If I were dealing with a single issue that he's going through, I would not be able to get a security clearance.
this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2024
365 points (97.4% liked)
politics
18870 readers
3725 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Your mistake was not running for president first. You can basically do what you want once you're president, wipe your ass with the constitution, plan political assassinations, dream to your hearts content bcz being president in the U.S. means the laws are made up and they don't matter, as long as you are or used to be president.
Yeah, that's something I've been wondering about... So Trump is arguing that Biden should be allowed to assassinate him?
So Trump is arguing that Biden should be allowed to assassinate him?
Obviously not as that would conflict with: rules for thee but not for me
Don't think that's what he means, but yes, that's what his argument boils down to.
Your mistake was not running for president
To be fair, that's a mistake that the vast majority of people are guilty of.
Untrue. You just have to be elected president. If we remove that, there's no way he would get security clearance either.
Shouldn't have been born poor.
The risk of letting trump get away for so long led us to this BS today.
The risk of not punishing Jan 6 terrorists with the abu ghraib treatment (which as disgusting as it is) is what led to literal Nazis walking around proudly with flags.
Cab drivers in New York City are now referring to Trump Tower as The Tish Mahal. The AG will handle this by Friday,
why...why they talking about it like it's an option not to?
She's saying that not seizing his property,and letting him acquire the funds through alternative means to pay, puts him at risk of being bought. That makes him more of a security risk to the country just so he can keep his assets.
She’s saying that not seizing his property
again, why is this being talked about like an option? He's been ruled to pay, he hasn't paid by the deadline, by law assets must be seized to cover it.
Because the bond is not for his property, it is for 464m in cash. They are saying how he gets the money will dictate if he's in someone's pocket.
His property is part of his value. Courts seize property all the time.
He can get a loan for the bond. Legally. He could get a loan "from a friend", legally, but then he might be in debt with that potential bad actor. If he pays with a loan then they can't go after his property because he paid in full. That's just how it works.
That'a not what he did though is it?
Currently, he hasn't done anything but he was trying to get a loan. This article is talking about how they should take his assets instead of letting him get a loan, because if he owes someone else half a billion dollars, he'll be in their pocket to do as they ask.
Ah yeah definitely
You mean Trump could become more corrupt? Is that even a thing?
I think she's just trying to put it in real terms. Debt is something that is looked at for government security clearances for exactly this reason. I can't imagine anyone with $454 million in debt getting any sort of clearance.