Comment on Why is Trump buying Nvidia stock bad and what are the consequences?
CapuccinoCoretto@lemmy.world 22 hours ago
The lesser corrupt countries force their leaders and people of influence to divest the holdings so they are never tempted to male decisions of state that could be for their own benefit, and not that of their constituents.
The most common example is for leaders to put their investments in a Blind Trust. This means they maintain ownership of what they had before entering office, but turn over all decision making over buying and selling to a professional adviser and the blind bit means there is no communications about potential trades between the politician and their trusts manager.
So if a leader has to vote on a decision that will impact the price of a stock he owns, like sanctions, he has no way to communicate a buy or sell to his fund managers, and he can’t do it himself because he doesn’t have access to his accounts, the trust manager does.
Trump has no such thing and he is nakedly schlepping crypto, coins, shoes, hats pardons, votes, exectutive orders and sending his advisors and accepting bribes. I am not aware of anyone who could be considered more corrupt than him.
Even Nazis who were murdering jews and stealing their wealth would look at this as an impressive feat.
LadyButterfly@reddthat.com 21 hours ago
Isn’t it illegal for him to do this? I understand he won’t be prosecuted though. And why aren’t there more restrictions in place to stop presidents doing this?
grue@lemmy.world 20 hours ago
According to the Emoluments Clause, yes.
According to the corrupt, traitorous SCOTUS, no.
HubertManne@piefed.social 17 hours ago
That scotus problem is massive. We can disband agencies, remove people from positions, and prosecute criminal behavior to get to be running on a more legal standing and given enough time we could be a decently run democracy again, but the disengenous scotus rulings are going to take some crazy large actions.
tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip 14 hours ago
I’m really hoping the next president has the guts to arrest the con scotus justices. They basically declared the president has king powers, and they need to be forced by a king to rescind that ruling.
LadyButterfly@reddthat.com 19 hours ago
Ha! In a nutshell
CapuccinoCoretto@lemmy.world 21 hours ago
“Illegal” doesn’t mean anything when your political faction controlled the White House, Senate and the Supreme Court.
Soon we will see what having only 2 out of 3 will do, but as I understand the system, the Senate only gains power if they have a supermajority of 2/3, which didn’t happen.
We are in new territory. No one can rightly say with any certainty. I can say that by normal democratic standards worldwide, the answer is yes, very very illegal. In an autocracy its usually only illegal when rival factions do it and threaten the powerful.