this post was submitted on 11 Jan 2024

237 points (96.5% liked)

AntiTrumpAlliance

1132 readers

265 users here now

About

An alliance among all who oppose Donald Trump's actions, positions, cabinet, supporters, policies, or motives. This alliance includes anyone from the left or the right; anyone from any religion or lack thereof; anyone from any country or state; any man, woman or child.

Rules

-No pro-Trump posts or comments

-No off topic posts

-Be civil

-No trolling

-Follow Lemmy terms of service

Social Media

Discord

Other Communities

!desantisthreatensusa@lemmy.world

!antifascism@midwest.social

!politicus@kbin.social

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world

amnesiac7@midwest.social

Zealousideal_Fox900@lemmy.world

237

Trump Admits He Was “Doing Services” for Foreign Governments Who Paid Him (newrepublic.com)

submitted 2 years ago by amnesiac7@midwest.social to c/antitrumpalliance@lemmy.world

30 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 36 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] GuyDudeman@lemmy.world 66 points 2 years ago

I... worked on this story for years... and he just... he tweeted it out.

[–] Fridgeratr@lemmy.world 39 points 2 years ago (1 children)

[–] jantin@lemmy.world 27 points 2 years ago

I don't get $8 million for doing nothing

Aaand there goes the last credible line of defense: that his only connection was ownership and he was detached from operations and books of the company. But alas.

[–] Steelmonkey@lemmy.world 26 points 2 years ago (1 children)

There's a word for that it's on the tip of my tongue

[–] Bdtrngl@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Does it start with a T and end with reason?

[–] PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world 18 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Technically it would be emolument. Luckily, there is an emoluments clause in the constitution, (Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 8) which explains that the president isn’t allowed to accept emoluments from foreign powers while in office. And the man just told on himself on Twitter.

[–] quindraco@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago

If only SCOTUS hadn't ruled that the emoluments clause is moot.

[–] Raz@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago

It's treason, then...

[+] MotoAsh@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

[deleted]

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Everybody like to trot that word out, but is unable to define a legal "enemy". I consider Russia a fucking enemy, hate their guts, but legally and diplomatically, they're not that.

[–] Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/4302

It’s pretty clearly defined.

The word “enemy,” as used herein, shall be deemed to mean, for the purposes of such trading and of this chapter— (a) Any individual, partnership, or other body of individuals, of any nationality, resident within the territory (including that occupied by the military and naval forces) of any nation with which the United States is at war, or resident outside the United States and doing business within such territory, and any corporation incorporated within such territory of any nation with which the United States is at war or incorporated within any country other than the United States and doing business within such territory.

[–] Can_you_change_your_username@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

We're still at war with North Korea. There is a declared ceasefire that has mostly held since 1953 but the latest peace talks to end the war started in 2018 and fell apart after South Korea elected a conservative government in 2023. The soldier that escaped to NK to avoid his legal troubles in SK last year may well have committed treason. Or at least attempted to, NK didn't really seem to want him.

[–] Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

The US never declared war with North Korea.

The last declaration by the US was WWII.

[–] AtmaJnana@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

No, South Korea may still be at war with them.

[–] the_q@lemmy.world 19 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Still free and still allowed to run for president. America!

[+] Protoknuckles@lemmy.world -12 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Well, I think he needs to be able to still run for president. It would set a bad president if political rivals could be jailed to prevent them from running. But this dude needs to be in jail, like now.

[–] NegativeLookBehind@kbin.social 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It’s precedent. And no, he’s a fucking traitor.

[–] Protoknuckles@lemmy.world -3 points 2 years ago

My apologies. And, yeah. He's 100% a traitor. I hope the rest of his days he molders in pathetic political impotence. Just worried that a "people in jail can't rum for president law" would have unintended consequences.

[–] NaibofTabr 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

He just admitted to taking money from other national governments while he was an elected official. He should never be allowed to run for another public office ever again.

[–] Protoknuckles@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago

I think for the countries freedom, we have to let him run, but if there is any sanity or dignity left here, I pray he loses, and I pray the republican party shatters so something more reasonable can take its place.

[–] the_q@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Well he was impeached twice and yet another thing that has no bearing on eligibility to run.

[–] Mog_fanatic@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

In a perfect (or just not bat shit crazy) world, it wouldn't matter. You should be able to let anyone run and the voters would just never in a million years vote for an asshole or criminal or both. But alas...

[–] Protoknuckles@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago

Very true, and also (unfortunately) good I think. I don't want a republican congress able to prevent a second term via impeachment trial.

[–] riodoro1@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Totally not punishable, the state can do nothing about it but watch him become its leader again.

But don’t you fucking dare being black and having a bud of weed on you, thats pretty much a death penalty offense.

Yep, totally a democracy.

[–] MxM111@kbin.social 9 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Unrelated, but this news source has higher number of ads per square inch of my phone screen than I thought theoretically possible.

[–] Mog_fanatic@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I feel like the intrusive ad world has been working mega overtime lately. Either that or I just haven't been paying close enough attention but lately I've stumbled on some mobile sites that are like 97% ads with 15 automatically playing videos and pop ups everywhere that are hilariously difficult to close without opening ten more windows

[–] Zorque@kbin.social -2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Something something firefox mobile something something adblock.

I'm sure you've heard it, and I have no idea if you're already using it and it doesn't work. Just thought I'd get it in there before someone else who's even more of a dick about it.

[–] cafeinux 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Something something Adblock bad something something use UBlock Origin.

[–] Zorque@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago

Something something catch-all something something xerox

[–] MxM111@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago

But then, you will not experience the monster sites like this one.