganj 7mo ago
    The president of the US does not have the power to start a war without getting it approved by the UN security council. You're arguing internal implementation details, but the legality is not determined by your courts.
    - terminalshort 7mo ago
      I care less about what the UN says is legal than I do the local traffic cop
      - vrganj 7mo ago
        International law is not about what you care about. It just is. If you break it by starting a war, then it is an illegal war, ad definitionem.
  - _bohm 7mo ago
    The war is certainly illegal. Our systems are just so atrophied at this point that we treat congressional approval as a formality. This is a choice we make over and over again that we need to stop making.
    - AnimalMuppet 7mo ago
      Not even a formality. A formality means that he would get it from Congress, without Congress judging the war on merit. We don't even have that.
      - _bohm 7mo ago
        Speaking not just of this administration/war but also of past ones
  - jacquesm 7mo ago
    > The war isn't illegal. You're going to have to specify a framework if you want to make statements about legality.
    - terminalshort 7mo ago
      US law, which is the only relevant law to discuss the actions of the president of the US.
      - bdangubic 7mo ago
        Under which "law" is President allowed legally to start a War - citation needed :)
        terminalshort 7mo ago
        It's been the established president since the Korean War when the US began ignoring the constitutional provision that gave congress the power to declare war. Additional examples are the Vietnam War, Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq I & II, the Libyan regime change, and the current Iran conflict, and there are plenty more. The written law still states that the president does not have this power, but the actual unwritten law has been that he can. And that is the only law that matters.
        bdangubic 7mo ago
        > US began ignoring the constitutional provision First, not US but Presidency and second, breaking Constitution is not very legal last time I checked but I could be wrong... /s
        terminalshort 7mo ago
        Yes, the US and not just the presidency. If it was just the presidency then he would have been impeached by congress for usurping their constitutional authority.
  - Detrytus 7mo ago
    US constitution says that starting a war must be authorized by Congress, president has no authority to do it on his own. The problem is: over time the US grew so powerful, that the definition of "war" became blurry. "No, we are not at war, our soldiers are just dropping bombs on Iran for fun and profit". EDIT: Another problem, of course, is that current member of Congress have no balls to stand up to Trump and reclaim their constitutional powers.
    - terminalshort 7mo ago
      Congress made its mistake a long time ago. Power is very difficult to reclaim once it has been relinquished. And it didn't even take a Caesar crossing the Rubicon in our case.
  - FpUser 7mo ago
    >"The war isn't illegal. The president has that power" Well you can say the same about Putin then. All nice and dandy
    - terminalshort 7mo ago
      Of course I can. He even uses the same trick of not calling it a "war"
aaomidi 7mo ago
Epstein files for one
ivan_gammel 7mo ago
There’s probably a huge case for corruption. And of course he can be declared national threat and foreign agent. I mean, just look what Putin does within his constitutional limits. When there’s choice between the bad (block Trump and allies) and the worse (his ideas stay alive even if he is no longer in business), you have to choose something and then reflect not on what you just did, but how did you get there in the first place. Legal matters are secondary, as long as majority is convinced that justice is served.
- terminalshort 7mo ago
  > There’s probably a huge case for corruption Yes > And of course he can be declared national threat and foreign agent There is no evidence of that he is a foreign agent and there is no legal procedure (nor should there be) for declaring someone a "national threat." > When there’s choice between the bad (block Trump and allies) and the worse (his ideas stay alive even if he is no longer in business) This is inevitable and any government that tries to act against holders of an idea is a tyranny > Legal matters are secondary, as long as majority is convinced that justice is served. That is mob justice
  - chneu 7mo ago
    There is absolutely evidence he is a foreign agent. He is likely too stupid to realize it, tho. Israel and Russia both have paper trails on him going back decades. People around trump and his businesses have deep ties to russia and that isnt private. His own sons have bragged about being close to russia. Oh, plus the eastern european wife. This isnt a conspiracy. Epstein was an israeli agent and him and trump were bffs for years. Trumps family is also heavily in debt to Russia and theyve been very open about it. You seem to be a weird trump supporter who is mildly trolling by saying false stuff like the iran war isnt illegal when it very clearly is. Your comments are either very ignorant or youre trolling. The only folks still defending trump are p silly folks. The evidence is overwhelming at this point.
    - terminalshort 7mo ago
      You can't be an agent without realizing it and you don't get to call me silly when you list having a foreign wife as evidence that someone is a foreign agent.
JoshTriplett 7mo ago
Open bribery and corruption (both the direct pay-for-play and the indirect via insider information), openly violating the law and ignoring the courts, betrayal of public trust, mishandling of confidential information, war crimes, take your pick of the many different choices. And the asset seizure would be for the proceeds of all the open bribery, at the very least.
- niels8472 7mo ago
  Sadly, these are all fairly "safe" things for a US president to do. Either because there's no law against it and if there is he can just pardon himself and his partners in crime. I know a presidential self-pardon is controversial but realistically Trump will be dead before that legal question is settled.
  - mcv 7mo ago
    There should be a law against it. It's blatant corruption. The fact that lawmakers and supreme judges have the power to make their own corruption legal, doesn't make it any less corrupt. The Nazis made their crimes legal, and they were tried anyway.
    - Jensson 7mo ago
      > The Nazis made their crimes legal, and they were tried anyway. They were tried after being beaten militarily, who will lead the rebellion against Trump and the American military backing him? The military doesn't dislike what he does and those are the main ones that could oppose him.
      - mcv 7mo ago
        Plenty of soldiers and veterans hate what he does. The current leadership doesn't because Trump purged them and promoted loyalists. But ultimately, it's the people of the US who have to do this. You're absolutely right that nobody else is going to do it for them.
- 7mo ago
fzeroracer 7mo ago
Well, his administration has ignored the constitutional rights of this country multiple times at best, and at worst outright violated them resulting in killing American citizens with zero justice or recourse. There's a million different alternative reasons people could come up with, but we can just go with the classic 'treason' and line them up accordingly.
- terminalshort 7mo ago
  [flagged]
goodpoint 7mo ago
Treason.
InsideOutSanta 7mo ago
It's peculiar to me that after Nixon, Americans just don't hold their presidents accountable for their illegal actions anymore. It seems like they've just given up; they no longer behave as if the president was the head of the executive branch. They behave as if he was a king with absolute power. This is such a long-standing problem that people no longer even notice the crimes happening right in front of their eyes. It's just become normal.
- chneu 7mo ago
  Americans turned the presidency into a pop figure. Our president should be boring and relatively quiet. Congress should be our focus, not the president.
HighGoldstein 7mo ago
If you hold the belief that the Trump administration (and Trump himself personally) have not commited a rather long list of crimes openly, you are either willfully ignorant or complicit. I do not care if this statement irritates you in any way. After a certain point, we are firmly in the realm of personal responsibility.
megous 7mo ago
Who cares? Just stop enforcing laws on little guys completely, if you can't even think of what to put any of the US admin members on trial for. It's nuts that there are long complicated trials and TV series and movies about like a single person murdering one other person, yet people ask what we could even try nutjobs that murder and kill by thousands and/or support mass crimes all around the world for. Let alone all the financial crimes that are being perpetarated for sure, with all the crypto scams and insider trading on the insane volatility they themselves create and know in advance about.

jazz9k 7mo ago

[flagged]

jjtwixman 7mo ago
Lol they are definitely all criminals. There's no way they aren't. For starters it's common knowledge that Trump is a paedophile and a rapist. > Obama bombed kids in the Middle East You are aware that Trump is bombing Iran right now, and bombed a girl's school in particular?
Hnrobert42 7mo ago
False equivalence.

roenxi 7mo ago

On what principle would the Trump family's assets be seized? Just to pre-empt the idea that he corruptly became rich in office, that is actually fairly usual for US presidents to become suspiciously wealthy after their time in office [0, 1]. That's never been a reason to start talking about asset seizure. Although given the current lunatic escapade it does seem like a good moment to remove him from office. There must be someone somewhere in the administration that thinks another forever war is a bad idea, even if they aren't worried about WWIII. I've never seen a presidency implode so quickly - this has to be the most illegal, unconstitutional, unmandated, immoral and ill-advised war of choice the US has launched in decades. [0] https://www.newsweek.com/chart-shows-net-worth-us-presidents-before-after-office-1992975 https://www.newsweek.com/chart-shows-net-worth-us-presidents... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_the_United_States_by_net_worth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_the_Unit...

soco 7mo ago
I don't know about the rest, but Clinton when he left the presidency was actually in (legal) debt. He raised to the actual 100+ million way after his presidency, so Newsweek is presenting it wrong.

i80and 7mo ago

The absolute lack of consequences Trump faced after his first go-around all but guaranteed the crime spree we're now seeing, and will probably go down in history as the primary blunder of Biden's DOJ.

mcv 7mo ago
The precedent was already set by Nixon's pardon. The signal was clear: presidents suffer no consequences for their crimes.

ramon156 7mo ago

Lets also include the Rothschild and BlackRock then

mcv 7mo ago

I don't know why this is voted down, because it's absolutely true. The only way for the US to regain the lost trust is to finally clean house, hold its corrupt leadership accountable. Throw them in prison, seize their illegitimately gotten assets, reform that broken political system, and educate your people so this doesn't happen again.

srean 7mo ago

Nuremberg style judicial proceedings. Not necessarily with similar judicial executions. Fair trials and fair and exemplary punitive measures would be enough for me. I lost respect when Obama let Bush Jr administration off the hook. It essentially set the tone that it is ok to behave like that, that there would be no consequences.

iso1631 7mo ago
Bush wasn't great with Iraq, but it was hardly the first bad foreign policy move the US has made, and Obama wasn't squeaky clean. Jan 6th 2021 was the turning point.
- srean 7mo ago
  Abu Ghraib, and deliberate violent destruction of a nation is a deeper offence than being "not great".
red-iron-pine 7mo ago
nah the world needs to see there are consequences, and that the US can be trusted to follow through on them. this kind of corruption and extortion, if in China, would see executions, e.g. https://nordictimes.com/world/china-executes-senior-official-convicted-of-corruption https://nordictimes.com/world/china-executes-senior-official...
- srean 7mo ago
  Death sentences worry me because they are irreversible and can be abused and they have been, see Pakistan, Bangladesh. At most, old Singapore style corporeal punishment added to the mix perhaps.
  - srean 7mo ago
    I am very eager to understand the down votes. Corporeal punishment too harsh to allow in exceptional cases or too mild for the warcrimes and other crimes in question ? I will not judge the responses. Just curious.

bregma 7mo ago

Following the precedents of imprisoning and persecuting the previous regime on "corruption" charges established by the likes of much of Latin America, Pakistan, the Phillipines, and other similar countries will definitely mark the USA as a second-rate tin-pot dictatorship. Maybe the predecessor regime is corrupt. Maybe not. But the first thing the new regime always does is to arrange the show trials to establish their own bona fides.

jacquesm 7mo ago
They don't necessarily have to be show trials. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Yoon_Suk_Yeol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Yoon_Suk_Yeol

sschueller 7mo ago

And change the constitution to fix the issue of an administration just ignoring the law.

chneu 7mo ago
Lol we cant even change the electoral college. No way we amend the constitution.

Flip-per 7mo ago

It was very obvious that Trump is a highly corrupt and incompetent person at the second term election. His voters do not disappear when he is in prison, neither would the US reputation suddenly be way better. Who will these people elect next, why should anyone trust the US anymore? Imprisonment would be a good starting point though. Together with education, regulation and reforming the political system. But this takes decades.