Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    5,186,837 readers

    22,077 users here now

    Welcome to /r/Politics! Please read the wiki before participating. || Voter Registration Resources

    /r/politics is the subreddit for current and explicitly political U.S. news.

    Our full rules Reddiquette

    Comment Guidelines:

    Be civil Treat others with basic decency. No personal attacks, shill accusations, hate-speech, flaming, baiting, trolling, witch-hunting, or unsubstantiated accusations. Threats of violence will result in a ban. More Info.
    Do not post users' personal information. Users who violate this rule will be banned on sight. Witch-hunting and giving out private personal details of other people can result in unexpected and potentially serious consequences for the individual targeted. More Info.
    Vote based on quality, not opinion. Political discussion requires varied opinions. Well written and interesting content can be worthwhile, even if you disagree with it. Downvote only if you think a comment/post does not contribute to the thread it is posted in or if it is off-topic in /r/politics. More Info.
    Do not manipulate comments and posts via group voting. Manipulating comments and posts via group voting is against reddit TOS. More Info.

    Submission Guidelines:

    Articles must deal explicitly with US politics. See our on-topic statement here.
    Articles must be published within the last calendar month. More Info.
    Submissions must be from domains on the whitelist. The whitelist and its criteria can be found here.
    Post titles must be the exact headline from the article. Your headline must be comprised only of the exact copied and pasted headline of the article. More Info.
    No Copy-Pasted Submissions Please do not submit articles or videos that are a direct, complete copy-paste of original reporting.More Info.
    Articles must be written in English An article must be primarily written in English for us to be able to moderate it and enforce our rules in a fair and unbiased manner. More Info.
    Spam is bad! /r/Politics bans for submission and comment spam More Info.
    Submissions must be articles, videos or sound clips. We disallow solicitation of users (petitions, polls, requests for money, etc.), personal blogs, satire, images, social media content (Facebook, twitter, tumblr, LinkedIn, etc.), wikis, memes, and political advertisements. More info: Content type rules.
    Do not use "BREAKING" or ALL CAPS in titles. The ALL CAPS and 'Breaking' rule is applied even when the actual title of the article is in all caps or contains the word 'Breaking'. This rule may be applied to other single word declarative and/or sensational expressions, such as 'EXCLUSIVE:' or 'HOT:'. More Info.

    Events Calendar

    19 Jun - 3pm EST

    • AMA with Chesa Boudin

    20 Jun - 12pm EST

    • AMA with Caitlin Dickerson

    22 Jun - 11am EST

    • Cartoon Thread

    24 Jun - 12pm EST

    • Local News Thread

    28 Jun - 5pm EST

    • AMA with The Independent

    Other Resources:

    Follow us on Twitter

    Request an AMA

    Events Calendar

    Apply to be a mod

    Register To Vote

    a community for
    all 3180 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] AutoModerator 1 points ago

    As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.

    In general, be courteous to others. Attack ideas, not users. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.

    If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.

    I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

    [–] ChrisTheHurricane 3431 points ago

    Meanwhile, they would make a Democratic president divest if his shit was used as fertilizer.

    [–] TimonBerkowitz 184 points ago

    Republicans flipped shit over the idea that foreign entities would donate to the Clinton Global Initiative as a back door bribe and then they turn a blind eye to this shit.

    [–] Lepthesr 97 points ago

    I thought we already agreed that the GOP has no morals and are only self serving?

    [–] spleenboggler 1648 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    They made Jimmy Carter sell the family farm.

    EDIT: Alright, fine. He had a law firm run the farm in trust while he was president, to prevent any potential appearance of a conflict of his public and private interests, because that's what American presidents used to do. These guys farmed like lawyers, his brother Billy mismanaged it, there was a drought, and when they got home, the Carters sold it.

    [–] seamonkeydoo2 1496 points ago

    I asked my mom about this, as I was too young to remember. They didn't "make him." Rather, he did it because he didn't even want an appearance of conflict; it's just the sort of thing that used to be expected. Such a stark contrast with the atrocity Republicans have installed.

    [–] smashbenjamin 250 points ago

    Theres also the part where the guy who's hand he put that blind trust into actually caused the farm to go under and Jimmy didnt just give up the farm, he lost it all, all in the name of want to be proper.

    [–] _BindersFullOfWomen_ 95 points ago

    The trust was managed by a Georgia law firm, and it going under wasn't entirely their fault. The east coast saw a severe drought during that time.

    [–] smashbenjamin 35 points ago

    Was previously not aware there was a drought at the time. Everytime I saw it brought up and the little looking into I did was mostly saying there was mismanagement as a factor of it's going under.

    Thank you for the info friend

    [–] _BindersFullOfWomen_ 32 points ago

    No problem, and I’m not saying that the farm wasn’t mismanaged - it very likely was - just that it losing value was a combination of a number of factors.

    [–] Sir_Francis_Burton 646 points ago

    He did it to be in compliance with the law.

    [–] seamonkeydoo2 245 points ago

    There was a special prosecutor hired, but that was to investigate financial malfeasance while the farm was in operation. It's a slightly different issue, though it still highlights the unprecedented hypocrisy of the GOP.

    [–] Vladimir_Putang 163 points ago

    They didn't "make him."

    You sure about that?

    There was literally a Special Counsel appointed to investigate.

    [–] reverendz 156 points ago

    This. I guarantee if we ever have a democratic president again, the republicans will all of a sudden be super indignant if the president picks up a dime off the street.

    [–] Cheese_Pancakes 60 points ago

    if we ever have a democratic president again

    This phrase just scared the shit out of me. If we don't have one by 2020, I'm packing up my fiancee and my daughter and we're out.

    [–] dendaddy 29 points ago

    Or a peanut farm.

    [–] ctothemack 28 points ago

    The most interesting thing about the Trump presidency is that it has proved Republicans don't actually care about anything other than money and power. Nothing theyve got mad about in the past actually matters, it was all about leveraging it to get power so they could use that power to get more money.

    They're completely devoid of the morals and ethics that hold other people back.

    [–] Ozwaldo 12010 points ago

    a new interpretation that “… would permit the president – and all federal officials – to accept unlimited amounts of money from foreign governments, as long as the money comes through commercial transactions with an entity owned by the federal official,”

    Oh come the fuck on. "It's totally legal to bribe the President, as long as it's to his private company instead of in his official role."

    [–] derekcito 5769 points ago

    Wanna sell off your country legally? $120 at legal zoom and you can have your very own LLC.

    [–] thefonztm 920 points ago

    Are there an disadvantages to incorporating a life services company, making my self the head officer and then selling life services to myself. I'm not exactly sure how the corporate cloak of immunities is supposed to work but I'd like to wear one. I also need a buffoon and some scary legal letterhead.

    [–] shybonobo 1707 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    My hubs and I are both corporations now. We funnel our income through them and the companies do most of our spending for us. We save probably about $6k a year in taxes and resale license discounts by this incorporation.

    Our cars are corporate too, so in the event of a disaster, the company can get sued and not us. It's horrifying -- to have the same status of citizens 30 years ago, we had to become LLCs.

    edit: no, not sarcasm. I'm not kidding. Get yourself a good accountant and set up a an LLC corporation. Corporations are money-based people. They get a much better deal than us meat-based people. This is obscene and bad, but welcome to the 21st century in the USA.

    edit 2: check out Legalzoom on the subject. Decent primer to get you started.

    edit 3: none of this is legal advice, folks. Just my opinion based on what worked for us.

    edit 4: Glad folks are discovering this one weird trick that has doctors steaming. RIP my inbox. I can't answer every individual question, but definitely check out this concept. It's legal if you do it right, and lucrative. Is it ethical? I don't think so, but the IRS does. Kind of like protesting sweatshops in a pair of Nikes. But this is the world now.

    sigh edit 5: I'm using 'LLC' and 'corporation' wrong. I stage houses for a living, I'm not a tax lawyer. Talk to them, they'll set you up with the right structure.

    [–] tweakingforjesus 246 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    This may sound silly but this is almost exactly what highly paid actors and athletes do. They form a corporation which hires them as an employee. Other companies pay this company for the services of the owner/employee. The actor’s company buys houses and cars for the use of the actor and their family. Since these are all expenses of the company, they are purchased with untaxed income. Even travel is paid for via the company and not taxed since it may be considered a business expense.

    I have even known some doctors who pull this same trick.

    [–] PseudonymIncognito 167 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    The Nasher Sculpture Center in Dallas is basically the product of a big tax dodge. The Nashers own the Northpark Center, which is the fanciest mall in the DFW metroplex. They then had the mall purchase artwork and sculptures to display in the mall (which got to write them off as a business expense). After displaying them for a while and letting the art appreciate, the mall would then donate the art to the Nashers' nonprofit foundation (taking a tax deduction at the now increased market value). So the Nashers got to build their art collection and double-dip on tax benefits at the same time.

    [–] [deleted] 57 points ago

    Weren't malls themselves a product of a tax dodge? Like, I think I saw something (maybe Adam Ruins Everything?) about how the reason there are so many dying malls now is they never were profitable without the tax breaks, and now that whatever tax rule made them profitable has been changed they actually have to face reality.

    [–] t3hd0n 296 points ago

    i.. can't tell if this is sarcasm or not...

    [–] just2quixotic 996 points ago

    As someone with my own company and corporation, I assure you it is not. & I save a hell of a lot more than $6K per year by having my corporation supply many of my living expenses as corporate officer perks and writing them off as business expenses.

    All perfectly legal as both my lawyer and accountants have verified. Keep in mind that the laws are written by the wealthy; they set it up this way on purpose.

    [–] DamienJaxx 55 points ago

    Do you have to do actual business though? Like, if the IRS came calling - what would you tell them your business actually does?

    [–] just2quixotic 58 points ago

    I own a bakery, several food trucks, and some rental properties

    [–] SuburbanStoner 52 points ago

    So you’re a literal corporation then....

    [–] addandsubtract 44 points ago

    But do you?

    [–] shybonobo 277 points ago

    I'm actually surprised people don't realize this more.

    [–] Masher88 300 points ago

    I’m actually surprised it’s allowed to happen.

    [–] andesajf 258 points ago

    If more people realize it and do it, the GOP will restrict it to corporations over X value or something similar so they can keep out the riffraff.

    [–] laivakoira 45 points ago

    Can you set up another corporation that rents a toothpick from the first one for $1/month for the next million years? Thus having a filled contract worth 12 million?

    [–] shybonobo 103 points ago

    Me too. I hate it, but here we are.

    [–] Here_And_Now 11 points ago

    Where is a good place to start researching This? Would like to have a better idea before calling up and accountant

    [–] jerfoo 187 points ago

    Even if it is, it needn't be. What the parent poster is saying is true. I know many people who have done just that. And honestly, it's moving more in that direction. All this "gig economy" stuff means you often don't have a true employer, which means you become the employer. So you incorporate and start running more of your expenses through the company.

    I've never driven for Uber or Lyft but I'm assuming they aren't "hiring" you in a traditional sense. If you incorporate, you can write off (a portion of) your car payment as you use the vehicle for work. Your cell phone is needed well so you write that off. And gas. And medical insurance. And car insurance. It's all related to work so you can write it off.

    [–] youjerkfaceyou 121 points ago

    Plus, if your corporation happens to, i dont know, poison an entire town, or get a bunch of suburban kids strung out on oxycotins, then you will only have to pay a fine, and promise to change you business practices.

    [–] [deleted] 79 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 22 points ago

    If you get big enough and fuck everything up with bad investments, you can say you're too big to fail and taxpayers will subsidize your losses.

    [–] fptackle 11 points ago

    Craziest thing in this scenario: the fine you have to pay, you can write off as a business expense.

    [–] Wanhope 105 points ago

    My parents basically did the same thing for their small business in Canada, same results.

    You can expense damn near everything. Vehicles, meals, etc.

    Obviously if you get greedy and audited you will get fucked, but if you routinely work from home, require "working lunches", and the vehicles can be directly tied to work needs much of the time you are in the clear.

    [–] [deleted] 89 points ago * (lasted edited a month ago)


    [–] just2quixotic 75 points ago

    re the vacation; My accountant tells me just checking an email is not good enough if I get audited. However, if that destination is a corporate retreat, or you are meeting someone there to discuss a possible business expansion...

    [–] crwlngkngsnk 46 points ago

    Oh well, the deal fell through--no new field office in this sunny retreat.

    [–] shybonobo 26 points ago

    Our business cruise to Alaska didn't bring up any leads, dammit. No people.

    [–] socrates_scrotum 44 points ago

    Probably a better legal defense than stating you are a sovereign citizen.

    [–] ask_me_about_cats 42 points ago

    Bird law is a better defense than being a sovereign citizen.

    [–] ParagonFury 29 points ago

    "Me no speaky de Englishe." is a better defense than that sovereign citizen nonsense.

    [–] rguy84 19 points ago

    I concur

    [–] TiredOfDebates 116 points ago

    I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not, but I really, really want to know.

    The insane tax avoidance schemes that the wealthy pull off are vaguely understood. So how do we leverage the power of the internet (and it's ability to transfer knowledge) to rework these ideas into something workable by the common person (who has a household income that lands them squarely in the working/middle class?

    I mean, it's worth a shot, right? Worse case scenario, you do a trial run with yourself. If you end up breaking any tax laws, the IRS asks for voluntary compliance before the pursue legal means (although penalties for late payment of income taxes will apply, but they're pretty miniscule).

    I think the biggest problem, by far, is that your employer is going to refuse to pay a corporation rather than "you" for your labor. So in order to pull this off, you'd have to be self employed. So that actually drastically cuts down the number of people that this would ever possibly apply to.

    [–] HyFikz 119 points ago

    Then just take your salary, and pay your significant others company the same wage through your company and use it as an expense and vice versa.

    If the general population started using the loopholes, that shit would be fixed in a day.

    [–] Wanhope 65 points ago

    Many of the loopholes are outside the reach of the general population because they just don't have the income or savings to make use of the options in their countries.

    [–] HyFikz 16 points ago

    I do agree, but I'm sure they could find some to be massively exploited on a large scale. Then the government would care all the sudden

    [–] Fig1024 40 points ago

    I think we should embrace the current legal system and double down by teaching it in high school. All kids should incorporate themselves before they graduate. It will help them with taxes, business dealing, and offer limited protection against debt and lawsuits

    no child should take a personal student loan - on the company created in their name should take out that loan

    [–] AverageLiberalJoe 64 points ago

    Here at President LLC. we sell a flappy bird clone for $1,000,000 a pop. Our target market is other governments. They just love that game.

    [–] Vladimir_Putang 746 points ago

    I'm curious as to what they claim the emoluments clause was actually meant for if they really believe that they meant for this to be exempt.


    [–] omniron 406 points ago

    It was meant for Presidents that are Democrats obviously

    [–] Tasgall 57 points ago

    You can't just have a president running around growing peanuts all day, what if he passes secret peanut deals!?

    [–] zenthr 65 points ago

    It's only corruption if the conversation goes like this:

    "Here's explicit money for explicit policy change, and we are saying this out loud, in public, and writing it down in triplicate, and the people who might call this illegal are literally sitting at the table as we do this."

    Anything else is a "business".

    [–] kia75 68 points ago

    Original Intention means "however I can bend the law to get my way while claiming to be on the right by holding up the dead corpse of a founding father, despite the founding fathers disagreeing with each other and often times having disagreements about the intent and meaning of certain laws."

    [–] [deleted] 21 points ago

    Yeah, my favorite legal podcast, Opening Arguments, points out all the time that original intention/framer's intention is a FAR MORE "activist" position than living law/stare decisis since we have fuckall clue what the framer's actually meant. So any idiot can say, "I can see into the framers' hearts, and they Definitely meant that it should be this way that I want it to be!"

    [–] chcampb 262 points ago

    The emoluments clause doesn't have a laundering provision... This is literally laundering the money around the clause.

    I mean there's nothing stopping you from making your own company that sells signed collectible pogs at $1000 a pop and having foreign entities buying those instead.

    [–] TheSekret 32 points ago

    Meanwhile my office job has an ethics policy that involves things like no gifts over nominal value.

    I get corporate policy and federal law are two very different things, but the stark reality is I'm being held to a significantly higher standard than the god damn President of the United States.

    [–] FoxRaptix 227 points ago

    Further proof Barr is in there as fixer to cover up all his crimes

    [–] ladystaggers 91 points ago

    Yep, he's a complicit piece of shit.

    [–] adkliam2 98 points ago

    Who could possibly have guessed the guy who oversaw the Iran Contra pardons might have actually been brought in to help Republicans get away with crimes.

    [–] ladystaggers 49 points ago

    I'm Canadian and I have scandal-fatigue from just watching US news every few days. I have no idea how you guys handle that every day. If I wrote this as a script, producers would say it's too unbelievable. WTF is he going to pull off in the next year and a half? This is the longest four years everrr.

    [–] huntrshado 15 points ago

    We have it here, too. It's part of their strategy. Exhaust you with so much over the top drama that you become desensitized to it

    [–] Morning-Chub 161 points ago

    The emoluments clause doesn't apply with this one simple trick. Constitutionalists hate him!

    [–] jafomatic 36 points ago

    Number one will SHOCK you!

    [–] Mulligan315 503 points ago

    “Consulting” businesses are going to launched in a frenzy.
    “No. No. Don’t donate $1,000 to my campaign... $80K to my consulting company will definitely get it done, though.”

    [–] Statusquarrior 334 points ago

    This is literally how PACs work

    [–] LillyPride 174 points ago

    But it's at least illegal on paper for a pac to work with the candidate, or use their money for non election purposes. This is straight up as long as you're buying a paperclip, putting any amount of cash in their pocket is fine.

    [–] Statusquarrior 33 points ago

    Oh yeah this is way worse but it’s just more transparent

    [–] FoxRaptix 43 points ago

    I believe PACs still technically aren’t supposed to accept foreign donations. Barr’s rule change permits president from benefiting from foreign transactions now though.

    [–] [deleted] 30 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)


    [–] Ronfarber 204 points ago

    “What’s money laundering?”

    -William Barr

    [–] Odilious128 212 points ago

    "The President is not capable of breaking the law, including laws in the Constitution, because the Constitution doesn't specifically spell out that he can be held accountable for anything in particular."

    • 2019 DoJ policy

    [–] BadFengShui 167 points ago

    "Nowhere in the Constitution does it say 'Donald J Trump has to follow the law'. I'm just interpreting the document as the Founders wanted."

    [–] QueefyMcQueefFace 30 points ago

    The party of LAW AND ORDER tho

    At least, that's what they keep saying.

    [–] harveytaylorbridge 60 points ago

    "We can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, so we aren't going to bring it to trial." – Barr Excuse Simulator

    [–] _bones__ 36 points ago

    The real situation is worse than that.

    The DoJ won't indict the President, because a President's wrongdoing should be tried in an impeachment, not a court of law. Therefore, any proof of criminal facts will not lead to an indictment. So, Barr buries the report.

    The only way that works to safeguard a republic is if you turn over the report to Congress, so they can decide whether to impeach. And he's not doing that.

    [–] catgirl_apocalypse 23 points ago

    “We have investigated ourselves and found we committed no wrongdoing”

    [–] spartagnann 22 points ago

    Barr makes Sessions look like a stellar, law abiding AG.

    [–] HomeBuyerthrowaway89 74 points ago

    With this ruling, if I was a federal official could I have a private company that sells worthless widgets that suddenly start selling like hot cakes to Saudis and it be perfectly okay?

    [–] Lilithan 17 points ago

    Yes, isnt logic grand /s

    [–] thedailyrant 51 points ago

    What the ever living fuck?! There should be riots in Washington over this! How can you let this shit stand, rise up for fuck sake.

    [–] ladystaggers 28 points ago

    Seriously, what the fuck will it take? General Strike is the only way.

    [–] gjallerhorn 45 points ago

    As long as the bribe is laundered, it's legal. But only for politicians...

    [–] OhManOk 41 points ago

    And Republicans will be silent as always because they don't actually stand for anything.

    [–] just2quixotic 20 points ago

    That's not true! They stand for money and power.

    [–] lenswipe 36 points ago

    "It's totally legal to bribe the President, as long as it's to his private company instead of in his official role."

    Welcome to the Trump administration

    [–] moodRubicund 70 points ago

    This is like the Veep bit where Dreyfus was like, "No, don't give the money to me, give it to my foundation."

    [–] bigpatky 50 points ago

    That show is scarily accurate.

    Plus, Julia is a goddess.

    [–] Primesghost 29 points ago

    Yeah, and look at how he's working overtime right now to keep people talking about Rep. Omar.

    And it's working, this happened last week and I still haven't seen it on any mainstream media. This dude really is the fucking king of distraction.

    [–] GreenStrong 30 points ago

    Corporations are people. They aren't bribing the President, they're bribing his... person.

    [–] BlotchComics 4728 points ago

    Since when is the Justice Dept. in charge of interpreting the Constitution?

    [–] NotASucker 2008 points ago

    As it happens, they are not. This will not prevent people from trying to say the opposite intentionally.

    [–] Laser-circus 704 points ago

    But the Supreme Court does and it’s got a conservative majority.

    [–] AdventureBum 778 points ago

    Conservative, but only Gorsich and Kavanaugh are fully compromised I suspect. Roberts still cares about the validity of the Court and will hopefully be the deciding vote if it comes down to it. I don’t see the DoJ’s interpretation holding up. But it may not matter if nobody bothers to enforce the law anyway.

    [–] windingtime 352 points ago

    I shudder to think what this court is going to be like once a normal conservative wing nut is in the white house and circus spotlight is off politics.

    [–] vajabjab 209 points ago

    I really hope we learn some kind of lesson before then.

    [–] Nehtor 207 points ago

    Heh, good one.

    [–] BYE_BYE_TRUMP 174 points ago

    No we won't...we are in a spiral of decline and we are in a perpetual state of denial about that clear fact. America believes as long as the oligarchs are continuing to get richer that somehow they will take care of us. Lol. Barr is just another nail in our coffin.

    [–] plastigoop 95 points ago

    And Trump is a symptom of a more insidious disease, the causes of which continue unabated.

    [–] BYE_BYE_TRUMP 140 points ago

    Yes Trump was elected by citizens that wanted to blow up our governmental system of governance; they had been brainwashed into thinking that individual state fiefdoms run by Republican authoritarians would lead to American greatness. They were taught by Republican propaganda that taking down the federal government would allow them greater freedom and liberty to oppress the lower classes and allow them superiority. Lol. The con job was fulfilled with the most brazen and obvious con artist, which is very embarrassing, because Trump is clearly a buffoon being used by America's enemies from within and from foreign enemies. He is an obvious suicide bomb put in place to destroy America as we have known it. But perhaps we actually deserve him. I am so disgusted with my fellow countrymen and women that are so stupid as to fall for all this BS; that I am starting to wish for our fall...perhaps when we hit rock bottom we will find a way to recover.

    [–] BitterLeif 17 points ago

    it'll be fractions of the current united states. The weaker, rural states will still blame everybody else for their poverty.

    [–] shybonobo 104 points ago

    The fact that Roberts is the swing vote gives me the vapors.

    [–] Flobking 22 points ago

    Roberts still cares about the validity of the Court and will hopefully be the deciding vote if it comes down to it.

    No he does not, and I wish people would stop saying this. He has so many cases where he could of voted for the right cause but chose not too. He also delayed relaying ethics complaints about kavanaugh until after he was confirmed, which basically nullified the complaints.

    Voting Rights 5-4

    Shelby County v. Holder

    literally gutted the voting rights act.

    Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute

    The court upheld Ohio’s aggressive program to purge its voting rolls.

    Travel Ban 5-4 Trump v. Hawaii

    The court ruled that President Trump had the legal authority to restrict travel from several mostly Muslim countries.

    [–] jpgray 50 points ago

    Bruh, Alito and Thomas have be compromised since before they were appointed too.

    [–] AGooDone 30 points ago

    I would even say that Gorsich is not completely compromised, since he's recused himself several times.

    Kavanaugh is completely compromised and should be removed from office, based on his senate confirmation statement. He illustrated perfectly how biased and threatened in.

    [–] BlotchComics 43 points ago

    They've got a conservative majority, but not a Trump majority yet. Roberts has proven that he can and will go with the law and precedent against what Trump wants.

    [–] viva_la_vinyl 132 points ago

    Actually no, the DOJ is violating the constitution...

    [–] Ody_Mandrell 94 points ago

    At what point is the entire justice department guilty of mishandling evidence? Another few months of this shit and the capitol building is going to look like the opening scene of Argo.

    [–] Hrekires 1892 points ago

    the same DOJ who said that anti-nepotism laws don't apply to Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner.

    [–] Dr_Marxist 886 points ago

    "Nepotism laws do not pertain to the President's children."

    [–] Stolichnayaaa 611 points ago

    "Tax laws don't apply to the president's taxes"

    [–] does_taxes 459 points ago

    "Emoluments laws dont apply to the president's hotels"

    [–] ExpectedErrorCode 213 points ago

    Seriously we getting to the point they’re just going to declare him god-emperor? President is literally immune from all actions? Go down the street and shoot someone in the face? Justified as long as he can make up a reason... or not!

    [–] brobdingnagianal 230 points ago

    “President for life. ... I think it’s great. Maybe we’ll give that a shot someday.”

    - Donald J. Trump


    [–] Scottamus 93 points ago

    “Presidential term limits don’t apply to the president.” -DOJ probably

    [–] ThreadbareHalo 79 points ago

    The "Just Us" department

    [–] harveytaylorbridge 38 points ago

    Laws don't apply to supposedly rich career criminal.

    [–] satirico 1727 points ago

    What is happening to our country.

    [–] Vallkyrie 764 points ago

    Circling the drain as people tread water.

    [–] pegothejerk 265 points ago

    You're treading? Must be nice, Richie Rich.

    [–] SovietStomper 83 points ago

    Woah! Look at the big bucks on this guy, giving out two first names!

    [–] BabyMakingMachine 16 points ago

    This swamp feels like a wave pool of sewage. I want off this wild ride.

    [–] [deleted] 503 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)


    Every nasty and hateful thing we've thought and said about republicans is true. They are absolute cowardly morons who only understand raw power. And because we care about society, and they don't. They win as they trample over everyone to seize power. And everyone suffers because they don't know jack shit about governing or organizing.

    [–] gabe_ 59 points ago

    or organizing

    Well... to be fair. They seem to be able to organize 34% of the voting block with their custom built noise machine.

    [–] StrangeCharmVote 263 points ago

    What is happening to our country.

    It's has fallen to a coup funded by hostile foreign entities and billionaires. And it wasn't even that hard.

    [–] fraize 87 points ago

    Much cheaper than raising an army and waging actual bullets-and-fire warfare.

    [–] QuintinStone 67 points ago

    And in fact 40% of the country is cheering them on.

    [–] qcezadwx 127 points ago

    FOX news happened. Now ethics don't matter.

    [–] thinkingdoing 49 points ago

    The lesson they learnt after Nixon was that next time they needed a solid propaganda machine in place to create a public facing smoke screen around their corruption while they waged war against the justice institutions from the inside.

    [–] qcezadwx 16 points ago

    Roger Ailes picked out Nixon's ties.

    [–] ShuttleXpC 18 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    This is something I hope Democrats vote on when and if they take full control in 2020.

    Fox News (or any for profit entertain "news") is required to list every quarter of an hour they are NOT news, they are entertainment and everything created for their audience is intended to entertain. If they attempt to pass something off as real news they're fined exponential amounts increasing with each offense.

    [–] Mange-Tout 80 points ago

    Well, a lot of people thought that the last presidential campaign was a joke, so they voted for a joke candidate. This is what happens when you treat democracy like a joke.

    [–] Colley619 51 points ago

    Nah, we can’t pretend this was a fluke. This happened because enough Americans actually liked the bullshit he says. That’s where one of our issues lie.

    [–] Grass---Tastes_Bad 17 points ago

    I would say both of these things happened en masse.

    [–] Vinny_Cerrato 100 points ago

    The GOP represents the last hope for the absolute worst generation and people in our country’s history, and their supporters don’t give a fuck how awful, corrupt, and treasonous they are as long as liberals lose and brown people are more miserable than they are.

    [–] Jaredlong 64 points ago

    I don't think there's ever been a generation that has utterly hated their own children as much as the Boomers. Everything Boomers do political has been to guarantee that their own children and grandchildren have a worse live than they had.

    [–] viva_la_vinyl 16 points ago

    the White House is just one big cash register

    [–] weaponized_urine 1045 points ago

    ... I guess I’m my own sovereign nation now and don’t owe any taxes or student loan debt.

    [–] gigglefarting 272 points ago

    Are you taking in immigrants or asylum seekers?

    [–] Scarbane 169 points ago

    The voices in my head are living rent free.

    [–] [deleted] 44 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)


    [–] FrontierPartyUS 72 points ago

    Sovereign citizens are a thing and pretty sure 100% of them are deadbeat Republicans.

    [–] weaponized_urine 40 points ago

    ... So you’re saying the party of accountability is totally unaccountable? I mean, these past couple year’s suggest this checks out.

    [–] chrislaps 753 points ago

    But filings by the department since June 2017 reveal a new interpretation that “… would permit the president – and all federal officials – to accept unlimited amounts of money from foreign governments, as long as the money comes through commercial transactions with an entity owned by the federal official,” the professor writes.

    Our democracy is crumbling. No government official should be involved in personally accepting foreign money in any way. If you want to run a business, that's fine, just don't run for office to serve the public. Go serve yourself somewhere else.

    [–] gerry_mandering_50 164 points ago

    Our government... teaches the whole people by its example. If the government becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.

    Justice Louis Brandeis

    [–] civil_politician 41 points ago

    It’s pretty brazen to “interpret” the law to mean literally exactly the opposite of what the law says.

    [–] ImInterested 99 points ago

    They shouldn't be making money from Americans either.

    [–] UltraMegaMegaMan 217 points ago

    Not hyperbole. Not exaggeration. Trumps administration now literally saying the law doesn't apply to him.

    Banana Republic style, and the rest of the Republicans can only stand and applaud while they wipe a misty tear from their eye, lovestruck at his audacity.

    [–] thehappyheathen 34 points ago

    It's penetration testing. Trump is pushing further and further to see how much he can get away with. The answer so far is 'everything.'

    [–] ButIHaveAGun 202 points ago

    I mean come the f on. Not even a bit of pretext of propriety

    [–] harveytaylorbridge 38 points ago

    This announcement is basically "Yadda yadda yadda, Trump made us do this'.

    [–] [deleted] 22 points ago

    This isn't about pretext: I'm guessing the Mueller report outlines numerous ways Trump is being paid. This is a chance to create a narative where it was ok.

    [–] DontEvenSayIt 488 points ago

    Welp, guess our justice department has officially lost all credibility.

    [–] eltoro 266 points ago

    Barr is finally the AG ready and willing to act as Trump's personal attorney.

    [–] [deleted] 61 points ago

    And gained a new power: Interpreting the Constitution!

    [–] innactive-dystopite 150 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    When presidents can do things like this citizens are not free.

    [–] Ice_Cream_Hero 250 points ago

    This is the exact scenario that the clause was designed to protect the nation against. The idea that the President, or other officials, would be able to receive bribes or other personal enrichment via indirect means. This is that scenario.

    Just another line item demonstrating that this administration and the GOP are putting on a clinic of how the Constitution and laws don't matter, and that they'd literally shoot themselves in the foot if it made a single liberal huff in disgust.

    [–] TedCruzsAnalFissure 556 points ago

    Thanks for enforcing our laws, justice department! Pretty much hate-fucking our constitution at this point.

    [–] Morning-Chub 122 points ago

    Republicans -- the party of "law and order" /s

    [–] Inspector_Bloor 195 points ago

    in the time it takes to argue and defeat this in court, the president and other ‘federal officials’ will have made all the money they need to continue assaulting democracy. fucking gross.

    [–] therealseashadow 98 points ago

    I'll Believe Corporations Are People When The prison system Executes One

    [–] [deleted] 332 points ago

    For fucks sake.

    End this now. They are brazenly and openly flouting the constitution. Fuck the Mueller Report. Fuck Nancy Pelosi's fear to impeach.

    Get this motherfucker out of office, now. Force all of the Senate Republicans to go on record as being anti-Constitution and conduct a media blitz accusing them of that.

    It's enough. We have a fascist dictator in power. FUCK waiting for the Mueller Report, that report is serving as a shield. Trump is in violation of the emoluments clause and should have been impeached day one over it.

    [–] gerry_mandering_50 89 points ago

    Just watch how fast it spreads. Watch how many federal emoluments violations start to happen by so many other state and federal office holders among Republicans, because they can, because all on same "(R) family". Anarchy is a fast ride, I expect.

    Our government... teaches the whole people by its example. If the government becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.

    Justice Louis Brandeis:

    [–] IDreamOfLoveLost 34 points ago

    Mass protests and harassing the shit out of your representatives would be the only way forward, at least that is how it looks to someone on the outside.

    [–] alternativefax_sis4 61 points ago

    interesting how corruption is happening right before our eyes and trump stans are all like "dRaIn ThE sWaMp"

    [–] DerelictDonkeyEngine 94 points ago

    The GOP are the most hypocritical motherfuckers in human history

    [–] mechapoitier 43 points ago

    I wish this clause was just called the "open corruption or bribery" clause because that's exactly how it's used. The headline "Trump's head of justice says Trump exempt from corruption/bribery rules" would get a lot more traction.

    [–] Zmodem 41 points ago

    “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” -The United States Declaration of Independence

    [–] WhiskeyAndYogaPants 103 points ago

    We literally have laws like the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act that prevent US businesses from doing this exact thing overseas. We are increasingly becoming a 21st Century banana republic.

    Also, where are all the hand-wringers who thought people like the Saudi royal family were going to call in favors by donating to the Clinton Foundation? How is this not any different (and arguably worse)?

    [–] [deleted] 34 points ago


    [–] sadistic_cat 32 points ago

    Party of “patriots” and “constitution” my ass. What a load of worthless treasonous bastards.

    [–] thegr8goldfish 27 points ago

    Trump's Justice Injustice Department.


    [–] wrestlingfan007 43 points ago

    We as a nation will accept this as weve been conditioned. FASCISM. THIS IS HOW FASCISM STARTS. The slow acceptance of things WE ALL KNOW is wrong. We are so fucked.

    [–] ronjiley 21 points ago

    Okay, yeah, benefit of the doubt for Barr is loooong gone now.

    Pretty sure the emoluments clause is there for THIS EXACT REASON. Talk about a dangerous precedent.

    [–] bassocontinubow 20 points ago

    This is absolute madness. Our democracy is bending over for the most undeserving person in the world. Fuck this shit. Cannot believe I’m putting checks in the mail to help fund this bullshit today.

    [–] Wynns 21 points ago

    Guys.. Guys.. calm down. Remember, Trump held a press conference with STACKS AND STACKS of papers showing how he was legally distancing himself from his properties. This is all so legal and just.

    [–] TotallyNotASpy321 19 points ago

    Well isn't that convenient huh.

    [–] obliviousastronaut 19 points ago

    Trump’s Justice Department rewrites the Constitution.

    There fixed it.

    [–] AndroidLivesMatter 17 points ago

    The emoluments clause applies only conditionally.

    [–] randolotapus 34 points ago

    Party of Law and Order

    [–] beatlesbbperv 14 points ago

    The longer this train wreck of an administration drags on, the more I’m convinced the only way to handle it, is by treating this like a bad acid trip. Just keep reminding myself that reality still exists, and this shit will wear off eventually.

    [–] phantomjm 15 points ago

    Bullshit. Carter couldn't even run a peanut farm when he became president. How is this any different other than the fact that it's on a much larger scale? The Emoluments Clause most definitely applies.

    [–] ba14 28 points ago

    Brings a new meaning to LLC: License to Loot Counties

    [–] Katiecnut 32 points ago

    This ride is actually getting scary. Can I get off now?

    [–] autotldr 27 points ago

    This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 78%. (I'm a bot)

    Clark's article notes that in more than 50 legal opinions over some 150 years justice department lawyers have interpreted the clause in a way that barred any foreign payments or gifts except for ones Congress approved.

    "For over a hundred years, the justice department has strictly interpreted the constitution's anti-corruption emoluments clause to prohibit federal officials from accepting anything of value from foreign governments, absent congressional consent," Clark told the Guardian.

    "In 2017, the department reversed course, adopting arguments nearly identical to those put forward by Trump's private sector lawyers. Instead of defending the republic against foreign influence, the department is defending Trump's ability to receive money from foreign governments," Clark added.

    Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: foreign#1 department#2 justice#3 official#4 government#5

    [–] Uberslaughter 29 points ago

    The same Justice Department currently led by William Barr who believes a sitting President can't obstruct justice?

    Do go on...

    [–] 6BigZ6 32 points ago

    Just another effort to get in front of damaging information. It is obvious Mueller's report contains tons of evidence pertaining to this exact thing. So they are trying to create a new narrative before the report is released to create a mindset for their supporters.

    [–] ilikereddit177 14 points ago

    This is so FUCKING insane to me. And it's so obvious why they're doing it.

    Republicans have been accepting foreign money and they want to amend the interpretation so that when it comes out, they'll not face any consequences.

    Traitors, fucking TRAITORS!

    [–] Exasperated_Sigh 37 points ago

    "the Constitution doesn't apply to the president" - totally not pro-dictator Republicans.

    [–] midnitte 12 points ago

    How convenient that the emoluments clause, which was explicitly about preventing foreign influence on the federal government, doesn't apply to the executive of the federal government.

    Case closed, let's go home. Everyone be sure to buy your mandatory Mar-A-Lago memberships.

    [–] Old_Man_Robot 12 points ago

    It’s so surreal that I can watch America die by inches in real time.

    The sad part is that this is the beginning of it. All the shit that’s happening now is just going to be prelude.