Will Trump's resounding and definitive win cause Democrats to reflect?

It's like he's the first politician ever to use his position to enrich himself.

friend of said:

It's like he's the first politician ever to use his position to enrich himself.

Click to expand...

Yeppers, not the first, just the latest, the biggest and the baddest.

DaisyDay said:

Yeppers, not the first, just the latest, the biggest and the baddest.

Click to expand...

Everybody else deserves a pass except orange man.

friend of said:

It's like he's the first politician ever to use his position to enrich himself.

Click to expand...

Well, blatenty in our faces and proud of it.

Akita Suggagaki said:

Well, blatenty in our faces and proud of it.

Click to expand...

So if they hide their malfeasance it would go over better with you?

friend of said:

Everybody else deserves a pass except orange man.

Click to expand...

No. Of course not. Why would anyone say that? He's simply the current politician doing it and by FAR the worst. Now if you think we can ignore it because there are other examples of politicians having done, then just come out and say so.

Otherwise I guess you're like the rest of us and are heartily sick of it and demand that it be stopped.

friend of said:

It's like he's the first politician ever to use his position to enrich himself.

Click to expand...

Who else is doing it? Let's investigate them, and end the corruption!

-- A2SG, instead of looking the other way and encouraging it....

FreeinChrist said:

Spiro Agnew, VP under Nixon, learned that bribes and kickbacks using his position at the time were wrong.

From Google AI:

Spiro Agnew resigned on October 10, 1973, to avoid prison time after a federal investigation revealed he accepted over $100,000 in bribes and kickbacks from contractors. The illicit payments were collected during his time as Baltimore County Executive, Governor of Maryland, and even while serving as Vice President. [1, 2, 3, 4]​

Facing federal indictments for extortion, bribery, and tax fraud, Agnew struck a deal with the Department of Justice. He resigned from office and pleaded nolo contendere (no contest) to a single felony charge of federal income tax evasion. In exchange, the government dropped the broader political corruption charges. He was subsequently fined $10,000, sentenced to three years of unsupervised probation, and disbarred in Maryland. [1, 2, 3, 4]​

Trump has done so much more than Agnew ever conceived of.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but that was back when voters held politicians accountable for stuff like that. We don't do that kinda thing any more.

-- A2SG, instead, they get reelected, and even richer......

FreeinChrist said:

Spiro Agnew, VP under Nixon, learned that bribes and kickbacks using his position at the time were wrong.

From Google AI:

Spiro Agnew resigned on October 10, 1973, to avoid prison time after a federal investigation revealed he accepted over $100,000 in bribes and kickbacks from contractors. The illicit payments were collected during his time as Baltimore County Executive, Governor of Maryland, and even while serving as Vice President. [1, 2, 3, 4]​

Facing federal indictments for extortion, bribery, and tax fraud, Agnew struck a deal with the Department of Justice. He resigned from office and pleaded nolo contendere (no contest) to a single felony charge of federal income tax evasion. In exchange, the government dropped the broader political corruption charges. He was subsequently fined $10,000, sentenced to three years of unsupervised probation, and disbarred in Maryland. [1, 2, 3, 4]​

Trump has done so much more than Agnew ever conceived of.

Click to expand...

No court has issued a final, binding ruling that Donald Trump unlawfully profited from public office in a way that resulted in sustained liability or criminal conviction. Claims center on the Constitution’s Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses (barring federal officials from accepting benefits from foreign or U.S. state governments without congressional consent) and separate business practices. Here's a fact-based summary. Emoluments Claims (Foreign/Domestic Government Payments)

• Trump’s businesses received payments: Reports documented at least $7.8 million (likely an undercount) from 20 foreign governments/entities to Trump properties (e.g., D.C. and Las Vegas hotels, Trump Tower) during part of his first term. Major examples include China (~$5.5 million, including rent from a state-owned bank), Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, and others. Total foreign-sourced income to his businesses was far higher (tens to hundreds of millions), though not all from governments.
• Lawsuits filed: Multiple suits (by Congress members, Maryland/DC AGs) alleged violations. Lower courts sometimes allowed them to proceed and interpreted "emoluments" broadly (including ordinary business payments).
• Outcome: All major cases were dismissed as moot after Trump left office (2021). The Supreme Court vacated lower rulings without ruling on the merits. No liability was established, and Trump never sought congressional consent.

Critics (e.g., CREW, House Democrats) argue this created clear conflicts and potential influence-buying, especially given foreign policy overlaps. Defenders note: presidents have long had businesses; payments were often market-rate for hotels/restaurants; prior presidents (e.g., via books/speaking) had income streams; and no proven quid pro quo altered U.S. policy. Trump placed assets in a revocable trust (not blind) and reported some income. No criminal charges resulted. New York Civil Fraud CaseNew York AG Letitia James sued the Trump Organization over years of inflating asset values on financial statements to lenders/insurers (and sometimes deflating for taxes).

• Judge ruled Trump liable for fraud; initial judgment ~$355M+ disgorgement/interest (ballooned over $500M).
• 2025 appeals court ruling: Upheld the fraud finding but threw out the massive penalty as an "excessive fine" violating the Eighth Amendment. Limited bans on Trump/sons leading NY companies remain.

This case involved business practices spanning decades, including during the presidency, but it was not about payments from public office or government favors. It concerned private lending/insurance. No victims claimed losses from the banks (which profited), and it used a unique NY statute not requiring proven harm. Other Context

• No criminal convictions for emoluments, bribery, or official profiteering. Other Trump cases (e.g., classified documents, election) are unrelated to personal financial profit from office.
• Precedents are limited; the Clauses are rarely litigated. Trump’s approach (retaining ownership) differed from modern norms like blind trusts used by others.
• Post-presidency: Similar scrutiny applies to any second term, with ongoing reports of foreign dealings.

Summary: There is substantial documented evidence of Trump businesses receiving foreign government money while he was president, raising legitimate constitutional and ethics concerns under a broad reading of the Emoluments Clauses. However, no court has held him unlawfully liable in a final judgment—cases were dismissed on procedural/mootness grounds or penalties vacated. The NY case established fraud in financial statements but was not about profiting from the office itself (e.g., via official acts). Whether this constitutes "unlawful" profiteering depends on interpretation of the Clauses (narrow: explicit bribes/honors; broad: any benefit) and remains politically disputed without definitive Supreme Court precedent.
Source: Grok
All of this is off topic, the thread is about how Democrats react to Trump's victory. Without discussing disciplinary action let's just say I know from experience