It's usually been 'get elected to the house and make a million on the side, elected to the senate and tens of millions on the side, elected president make a billion'
By 'on the side', I mean things like book deals and at the time legal insider trading. As for making a billion after being elected president in the past it was foundations you've set up and receive donations to, not directly like trump. I think the Clintons were probably the most extreme even taking it I remember a billion dollar donation from Saudi Arabia. But nothing comes even close to trump.
The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
The President is not allowed to accept any compensation during his time in office aside from his salary. That's why past presidents have divested themselves from businesses, with Carter going as far as giving up a peanut farm.
Trump, on the other hand, openly goes out of his way to cash in on his office, even to the extent of accepting bribes in the form of planes from foreign countries, large donations of foreign and domestic powers via his cryptocurrency, and accepting direct payments for pardons.
I should note that bribery is one of the explicitly mentioned crimes for which impeachment is designed, as mentioned in Article II, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
We currently witness Suharto levels of self enrichment.
I don't know if he is daytrading now. Every day in the recent week it was "an Iran deal is imminent" during the day and "we'll bomb them" after market closure, followed by Iranian denials that a deal was ever imminent.
No, Trump's administration is straight up criminal.
The guy has made ~3500 stock trades in the last 3 months, and there's a pattern of him publicly pumping stock by mentioning a company in a tweet or public statement.
The problem is, the framers of the Constitution believed the American people would never elect someone so criminal and unfit, so the President is exempt from many criminal laws, including those that would stop this.
> the framers of the Constitution believed the American people would never elect someone so criminal and unfit
The framers of the Constitution were looking at a different world, where there was not the instant communication and sense of one "America" that we have. They figured that, while attempts at corruption were inevitable, the different states would protect themselves by not allowing representatives from another state to succeed at any self-serving corruption. But the rise of national party instead of state as primary political identity (which Washington warned about), and the huge propaganda pipe that is the internet, have destroyed the (supposed) protection of many individual state identities.
The framers separated the branches so the legislative, executive, and judicial balance one another. What they didn't account for was all 3 being corrupted at the same time. I've been telling friends we really don't have a defense from this. Even if we held another election the powers that be can run the same playbook again. I'm convinced the US will cease to exist as a democracy in the next 10-15 years.
they're not really spineless, they're fully on board with this. This is how they hammer through everything they've been working for, the rest of us be damned.
I think it depends on the individual. There are plenty who earlier warned about how terrible Trump was, then once he was elected jumped on the bandwagon.
My Boomer mother tells me about the Nixon years. Crazy, but it sounds like some sort of Fantasy World. She says that, originally, Republicans defended Nixon, mostly through attempts to deflect. However, the tapes is what forced Republicans to turn on Nixon. She said it was a combination of doing what's right and self-preservation. She said that back in the Fantasy World days, prosecutors and the courts weren't bound by Party loyalty, and there was chatter of prosecutors going after other Republicans, so they basically just laid it all on Nixon and played dumb.
It's usually been 'get elected to the house and make a million on the side, elected to the senate and tens of millions on the side, elected president make a billion'
By 'on the side', I mean things like book deals and at the time legal insider trading. As for making a billion after being elected president in the past it was foundations you've set up and receive donations to, not directly like trump. I think the Clintons were probably the most extreme even taking it I remember a billion dollar donation from Saudi Arabia. But nothing comes even close to trump.
It has been a tradition that using public office to make money was looked down upon, but it certainly appears that has gone by the wayside.
It's not merely looked down upon: it's illegal.
From Article II, Section 1:
The President is not allowed to accept any compensation during his time in office aside from his salary. That's why past presidents have divested themselves from businesses, with Carter going as far as giving up a peanut farm.Trump, on the other hand, openly goes out of his way to cash in on his office, even to the extent of accepting bribes in the form of planes from foreign countries, large donations of foreign and domestic powers via his cryptocurrency, and accepting direct payments for pardons.
I should note that bribery is one of the explicitly mentioned crimes for which impeachment is designed, as mentioned in Article II, Section 4:
Unfortunately the president is in charge of the Justice department which investigates federal crimes.
in the video he mentions that Trump explained this. "I realized no one cared, and I'm allowed to."
Blame Harry Truman, the original presidential grifter.
how does blaming a long-dead man help anything
We currently witness Suharto levels of self enrichment.
I don't know if he is daytrading now. Every day in the recent week it was "an Iran deal is imminent" during the day and "we'll bomb them" after market closure, followed by Iranian denials that a deal was ever imminent.
Usually not up front.
No, Trump's administration is straight up criminal.
The guy has made ~3500 stock trades in the last 3 months, and there's a pattern of him publicly pumping stock by mentioning a company in a tweet or public statement.
The problem is, the framers of the Constitution believed the American people would never elect someone so criminal and unfit, so the President is exempt from many criminal laws, including those that would stop this.
> the framers of the Constitution believed the American people would never elect someone so criminal and unfit
The framers of the Constitution were looking at a different world, where there was not the instant communication and sense of one "America" that we have. They figured that, while attempts at corruption were inevitable, the different states would protect themselves by not allowing representatives from another state to succeed at any self-serving corruption. But the rise of national party instead of state as primary political identity (which Washington warned about), and the huge propaganda pipe that is the internet, have destroyed the (supposed) protection of many individual state identities.
The framers separated the branches so the legislative, executive, and judicial balance one another. What they didn't account for was all 3 being corrupted at the same time. I've been telling friends we really don't have a defense from this. Even if we held another election the powers that be can run the same playbook again. I'm convinced the US will cease to exist as a democracy in the next 10-15 years.
There was also the assumption that Congress would do something.
Nixon resigned when he was told that he would likely be impeached. Unfortunately the current Republicans in Congress are completely spineless.
> There was also the assumption that Congress would do something.
“Checks and balances.”
More like cheques and (bank) balances.
they're not really spineless, they're fully on board with this. This is how they hammer through everything they've been working for, the rest of us be damned.
I think it depends on the individual. There are plenty who earlier warned about how terrible Trump was, then once he was elected jumped on the bandwagon.
My Boomer mother tells me about the Nixon years. Crazy, but it sounds like some sort of Fantasy World. She says that, originally, Republicans defended Nixon, mostly through attempts to deflect. However, the tapes is what forced Republicans to turn on Nixon. She said it was a combination of doing what's right and self-preservation. She said that back in the Fantasy World days, prosecutors and the courts weren't bound by Party loyalty, and there was chatter of prosecutors going after other Republicans, so they basically just laid it all on Nixon and played dumb.
Trump is orders of magnitude more financially motivated and self-interested than any other US president in history.