For decades, presidents avoided even the appearance of profiting from their office.

Harry Truman refused to lend his name to any business, even in retirement. Richard Nixon so feared a brother might profit off their ties, he had his phone tapped. And George W. Bush dumped his individual stock holdings before taking office.

Donald Trump is taking a different approach.

The family real estate business is undergoing the fastest overseas expansion since its founding a century ago, each deal potentially shaping everything from tariffs to military aid.

Led by Eric, and his brother, Donald Jr., the family business has expanded into cryptocurrencies with ventures that brought in billions of dollars but raised questions about whether some big investors received favorable treatment in return.

  • Kronusdark@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53 found this helpful
    ·
    1 day ago

    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.

    • harmbugler@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16 found this helpful
      ·
      1 day ago

      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.

      • lectricleopard@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2 found this helpful
        ·
        1 day ago

        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.

    • Default Username@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3 found this helpful
      ·
      1 day ago

      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.

      • Monte_Crisco@thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2 found this helpful
        ·
        1 day ago

        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.

        • Default Username@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2 found this helpful
          ·
          1 day ago

          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.

      • Kronusdark@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1 found this helpful
        ·
        1 day ago

        I’d like to see the ability to recall a sitting president added. Waiting for congress to step in is getting ridiculous.

  • ImgurRefugee114@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22 found this helpful
    ·
    1 day ago

    Yeah, thanks for the news flash… I kinda got that impression when they were advertising canned beans from the oval office.

  • Bakkoda@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22 found this helpful
    ·
    1 day ago

    Enforcement of the emoluments clause is all it takes. Enforcement is what’s failing in the US.

    • lectricleopard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3 found this helpful
      ·
      1 day ago

      You need to get the sycophants out of congress first. Theyre all intentionally complicit. Ds and Rs.

      • brygphilomena@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1 found this helpful
        ·
        1 day ago

        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.

  • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16 found this helpful
    ·
    1 day ago

    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.

    • Monte_Crisco@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2 found this helpful
      ·
      1 day ago

      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.

    • Monte_Crisco@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2 found this helpful
      ·
      1 day ago

      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.

  • GuyFawkesV@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5 found this helpful
    ·
    1 day ago

    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.

        • elucubra@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1 found this helpful
          ·
          1 day ago

          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.

      • Monte_Crisco@thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1 found this helpful
        ·
        1 day ago

        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.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9 found this helpful
    ·
    1 day ago

    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.

    • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4 found this helpful
      ·
      1 day ago

      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.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2 found this helpful
        ·
        1 day ago

        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

    • DaMummy@hilariouschaos.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2 found this helpful
      ·
      1 day ago

      Before Trump, the president who’s wealth increased the most from their time in office, was Obama.

  • melsaskca@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7 found this helpful
    ·
    1 day ago

    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?

  • Tylerdurdon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6 found this helpful
    ·
    1 day ago

    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.

  • elucubra@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1 found this helpful
    ·
    1 day ago

    I wonder what repairs are the Dems willing to make, and what safeguards would they try to put in place. No optimism here.