6 ms·
Imprison based on what and seize assets based on what exactly? You not liking the administration is not a valid reason for asset seizure
by 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 agoStarting illegal wars and engaging in extreme corruption, for starters.
- terminalshort 7mo agoThe 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 agoThe 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 agoI care less about what the UN says is legal than I do the local traffic cop
- vrganj 7mo agoInternational 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 agoThe 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 agoNot 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 agoSpeaking 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 agoUS law, which is the only relevant law to discuss the actions of the president of the US.
- bdangubic 7mo agoUnder which "law" is President allowed legally to start a War - citation needed :)
- terminalshort 7mo agoIt'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 agoYes, 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 agoUS 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 agoCongress 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 agoOf course I can. He even uses the same trick of not calling it a "war"
- aaomidi 7mo agoEpstein files for one
- ivan_gammel 7mo agoThere’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 agoThere 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 agoYou 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 agoOpen 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 agoSadly, 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 agoThere 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 agoPlenty 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 agoWell, 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 agoTreason.
- InsideOutSanta 7mo agoIt'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 agoAmericans 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 agoIf 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 agoWho 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.