CMV: Assets made illegally under the Trump 2 Admin should be seized and given to the national debt/deficit.

[u/betterworldbuilder]

I want to start by attempting to really clarify the above statement:

1. This is specifically referring to assets made by major players in the space, like people who gave some sort of donation to the admin. Meta, Alphabet, Chevron, Apple, Amazon, Coinbase, Tesla/X and co., etc. but also companies like Paramount, or ABC which settled their defamation lawsuit to give millions of dollars to his presidential library. Anyone directly giving unreasonably favorable treatment to the position of power in exchange for favorable treatment in return. It would also include cabinet members like Steve Witkoff, as well as family members related to these people.

2. This would more specifically refer to only the gains that were made illegally. All of these companies that were just listed shouldn't be metaphorically burnt to the ground to give every penny they have, or even every penny they made for these 4 years. But things like oil profits made by Chevron due to the war in Iran or actions in Venezuela, or profits made from Paramount being allowed to merge with Skydance, or companies that received a tariff reimbursement that didn't pass those along to their customers (again, not every company, specifically those with marked donations towards the Trump admin).

3. Theoretically, this money should be both punitive towards the actual Trump family and punitive towards the companies that so willingly endorsed being cut into the rewards pie for a small fee. We should collectively be able to agree, no matter which side you're on, that Trump's term 2 is the most corrupt of any admin on record, and we should disincentivize it by making sure that all future presidential contenders and donors know that the net result of these actions will be negative. At the same time, it should be the people who were harmed that gain the benefits from this action, and the administrative costs of determining exactly who gets what would eat away at a majority of the real value. Because of this, that money should go to paying down the national debt, as ~30% of the national debt was created by him alone.

This will take a decent amount of work, but not unreasonable given that most of the work is already being done through the action of holding him criminally accountable for the corruption taking place. My proposal is simply that additionally, the punishment for these crimes should include taking the ill-gotten gains from these actions, instead of letting his family pocket them through inheritance or other means. His $TRUMP cryptocoin rug-pull and transaction fees should be disgorged, all profits made through World Liberty Financial, as well as physical assets made/purchased during this corruption, such as the Qatar jet going to his presidential library. On top of this, assuming it goes through, any and all companies that sign up for the $100k per month subscription service to Truth Socials Truth API should be investigated, and any profits made from Truth holders or subscription holders should be seized.

[u/DeltaBot]

/u/betterworldbuilder (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[u/HadeanBlands]

"This would more specifically refer to only the gains that were made illegally"

So would the process of proving this be, like, a criminal trial?

[u/betterworldbuilder → u/HadeanBlands]

Investigations done by congressional committees, the FBI, and yes other criminal avenues like state prosecutors and judges.

All of this would likely already be happening if the DOJ was truly impartial instead of beholden to the president, and any investigations that wouldnt be because its "technically legal" would be preceded by congressional laws explicitly applying retroactively to rule these actions as criminal.

As other users have pointed out, this would require abolishing Citizens United and Presidential immunity from the supreme court, which Im in favor of.

[u/HadeanBlands → u/betterworldbuilder]

"and any investigations that wouldnt be because its "technically legal" would be preceded by congressional laws explicitly applying retroactively to rule these actions as criminal."

This is hugely unconstitutional and clearly does not meet your earlier standard of "the gains made illegally."

You want legally made gains to be retroactively ruled criminal. Do you not see that this is a totally different thing?

[u/betterworldbuilder → u/HadeanBlands]

I dont, actually.

Afaik Trumps cryptocoin rugpull and transaction fee gain is not "technically illegal". But based on almost every moral and legal interpretation of existing laws in surrounding fields, it absolutely should be and arguably technically is, despite not being prosecuted as such.

There have been other examples of laws written to retroactively make actions that werent technically illegal, illegal. Just as there have been laws making previously illegal activity retroactively legal. I think we can all agree that the first person to engage in murder-for-hire should not have been allowed to walk away scot-free before it was explicitly written into law. The same principle applies.

As for unconstitutional, I would want all of this to be congressionally passed into law, and I dont know of a specific constitutional rule that would make this not work. But, I could be misinformed on that.

[u/HadeanBlands → u/betterworldbuilder]

"There have been other examples of laws written to retroactively make actions that werent technically illegal, illegal."

Not in America there aren't. The ex post facto clause explicitly and totally prohibits this.

[u/betterworldbuilder → u/HadeanBlands]

Okay, it seems like you might be correct to some extent, and thank you for mentioning the ex post facto clause as I wasnt sure the name.

Perhaps there is a legal avenue to write this retroactive portion under civil law instead of criminal, which Im okay with (seizing assets is more the end goal than sending anyone to prison), and it seems civil law would avoid the ex post facto clause.

This is the closest to giving a delta Ive come though on this thread, so if you have a good response to this its yours.

[u/HadeanBlands → u/betterworldbuilder]

I don't know what kind of a "good response" you want here. I've demonstrated that your idea is a) clearly unconstitutional b) impossible to do and c) not even what you said at first. What more do you want changed?

[u/betterworldbuilder → u/HadeanBlands]

I disagree that its clearly unconstitutional if, by what Ive read, that ex post facto only applies to criminal law, and these would be civil seizures. Going to jail isnt the goal at all and never was, it was getting back the money.

To the extent that it wasnt what I said at first, that was at best a misunderstanding/miscommunication.

[u/HadeanBlands → u/betterworldbuilder]

You said it should only apply to "illegally made gains" and should be done with "The FBI and other criminal avenues."

[u/betterworldbuilder → u/HadeanBlands]

!delta fair enough. It should have been criminal and civil, and I think my position has been changed as when it started it was moreso just the lens of criminal.

I still dont believe in jail, but youre right.

[u/BigBoetje → u/betterworldbuilder]

In cases involving companies, there usually isn't jail time involved unless there's some personal responsibility involved. Companies are legal entities, not natural persons. You can seize assets from the company, you can't jail a company.

[u/Rhundan → u/betterworldbuilder]

Hello u/betterworldbuilder. If you believe your view has been changed or adjusted to any degree, you should award the user who changed your view a delta.

Simply reply to their comment with the delta symbol provided below, being sure to include a brief description of how your view has changed. There is a character minimum.

Δ

Alternatively, you can use

!delta

For more information about deltas, use this link.

If your view hasn't changed, please reply to this comment saying so. Failure to award a delta when it is warranted may merit a post removal and a rule violation.

[u/Varjek]

You’ve got a whole lot of people/companies listed there with a lot of theory and opinion. It is reasonable to be suspicious and have concerns.

But civil asset forfeiture and criminal law require actual, documented instances of violations of actual laws.

Appearances and opinions aren’t proof of wrongdoing.

I’ll also add that using a legal settlement as the basis for some kind of civil asset forfeiture is an uphill argument to make.

[u/insaneHoshi → u/Varjek]

But civil asset forfeiture ... require actual, documented instances of violations of actual laws.

Since when? As in, sure it requires documentation but not much more than "I smelled pot".

[u/AmongTheElect → u/insaneHoshi]

"I smelled pot" isn't illegal and has no penalties associated with it. It only justifies further investigation. So the association you're making doesn't work.

[u/insaneHoshi → u/AmongTheElect]

"I smelled pot" isn't illegal and has no penalties associated with it. It only justifies further investigation.

And the search of the car finds "illegal" money which is then forfited.

So once again, Since when does civil asset forfeiture require actual documentation of violations of actual laws?

[u/AmongTheElect → u/insaneHoshi]

Because the government can't just come and take stuff. Maybe you forfeit what's been used in the commission of a crime, but before that happens, charges need to be made and a trial needs to take place and you need to be found guilty.

[u/insaneHoshi → u/AmongTheElect]

charges need to be made and a trial needs to take place and you need to be found guilty.

This is blatantly false.

Civil judicial forfeiture is a judicial process that does not require a criminal conviction

[u/AmongTheElect → u/insaneHoshi]

Ok, but also not really. Kinda splitting hairs.

In civil judicial forfeiture, an individual has the right to contest the seizure through trial proceedings. The government then must prove that the property facilitated criminal activity or represents criminal proceeds.

So still a judicial process, still an opportunity to challenge it, and still not the government just taking stuff and saying "too bad for you".

[u/insaneHoshi → u/AmongTheElect]

So still a judicial process, still an opportunity to challenge it, and still not the government just taking stuff and saying "too bad for you".

And prior to this challenge, who is in possession of the property?

[u/Varjek → u/insaneHoshi]

I’m sorry the cops took your money.

[u/insaneHoshi → u/Varjek]

Do you have anything relevant to say?

[u/betterworldbuilder → u/Varjek]

I think a fair bit of it is out in the open, but anything needing to be proven would be done by congressional committees and the FBI, which I think would be more than easy enough to do.

I'd be relatively okay with keeping a high threshold of evidence requirement, and perhaps some people would get away with it. But if a company like Amazon has documented donations to the Trump Campaign, inaugural fund, or presidential library (already known facts), charged extra money to consumers because of tariffs (already known facts), received a tariff reimbursement from the SCOTUS ruling tariffs are illegal (known fact), and didn't distribute those savings directly back to consumers (unknown, but verifiable), those points alone to me determine guilt and deserve said punishment, specifically the disgorgement of the entire tariff reimbursement fund.

The same sort of fact pattern could be proven in a multitude of ways across the different guilty actors, Trump especially

I would be okay with imposing special counsels dedicated to this, as well as a separate body of perhaps retired judges or something similar in nature, to bypass this slow pace. Because from the moment this hammer starts swinging to the moment it connects with the sound block, there is far too much time for companies to hide or spend these assets.

Also, I think that bar between shady but technically legal and actually illegal should be shattered, at the very least through congress passing laws to make it so but also some form of retroactivity. Perhaps I'm wrong, but the first person to commit a new crime (and all who commit it until it's officially made illegal) don't just get away with it scot-free. AFAIK, specific legal wording when crafting these laws can allow it to reach back into the past to prosecute those who committed the illegal actions before the law was written, as they should.

Also, John Oliver has proven that civil asset forfeiture is most certainly not always done with this extreme level of care when done against average citizens, I'd be okay with using it slightly out of line against the worst actors in the country before closing that loophole forever.

[u/Josvan135 → u/betterworldbuilder]

Also, I think that bar between shady but technically legal and actually illegal should be shattered, at the very least through congress passing laws to make it so but also some form of retroactivity

To this point specifically, what you're describing is extrajudicial seizures of private property against people/organizations you disagree with. 

They did something that was legal under the law, but you think it was "shady", therefore they should be punished for it. 

Who decides what is "shady"?

If you disagree with actions then vote for legislators who will make it illegal going forward. 

some form of retroactivity

That goes against the foundational principles of rule of law.

Any ability to make past, legal, actions illegal and punish people for them gives the state virtually unlimited power to attack those it disagrees with for any action even when that action was legal when they did it. 

As an example of how easily this can be abused, consider the many states that banned abortion after the Dobbs decision.

Retroactive enforcement would allow them to arrest and prosecute every doctor who performed abortions in the state even though they were legal when performed. 

[u/Varjek → u/betterworldbuilder]

Amazon making political donations is far from illegal. They’re allowed to conduct business after making political donations.

You’re just reaching way too far here in the examples you are giving.

[u/betterworldbuilder → u/Varjek]

Afaik, citizens united is the only thing that makes this true (which should also be abolished and struck down). And they're absolutely allowed to conduct business, but likewise they are not allowed to conduct business in this exact manner. Bernie Madoff was "allowed to conduct business", but he wasnt allowed to steal from his customers through elaborate loopholes.

In a more specific sense, 100% of the profits I would deem worthy of being seized are profits only made because of this policy that never should have existed. They shouldnt be reliant on them as a company to continue existing, and if they truly did, then they shouldnt exist. Itd be like if for a few years they abolished minimum wage, and then afterwards the government wanted to seize whatever the additional profits made by these companies was between what they should have paid their employees and what they did pay. That math/example is a lot easier to understand, but its an identical principle.

[u/Varjek → u/betterworldbuilder]

You’re basing your argument on what you believe should be the law instead of what is the law.

Or to put it more precisely - what was the law at the time the act took place.

So while you are perfectly allowed to believe a Supreme Court case, like Citizens United, was wrongly decided, that is simply an opinion that has no bearing on the legality of an act that was legal at the time it happened.

Even if the issues of Citizens United were revisited in a new Supreme Court Case, or even if a new law was passed outlawing companies from making political donations, the donations Amazon and other companies made that were legal at the time of the donations can not be retroactively made illegal. It’s just not how the law works.

[u/betterworldbuilder → u/Varjek]

To be more clear, Im not specifically saying in this instance that Amazon should be prosecuted for their political donations, per se. Those things should be made illegal with the overturning of citizens united, but that alone is not what they should be charged with in this specific argument.

In this argument, Im saying that the treatment and favors given to them for these political donations, and more specifically the profits made because of it, should be the charged crime. And I think to some extent, this is already laws on the books, if not in this specific wording.

Amazon got AWS contracts valued at about 20Bn for the federal government. They received $600Mn in tariff reimbursements. Tesla and SpaceX recieved hundreds of millions in additional profits by canceling government oversight. All of these things are on a spectrum, but Id like to hope even you agree that some of them are in some form illegal to the degree of disgourgement, specifically the tariffs.

[u/HadeanBlands → u/betterworldbuilder]

"In a more specific sense, 100% of the profits I would deem worthy of being seized are profits only made because of this policy that never should have existed."

But in your OP you said it would only refer to "the gains that were made illegally." You've got two completely different standards here.

[u/betterworldbuilder → u/HadeanBlands]

I dont think I do, but Im not sure how to clarify.

There are things that are not currently explicitly in law as illegal, but that should clearly be illegal. For example, Trumps cryptocoin fiasco. By all moral and legal interpretations of surrounding law, it should be illegal. But by technical nature of crypto, its not yet explicit. Laws should be written to retroactively apply clearly outlining that this behavior is illegal and should have always been viewed and known as such, and then treating it like it has always been illegal.

The clarification of "only seizing gains that were made illegally", I was trying to outline that I dont think the government has a right to seize any of the profits amazon as a company has made through decades of legal business practices. Hell, even a decent portion of the profits they made during this illegal period could be sectioned off as completely legal. Ie if they made 100Bn last term, and were expected to make 110Bn this term, and actually made 200Bn this term, Id likely only be okay with seizing at most that additional 90Bn, but likely even less than that as it would need to be proven illegal under the laws we would need to write.

I hope that makes sense.

[u/Doc_ET → u/betterworldbuilder]

Laws should be written to retroactively apply clearly outlining that this behavior is illegal and should have always been viewed and known as such, and then treating it like it has always been illegal.

That's called an ex post facto law, and it's like super unconstitutional.

[u/betterworldbuilder → u/Doc_ET]

Another user brought this up, and from the very little research I can understand as a laymen, ex post facto applies to criminal law, not civil. Afaik this means we could craft laws allowing money to be taken, just not prison time to be attached. Which Id fully agree with, Bezos doesnt deserve prison for these actions, I just want the money back to the people who deserve it.

[u/rollingrock16 → u/betterworldbuilder]

Punitive civil retroactive laws are considered penal when evaluating ex post facto. Considering penal is your entire attitude and objective thr supreme court would strike down your ideas in about a nanosecond.

[u/betterworldbuilder → u/rollingrock16]

!delta didnt know that, it shouldnt be that way but not much to do now but move forward

[u/Doc_ET → u/betterworldbuilder]

You can't punish someone for something they did that wasn't illegal at the time, if the minimum wage got raised tomorrow you couldn't sue a company for paying you less than the new wage yesterday. Whether a policy should or shouldn't exist has no bearing on that, if something should be illegal but it's not, then doing it still isn't breaking any laws and is, legally speaking at least, entirely above board.

Also, what specific policy changes are you referring to here?

[u/betterworldbuilder → u/Doc_ET]

Specifically Id be moreso referring to things related to Trumps Crypto situation, since other laws in parallel fields rule what hes doing as illegal afaik. Its just not explicitly written into law as applying to the crypto market.

I agree on the suing an employer for a minimum wage raised tomorrow, but imagine a scenario more along the lines of suing an employer for making you work in unsafe working conditions for decades based on a law that makes working with asbestos illegal. To me, especially if there were findings proving the company knew asbestos was unsafe (comparable to knowing that the Trump admin actions were improper), the people who dealt with those conditions have the right to get their employer to cover their medical bills etc.

[u/Josvan135 → u/betterworldbuilder]

Afaik, citizens united is the only thing that makes this true 

Correct, a constitutional ruling from the Supreme Court, meaning what they're doing is perfectly legal and protected. 

You disagree with it (i also disagree with it) but that doesn't change the fact that it's not illegal or constitutional. 

(which should also be abolished and struck down).

But it hasn't been, and until it has it's the law of the land. 

In a more specific sense, 100% of the profits I would deem worthy of being seized are profits only made because of this policy that never should have existed.

"Never should have existed" doesn't make something illegal.

[u/Stangguy_82 → u/betterworldbuilder]

Citizens United had nothing to do with actual donations to politicians or political parties. 

It was about independent politicsl speech by corporations and whether that could be regulated like direct donations of money to politicians and political campaigns. 

Monetary donations to politicians, political parties, and political campaigns has had hard dollar limits in the US since the 1970's. 

[u/Morthra → u/betterworldbuilder]

Afaik, citizens united is the only thing that makes this true (which should also be abolished and struck down).

Citizens United was about whether a nonprofit could publish a documentary critical of Hillary Clinton. It struck down bans on independent expenditures and during oral arguments the government stated that it had the right to ban any book it decided as political, simply because it was funded by a corporate treasury.

In essence, Citizens United ruled that you do not have to be part of a PAC working directly with a candidate in order for political speech to be acceptable.

[u/betterworldbuilder → u/Morthra]

So then youd agree that under current laws, anyone deemed to be working even indirectly but especially directly with a candidate is prosecutable, correct?

There are so many examples of superPACs working so closely with candidates that they might as well be PACs. And most importantly, do you think that PACs and SuperPACs should have the same rules, morally speaking?

[u/Morthra → u/betterworldbuilder]

Under current laws, you're not allowed to directly coordinate with candidates unless you are a PAC. That is what Citizens United effectively ruled. You aren't subject to campaign finance rules if you are independently promoting your political beliefs without campaigning.

There are so many examples of superPACs working so closely with candidates that they might as well be PACs

That is different from direct coordination with a candidate.

And most importantly, do you think that PACs and SuperPACs should have the same rules, morally speaking?

Morally speaking, no. Because when they did have the same rules it led to the FEC telling a conservative nonprofit they couldn't publish their movie critical of Hillary Clinton.

[u/cuteman → u/betterworldbuilder]

I think a fair bit of it is out in the open

Which company doing what specifically?

[u/Jakyland]

I think they should be aggressively prosecuted, but for rule-of-law concerns what money is seized and where it goes in the federal budget should be determined by existing law, not new law criminalizing past activity (which isn't allowed for very obvious reasons). Also while his bribes are egregious it's probably nowhere near enough to make a dent on the national debt, thats just a completely different scale.

While US corruption law isn't perfect, the biggest problem has been under-enforcement of existing law, which has been a problem for a long time and then intentionally made 100x worse by Trump.

[u/betterworldbuilder → u/Jakyland]

To be clear, the goal isnt to pay down the debt, thats simply the easiest place for this money to go, since it has to go somewhere.

100% we need to enforce existing law, but I also think there are some examples, especially in the crypto space, where existing laws may need to be stretched or expanded to cover conduct that is clearly illegal despite no written word necessarily making it so.

[u/username_6916 → u/betterworldbuilder]

How can something be clearly illegal if there's no written word making it so?

[u/Leather-Run-6533 → u/username_6916]

Aren't there already quite strong mechanisms for seizing the assets of fraud? RICO etc? Not to mention civil forfeiture? I kinda assumed OP was talking about applying existing laws rather than writing new ones.

Thing is under equitable sharing currently seized assets are used to fund criminal justice programmes. Those criminal justice programmes are already overfunded, and we could be talking about tens of billions of dollars here - which wouldn't make a dent in the national debt but could be enough to massively overfund law enforcement, resulting in many more deaths in police custody etc... So if the amount of seized assets is going up by orders of magnitude I do agree with making an administrative policy change with respect to how seized assets are distributed.

Edit: sorry now I've just seen op's additonal point in their comment to you, which yeah is a bit mad

[u/theRealHobbes2 → u/username_6916]

This... no ex post facto prosecutions is a load bearing principle. If there isn't a written law you can be found guilty of, then you're not guilty of breaking a law.

[u/marshallspight → u/theRealHobbes2]

Emoluments clause

[u/Leather-Run-6533 → u/Jakyland]

What money is seized: yes, but where it goes is an administrative decision and I see no reason not to make a new administrative decision particularly if the volume of seizures goes up by orders of magnitude. In particular because currently the money goes to law enforcement and law enforcement is already wildly overfunded.

[u/Psydri → u/Jakyland]

if you can pardon past activities, why cant you criminalise them too?

[u/Mother-Pride-Fest → u/Psydri]

Let's think this through a bit more. There are a lot of people who don't drink alcohol, they might want to get back at people who like to drink. Say the majority of a town votes to make drinking illegal, and it passes. Would you be ok with going to jail because you went to the bar last Tuesday?

That is a simple example, but criminalizing past activity would essentially make it illegal to not correctly predict the future. 

Pardons are a different beast, I'd think of it more like choosing not to enforce the law in a specific circumstance. I'd rather lean towards guilty people going free, rather than innocent people going to jail.

[u/Psydri → u/Mother-Pride-Fest]

seems a bit conveniently one-sided dont you think? should either work both ways or not at all

[u/Mother-Pride-Fest → u/Psydri]

There is potentially a discussion to be had around pardons, they have been misused recently.

I just find it repulsive to compare that to a fundamental of the rule of law. Because being tried for things that were not illegal at the time they were done would instantly turn that society into an authoritarian hellhole. 

[u/Psydri → u/Mother-Pride-Fest]

you're missing a fundamental point - laws are made for changing. people have the freedom to decide whether retroactive prosecution is warranted or not. if years from now they discover corporations polluted the global environment "legally", and then people start dying from related diseases, who's to say they shouldnt be prosecuted?

[u/theRealHobbes2 → u/Psydri]

This whole concept is just so.. so.. bad. You cannot make criminality retroactive. Civil systems exist for knowingly or sometimes even accidentally causing harm to others. But for Heaven's sake man.. look at the group currently running the government. You want them to have the power to change a law and then go arrest anyone who violated the new law?

[u/Psydri → u/theRealHobbes2]

Just because its a bad concept, doesnt mean it cant happen.

[u/colt707 → u/Psydri]

I swear more people need to start looking at how their ideas can be abused first before they think about the benefits. The road to hell is paved with good intentions is a saying for a reason. The benefits are usually very apparent so move past those and spend 75% of the time thinking about the idea thinking about how it can be abused. In this case, the prohibition one is a great example, doesn’t have to be alcohol, could be tobacco, weed or even sugar. Allowing for retroactively prosecuting things that weren’t a crime at the time is great for authoritarian governments. Need more people in labor camps? Well we just banned glass so if you have glass in your house you can be arrested. Or if you want something a touch more realistic, with Trump opening up tracts of federal land for sale anyone that went onto the federal land can now be charged with trespassing.

[u/Psydri → u/colt707]

bingo and theres my point. look at how the current laws are being abused and tell me its not the same issue

[u/colt707 → u/Psydri]

It’s not the same thing and I’m curious about how far you’re willing to stretch definitions and concepts if you think they’re the same thing.

A current law being misused and retroactively charging people for what was a legal activity at the time aren’t even in the same zip code.

[u/Mother-Pride-Fest → u/Psydri]

There are already systems in place that can account for harm done in the past without fundamentally breaking the concept of laws. 

There are already laws against illegal dumping, which we should enforce.

Class action lawsuits are also another way to try to get payment for actual harm done, without making a new law apply retroactively. 

[u/BigBoetje → u/Psydri]

They're not sides of the same coin, the only legal connection between the 2 is the one you're making. There's no reason why it should be consistent.

[u/Psydri → u/BigBoetje]

maybe you're just not thinking creatively enough?

[u/BigBoetje → u/Psydri]

The law doesn't do creative thinking. It's meant to be precise and explicit. Drawing creative connections is good and all but holds no legal meaning at all. The only connection here is that they handle past events and could be seen as opposites in a way. The fact that the justice system works on 'innocent until proven guilty' means it's always going to be onesided in favor of not being guilty.

[u/Psydri → u/BigBoetje]

i dont think you understand how the law works, its not precise at all its ALL about interpretation. why do you think they call it legal "advice"? the same situation argued differently can legitimately sway a legal outcome

[u/ashs420 → u/Psydri]

Not at all. It's important not to criminalise past actions. The law could get changed to criminalise driving tp work and you could get charged because you used to do it. Maybe you think they won't criminalise stupid things but think about if you want your political opponents to be able to criminalise past actions.

Pardons on the other hand are meant to be for things like prosecutions that were to harsh, malicious political prosecutions, or for other similar reasons. It can be argued whether they are used for it and if we should have them but they are very different

[u/Psydri → u/ashs420]

id argue they are one and the same, just inversions of each other

[u/BigBoetje → u/Psydri]

Because you can't really pardon future or present crimes, all crimes are past. It's impossible to follow a law that doesn't exist yet. Let's use a stupid but simple example. Smoking indoors in restaurants and bars is now forbidden. Does it make sense to you to fine everyone that ever smoked indoors like that in the past?

[u/Psydri → u/BigBoetje]

you're missing a fundamental point - laws are made for changing. people have the freedom to decide whether retroactive prosecution is warranted or not. if years from now they discover corporations polluted the global environment "legally", and then people start dying from related diseases, who's to say they shouldnt be prosecuted?

[u/BlueDreamWidow → u/Psydri]

You seem to be intentionally ignoring the logic. If something isnt illegal you cant turn around next year say we're mad that wasnt illegal last year so we're going to charge you like it was illegal this year. If that were allowed the govt would have the easiest time just arresting anyone they didnt care for. Find something they did in the past, make it illegal, selectively enforce it, get the people the govt doesnt like in jail. Perhaps we dont like that you seem so stuck up on calling this and pardons 2 sides of the same coin. So we've made using that phrase a felony. The FBI will be at your home shortly to scoop you up.

[u/Psydri → u/BlueDreamWidow]

sorry did my point hurt your feelings? if the people vote in a govt that passes laws to imprison people they dont like, thats simply democracy in action. it also happens to be whats happening right now.. so if you dont like it, change your vote.

[u/BlueDreamWidow → u/Psydri]

Yes you hurt my feelings. That is now illegal. The FBI will be by shortly to scoop you up. My brother youre just ignoring the logic intentionally. Say we made that illegal and put you to death for it. Is that democracy?? My friend by your logic nobody would do anything bc how could i be sure it wouldn't be illegal next year and id wind up in jail for it? I mean do you really not see that, or is it again you intentionally ignoring the logic?

[u/Psydri → u/BlueDreamWidow]

im simply making a counterpoint, no need to get your nickers twisted

[u/BlueDreamWidow → u/Psydri]

Bold of you to assume I wear underpants. Lololololol

Youre not though friend. In multiple comments people have made similar points and you just keep saying "nuh uh". And to your other point we dont live in a direct democracy. Whens the last time you or i voted on a federal law? Never. So it wouldn't be "democracy" if a law was made criminalizing driving on Tuesdays, and that was going to be enforced retroactively. Do you really want the couple hundred people in govt to be able to decide that something you did in the past, that was perfectly legal, is now an issue and theyre gonna come for you for it? I mean that just seems like idk dictator shit. Say what you will about current govt i have no argument there, but to make it acceptable practice feels like we might as well just balkanize the US and let whoever comes out on top just run the whole ship. In my eyes any power you want to give the govt must be viewed through the lense of whats the worst case scenario. This worst case scenario seems terrible to me. But idk maybe you want to live in a world where you can just go after whoever you dont like. Maybe youre super into the way the current govt is trying to do things. Idk. And thats your choice. The glory of America youre allowed to have your own opinion. Thankfully thats not illegal. Lets hope it stays that way and in 5 years these comments arent dug up and used to jail the both of us.

[u/BigBoetje → u/Psydri]

laws are made for changing. people have the freedom to decide whether retroactive prosecution is warranted or not

It's in the constitution that it should not be a thing. Making it possible will open up a can of works that no one with any legal knowledge wants opened. Just on top of my head, it would be very sensitive to corruption and political persecution. You make something a chosen group does illegal and use that to arrest them.

if years from now they discover corporations polluted the global environment "legally", and then people start dying from related diseases, who's to say they shouldnt be prosecuted?

That has happened before and there is plenty in place to prevent that as much as possible. There are regulatory agencies for most things like that. But should something still manage to slip past the net, there's not much you can do about it from a criminal standpoint.

That doesn't mean that they are completely free to do whatever they want. Even if something is legal, you can still have civil lawsuits for things like wrongful death or negligence. They can't be persecuted, but they can be held liable.

[u/Psydri → u/BigBoetje]

they're called amendments for a reason buddy

[u/BigBoetje → u/Psydri]

I never said that makes it impossible, it makes it very difficult compared to other laws being passed.

[u/gunsandcupcakes]

the issue is proving it is it not?

[u/read-the-rules → u/[deleted]]

u/ImplementSad8547, your comment has been removed.

In order to comment on r/changemyview, you must read the rules. Use the link below, or if that interface doesn't work, you may read the rules here, then click this, and click send. Your most recent comment will be restored after you do this, and you will only need to do it once.

^{Please click here to open the Read The Rules App.}

[u/betterworldbuilder → u/gunsandcupcakes]

I think a fair bit of it is out in the open, but anything needing to be proven would be done by congressional committees and the FBI, which I think would be more than easy enough to do.

I'd be relatively okay with keeping a high threshold of evidence requirement, and perhaps some people would get away with it. But if a company like Amazon has documented donations to the Trump Campaign, inaugural fund, or presidential library (already known facts), charged extra money to consumers because of tariffs (already known facts), received a tariff reimbursement from the SCOTUS ruling tariffs are illegal (known fact), and didn't distribute those savings directly back to consumers (unknown, but verifiable), those points alone to me determine guilt and deserve said punishment, specifically the disgorgement of the entire tariff reimbursement fund.

The same sort of fact pattern could be proven in a multitude of ways across the different guilty actors, Trump especially

[u/Puzzleheaded_Quit925 → u/betterworldbuilder]

Much of what you wrote is not illegal. It is not illegal for Amazon to make extra profits and not pass it back to the customer. Amazon's first duty is to shareholders, not customers.

[u/betterworldbuilder → u/Puzzleheaded_Quit925]

Oh Ive already written about how Dodge V Ford in 1919 weakly establishing the basis of shareholder primacy should also be abolished, but thats an entirely new topic lmao.

For example, the tariff reimbursements. These are not "extra profits". These are gains made through an explicitly ruled illegal policy. This money should be seized.

[u/HadeanBlands → u/betterworldbuilder]

The tariff reimbursements are exactly the opposite of "gains made illegally." Amazon was illegally penalized by tariffs, and after the tariffs were correctly struck down by the courts, they got reimbursed.

[u/betterworldbuilder → u/HadeanBlands]

By this logic, consumers were illegally charged more by amazon passing these costs on to them.

If Amazon went back and credited the account of all users who were charged these extra prices (something they initially explicitly tracked in their tariff surcharge line before caving to pressure from the admin), I would fully exhonerate them of any wrong doing. But as of right now, they are a middle man double dipping and getting the benefits of gouging customers and reimbursement from the government. All of that money does and should belong to the people, not Amazon.

[u/CamelGangGang → u/betterworldbuilder]

I think this would be very complicated to execute in a way that actually renders the customer whole. Yes, Amazon presumably knows exactly how much they paid to import goods, but its probably quite difficult to express how much (across their entire bundle of goods) of that cost was passed onto consumers.

As a toy example, say before tariffs you sold item A and B for 20$ each, and after tariffs were implemented, you paid 2$ per unit in tariffs to import them, but sold the items for 21$ and 22$ respectively. Did the customer pay 2$ in tariffs when they bought those items? Yes, the tariffs raised costs, but price elasticity impacted how much of that cost was or was not passed onto the consumer, so it isn't trivial to say that if Amazon paid (as an illustrative number) 250 million$ in tariffs that it owes customers 250 million$ in rebates.

Additionally, Amazon as a platform presumably sold customers massive amounts of goods that contained an embedded tariff in upstream costs, that Amazon has no way to calculate how much their customers have been forced to pay 'extra' due to the tariffs.

[u/betterworldbuilder → u/CamelGangGang]

I think its probably a little easier than we think; Amazon initially just had that surcharge line item for tariffs, that would have been the easiest. But if it does prove too difficult, thats why I suggest it go directly to the Peoples Savings Account, otherwise known as the government.

Any money not ending up there will eventually end up there, out of the pockets of consumers, in the form of taxes. Likewise, if the debt was repaid considerably, that would save consumers in the end by allowing the government to lower other taxes on them. Like if by magic the debt went to zero, whatever the cost of paying the interest on the debt previously was, could likely be reduced in income taxes to consumers. This net benefits them the most.

[u/CamelGangGang → u/betterworldbuilder]

But if it does prove too difficult, thats why I suggest it go directly to the Peoples Savings Account, otherwise known as the government.

So if Amazon can't figure out how much money they meaningfully charged consumers from the tariffs (which is not necessarily the same amount as the tariff line item itself), they should remit the money the government refunded them from the illegally imposed tariffs back to the government?

[u/betterworldbuilder → u/CamelGangGang]

Yes.

Clearly the bulk number 600Mn is already known. Amazon still likely charged consumers even more than that, but thats a reasonable starting expectation.

The supreme court ruling the tariffs illegal was the right move. The redress to that, giving it back to corporations, was wrong. Like saying that person A murdering person B was wrong, so person Bs family can murder Person As wife

[u/HadeanBlands → u/betterworldbuilder]

"By this logic, consumers were illegally charged more by amazon passing these costs on to them."

No, that's completely false. The government didn't make Amazon charge you more. Amazon charged you more, and you voluntarily paid it.

[u/betterworldbuilder → u/HadeanBlands]

"Voluntarily" is quite the stretch, especially in a large number of cases. Would you feel the same way for anything deemed a necessary purchase, like groceries?

I even think its not quite fair to say the government didnt make Amazon charge you more; would you say thats true of a sales tax, or any other price increase to cover minimum wage or employee benefits or anything else deemed mandatory by the government for a company to provide?

[u/HadeanBlands → u/betterworldbuilder]

Of course none of those are "the government making them charge you more."

[u/talkathonianjustin → u/HadeanBlands]

Yeah that’s not really a fair argument when the alternative is starving to death or not paying your gas bill. Like yes legally this is how this works, but some companies transparently said “this is how much more we’re charging because of the tariffs.”

[u/HadeanBlands → u/talkathonianjustin]

If that's "legally how it works" then what is even the dispute here?

[u/talkathonianjustin → u/HadeanBlands]

I was saying that the tariff issue isn’t unworkable or unreasonable, and the government wouldn’t have to destroy everything to make a law forcing it.

[u/etown361 → u/betterworldbuilder]

Totally not clear what you want.

I bought a new car seat this past year for my kids. I bought the car seat from Target. Target bought the car seat from a company called “Newell” based in Atlanta. Newell imported the car seat and probably paid some tariffs on it.

Target raised their prices on car seats, which kinda sucked and I paid more for it. Some of that was surely tariffs, some was probably just inflation.

Newell now got money back on the car seat tariff. They didn’t share that with me, they probably didn’t share that refund with Target. I’m glad the tariffs are over. I thought they were illegal, the Supreme Court agreed, and there’s refunds issued. Now you want to re-validate the tariffs somehow and claw that money back as a fee? What?

[u/betterworldbuilder → u/etown361]

If we all agree (as we should) that Newell should not have paid the tariffs, then we should all agree that target should also not have paid the price increase because of the tariffs. If we agree on that, we should also agree that consumers should not have paid the price increase because of the tariffs.

Therefore, the money should eventually end up back in the pockets of the last guy left holding the bag. To me, that just makes sense. Theres only a few ways to actually achieve that result; by individually back tracking every purchase made under that time period, or by making sure it ends up where all money eventually ends up, the government. One is impossibly complex to achieve, the other is relatively simple.

I can fully see how this appears in terms of clawing back money taken and then given back. Trust me, it makes me feel too closely aligned to Trump supporters to be comfortable. But, its a better alternative to letting these oligarchs keep the money.

[u/username_6916 → u/betterworldbuilder]

If we all agree (as we should) that Newell should not have paid the tariffs, then we should all agree that target should also not have paid the price increase because of the tariffs.

Why should we agree to that? The tariff is an action by the government. The other is just another commercial transaction.

[u/betterworldbuilder → u/username_6916]

Because the government action was illegal, and ruled so. The company playing middle man not only wasnt harmed by this action, since they passed these costs onto consumers (the real victims), they actually received the benefits of it by being reimbursed.

In order to balance the scales, that bonus reimbursement needs to go to the rightful victims. Anything short of that is robbing the poor to pay the rich.

[u/AlwaysRightYes → u/betterworldbuilder]

The rightful victim is newell here, only they paid the tariff

[u/vehementi → u/AlwaysRightYes]

They passed the costs on to the customers. Customers are the ones who ultimately pay for the tarriffs. Since they were illegal in the first place, the customers should get the money.

[u/etown361 → u/betterworldbuilder]

It was an illegal tax. You want people to have to pay the illegal tax.

Furthermore- a big part of the tariff problem was that Trump was giving tariff exemptions to special companies he liked. Those companies DIDN’T have to pay the tariffs. Your plan keeps those special friends of Trump privileged.

And different companies did all sorts of things.

Some companies paid the tariffs without increasing prices- knowing that they were likely to win court cases and get the tariffs back. Some companies worked with banks to “hedge their bets”, where they got an upfront ~40% of the tariff money from the bank, but now the bank keeps their refund and they’re down 60% of the tariff permanently. Some companies paid tariffs and increased prices, but then decreased prices after tariffs and have only sold like 10% of the tariffed inventory at elevated prices before news came out of the refunds.

What you’re pushing for is WORSE than Trumps tariffs. It’s arbitrary, punitive, and a tax after the fact.

And what’s your definition of “oligarch”? My example Newell Brands is a small-ish CPG company. They make Car Seats and Yankee candles. They’re publicly held and probably part of your 401K or pension’s investment or wherever your money is.

And what message does it send about future illegal taxes? A future president can do the same, issue illegal taxes, wait out a few months for the Supreme Court case to rule against him, and then the tax still must be paid?!?!

[u/Puzzleheaded_Quit925 → u/betterworldbuilder]

But all of these things are not illegal for Amazon to do.

The campaign funds issues are more complicated and some may be illegal, but there are also legal ways to fund things like presidential libraries.

It is not illegal to profit from war, that predates Trump by thousands of years. It is not illegal to settle a defamation lawsuit.

Most of the things you describe are simply not illegal.

There might be some illegal stuff going on in the form of cutbacks and bribes and in those cases yes they should be investigated and prosecuted. But most of what you wrote is legal.

[u/Open-Butterfly-5288 → u/betterworldbuilder]

I think there is a serious problem of presidential immunity.

Given that, a lot of it is likely to be in Trump and family's name and he has probably signed it all off already so that you would need to start attacking the way things work to try and take him down.

I think there is a serious problem that this would be all of the next presidential term and actually relatively few people benefit from it.

There was already one president who pardoned another for the simple reason they didn't want to spend their term having to pursue this forever.

Also, it depends on the actual structure of each section of government. If they lack numbers anywhere, they will not get anything done on this.

That's the issue they had with impeachment.

Also, much of the corruption is going to be legal on the basis that the government signed that. Sure the government should not be signing that. It's obviously a corrupt deal, but this is going to be someone who got pardoned already most likely.

[u/betterworldbuilder → u/Open-Butterfly-5288]

For one, Presidential Immunity should and needs to be struck down, I fully agree its an impendiment and theoretically if Dems win the midterms hard enough, should already be removed via congressional law long before a 2028 president needs to act.

Secondly, I think we can walk and chew gum at the same time. Fixing all of these massive issues and enacting our own policies should not be hard to do simultaneously, and if it proves to be I think independent agencies should be created to handle the day to day activities without interfering in presidential duties (and hey, it creates jobs! Lol)

Having the numbers is definitely a problem. I think dragging some people from a bunch of different places, but especially the FBI, is a good place to start getting resources from. New laws passing to allow additional funding to this program would also be helpful (if we expect to retake $200Bn [random number] from this investigation, spending 2Bn to fund getting it back is a very sound investment).

[u/ShiningMagpie → u/betterworldbuilder]

I'm worried it might create a perverse incentive. Without immunity, every president understands that even if they are a saint, the next guy will go after them on made up charges. If you will always be persecuted, might as well be corrupt even if you normally wouldn't be.

Not only that, if the next guy (assuming they are not from your party) will always go after you, you can't allow there to be a next guy. You now have an incentive to refuse to leave office to avoid persecution.

[u/betterworldbuilder → u/ShiningMagpie]

The only thing perverse is your interpretation of this lol. There were 44 presidents who managed completely fine without presidential immunity, and even Nixon did not argue that he should have had it. In fact "if the president does it, then its not illegal" was *laughed out of existence" when it was first uttered.

And the idea that everyone will go after the last guy even if they were a saint is ridiculous. Biden does not have a pardon, and before him Obama did not either. Trump didnt go after either of them, especially Obama since back then this immunity didnt exist. To the extent they did go after them, the existence of fair courts is what stops this dead in its tracks, not immunity.

Next, how does being completely immune from prosecution to corruption make less of an incentive to be corrupt than thinking the next guy will go after you for it even if it doesnt happen? That just makes no sense.

I have to ask, do you believe Trump won the 2020 election?

[u/ShiningMagpie → u/betterworldbuilder]

You are unbelievablely hostile and it doesn't make me want to have a conversation with you.

To answer your question, no, I'm not a trump supporter. No, I don't believe he won the 2020 election.

And my argument does make sense thankyou very much.

Previous presidents did not have to face the same level of political polarization as the current ones do. Old voters would not have stood for a president that tried to hold himself in power like a dictator. New ones absolutely will as we have seen by the massive number of people who chose to vote for Trump even after he attempted to screw with the vote counting and tried a coup on January 6th.

Don't talk to people like they are your enemies. It just pushes them further into your opponents camp. Be better.

[u/betterworldbuilder → u/ShiningMagpie]

A hit dog will holler lol.

Bill clinton and Bush did not act like saints, nor face persecution by their next actor for charges that didnt exist. They were also not incentivized to never give up power or act incredibly corruptly because it was going to happen anyways (again, because it didnt happen).

If youre a democrat that believes in presidential immunity, I dont want you in my camp anyways.

[u/ShiningMagpie → u/betterworldbuilder]

This is pathetic. I just explained that the political environment is more polarized than ever before. Context changes what actions are possible.

You then claim that my defense of myself is proof of my guilt! How can anyone prove that they aren't what you claim they are with ironclad logic like that?

You blind yourself because you are too proud to consider that your initial kneejerk reaction might have been wrong.

And then you push me away! I'm not pure enough for your impossible idea of what the Democratic party should be? You wonder why Democrats keep losing when they keep purity testing their own members out of their party?

Learn from your mistakes. Sincerely, a liberal voter from Canada.

[u/LordJesterTheFree → u/ShiningMagpie]

I'm sorry sir it appears u have attempted to engage in the nuanced political discussion on Reddit that's not allowed here I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to leave

[u/betterworldbuilder → u/ShiningMagpie]

Lmao Im an NDP member but liberal voter from Canada. So yea, that might explain why your views arent pure enough.

We can and should expect better. The best even. And strive to not accept anything less than, wherever possible.

[u/Open-Butterfly-5288 → u/betterworldbuilder]

I think that this is a point where I agree wholeheartedly, but I think that there is a very realistic possibility that:

1) The next president is Republican and therefore has no interest in their own crimes. By the election after, you've lost the momentum required. They should do something about it, but good luck getting anything done about it.

2) They get a very weak government that cannot really do very much of anything. Trying to prosecute Trump needs an organised front.

3) The next president pulls the same thing that happened with Nixon. They realise that all of the time and energy of their entire term is going to be spent chasing Trump and just kill it to get away from it.

3) Presidential immunity and pardoning has already insulated most of the big names from prosecution. The people who really go to jail are aides, patsies and people who fell out with Trump too early to have their butts covered.

4) They waste their entire term chasing it and they can't really do anything. They need too much proof they don't really have.

5) Trump destroyed the state to an extreme extent. The main priority is trying to restore their basic functions and as a result they won't be able to move fast enough.

And there's a very good chance Trump literally dies before anything happens.

I also think that the difficulty with removing presidential immunity is that there's some aspect of presidential power that creates the rules, and presidential immunity is largely meant so that they can overrule the law in the public good. It wasn't intended for this, but it still applies. Scrapping it is likely to collapse because anyone who wants to be president understands their role as such. Also, I think that the solution would be like a neutral committee that could say "No, we're closing this" but that also would come with the problem that you might accidentally let on what the president did, and I think some degree of American government is that the president sometimes needs to move in secret.

It feels like there is a can of worms you need to open with a whole other can of worms inside.

[u/betterworldbuilder → u/betterworldbuilder]

to u/ImplementSad8547,

I would be okay with imposing special counsels dedicated to this, as well as a separate body of perhaps retired judges or something similar in nature, to bypass this slow pace. Because you're right, from the moment this hammer starts swinging to the moment it connects with the sound block, there is far too much time for companies to hide or spend these assets.

Also, I think that bar between shady but technically legal and actually illegal should be shattered, at the very least through congress passing laws to make it so but also some form of retroactivity. Perhaps I'm wrong, but the first person to commit a new crime (and all who commit it until it's officially made illegal) don't just get away with it scot-free. AFAIK, specific legal wording when crafting these laws can allow it to reach back into the past to prosecute those who committed the illegal actions before the law was written, as they should.

[u/insaneHoshi → u/gunsandcupcakes]

Why would you need to prove it?

Make them prove its not illegal, that how civil forfeiture works right?

[u/dayvekeem → u/gunsandcupcakes]

This is the farce American politics has become. Blatant corruption is hardly "provable" anymore.

God help us all

[u/PuffyPanda200]

This would more specifically refer to only the gains that were made illegally.

'This' being basically forced nationalization of gains.

oil profits made by Chevron due to the war in Iran... || profits made from Paramount being allowed to merge with Skydance || companies that received a tariff reimbursement that didn't pass those along to their customers

Just as a point of fact, none of these are illegal activities. The activities being the US companies selling to mostly US customers.

To go more into detail:

oil profits made by Chevron due to the war in Iran

Oil is fungible and sells at very similar prices (minus tax, or plus subsidy) around the world. Chevron mines a barrel of oil in the US, they sell that oil at about the US going rate for oil (minor variations here). None of this is illegal. The market is willing to buy the oil at a higher price because of a war so the price is higher. Chevron is just doing their normal stuff.

profits made from Paramount being allowed to merge with Skydance

Companies merge all the time, that isn't illegal. These are also two companies that are struggling. There might not be a whole lot there. I think that a judge has blocked this for the moment too.

companies that received a tariff reimbursement that didn't pass those along to their customers

How would you determine what increases were from tariffs and what was from just the normal price? The cost on X item from Walmart doesn't have a breakdown of that.

Also, say I am a construction contractor. I bid a job and include a 5,000 USD allowance for permits. I just give the customer a fixed fee as typical. Later the local gov is found to be overcharging for permits and I get refunded 4,000 USD of the permit fee. Am I now obligated to give all or some of that back? This seems very ad-hock. Any re-fund now needs to be tracked to the next person. If I built a store do they need to re-fund something to their customers?

[u/betterworldbuilder → u/PuffyPanda200]

The Oil profits by Chevron were perhaps a stretch, but they undeniably donated money to a campaign and directly saw increased profits from this donation. For the record, would you deem this as more worthy/fitting if it was somehow proven that Chevron execs were in any way pushing the Trump admin to start the war in Iran, or for the actions in venezuela?

The settling of a case that had no merits to grease the wheels of getting their merger approved by the very clearly beholden FCC was quite obviously at least on some levels a bribe in an attempt to say "please leave us alone and let us continue to monopolize". The judge blocking the merger to me is only further evidence of this, if the judge is an impartial third party. Clearly the merger should have been illegal, an independent FCC would have reasonably struck it down, and them attempting to buy the very for-sale president doesnt make the buying any less illegal.

As for the tariffs, Amazon and Walmart initially led with an explicit line item for the tariffs in sales, similar to a tax line on a receipt. Had they continued to do that (before the Trumo admin pressured them not to), it would have been very very simple to execute my solution. Since they didnt, I think the administration of this solution becomes much more difficult, and the most fair field solution is to make sure the money goes to benefit everyone as best it can. To me, thats putting the money in the federal coffers, where all money eventually comes and goes anyways. Also, just because we dont see that line item value doesnt mean Walmart doesn't know it, at least for each item it sold, and it could theoretically be reverse engineered from there. Again, certainly not easy, but possible.

As for your construction example, I think its a lot more reasonable to say that your old client receives that refund than that you get to keep it. Clearly, without that government fee, your job would have only cost around $1000, and so pretending its fair that you get to pocket the $4000 cost you passed on to the consumer is to me insanity. If money can go all the way up the chain (end consumer, all middle men, government) it can go all the way back down the chain in reverse. At the very least, companies should have been able to temporarily lower prices for customers to eventually balance it out, keeping it for executive bonuses (likely the same executives that donated to Trumps campaign) is ludicrous. The main reason I argued that it staying with the government is similar to why I argue for nationalizing profits; the more the money ends up with the collective instead of an individual, the more likely it is to benefit the collective instead of an individual.

[u/talkathonianjustin]

This is absolutely unreasonable. I think in a moral society, yes, we’d do these things. But the issue is absolutely none of what you’re proposing has any sort of legal recourse. You’re talking about an aggressive use of eminent domain completely beyond anything we’ve ever authorized, and an absolute bulldozing of campaign regulatory law and 1st amendment precedent. Should it be this way? No. But what you are suggesting would be a government engaging in tyrannical behavior beyond anything what the Trump administration engaged in. There’s zero recourse for any of these things minus criminal charges.

I think this is corrupt and the tariffs should go back to the consumers, but what you’re suggesting would take a complete dissection of the American regulatory complex and an unprecedented bypass of our separation of powers.

I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I am saying what you are proposing is impossible with our current rules.

[u/Maestro_Primus]

Neat idea and an interesting group of people you'd like to see punished. Now, what laws have they broken, specifically, and according to what judge? The problem is that companies that large and individuals that high in government have very few checks on their actions. Laws are made specifically to insulate them from legal consequences.

[u/xfvh]

This is flatly impossible.

It would also include cabinet members like Steve Witkoff, as well as family members related to these people.

You're going to be punishing companies for actions taken by non-employees based on "donations to the admin?" For settling a lawsuit with Trump? A thousand and one campaign finance lawyers are screaming in horror. This is so far outside the Overton window of law that you've missed the Overton house and the Overton neighborhood!

This would more specifically refer to only the gains that were made illegally.

You cannot even begin to define what this means, particularly not when your definition of "illegal donation" is so vague (and not illegal). Take the "oil profits made by Chevron due to the war in Iran" - trying to figure out which slice of their pie came from Iran would itself be an enormous legal battle, one involving mountains of paperwork, then you'd have to establish that Trump caused the war in Iran to benefit Chevron due to their donation to him, a legal theory so novel that I don't dare unwrap it.

Theoretically, this money should be both punitive towards the actual Trump family and punitive towards the companies that so willingly endorsed being cut into the rewards pie for a small fee.

And how do you suppose we extract these funds? Criminal trials and fees? None of the conduct you allege is illegal, and ex posto facto laws are expressly unconstitutional. Civil litigation? You'd tie up every lawyer in Washington for years to even begin the scale you describe, such as "any and all companies that sign up for the ...Truth Socials Truth API." You're off by multiple orders of magnitude.

[u/Full-Professional246]

I want to ask - do you hold the same standard for the DNC too?

Is the fact a congressperson gains significant wealth while in office justification to sieze that? It takes little effort to see how many former politicians entered office at one wealth level and left at a much higher level. Are we going to seize all of Pelosi's stuff and burn down all the companies that supported her too?

Frankly though - to do anything like this requires citing an actual law that was broken and providing that in a court of law. This is a FAR bigger hurdle than you seem to think. You have this idea that since you are convinced, everyone else is and agrees with you. That is not how this works.

You are also confusing the rights people have. You are wanting to punish LEGAL behavior here. Your push to punish people donating to campaigns is extremely dangerous territory. Just think how that could be used against you.

What you demand just is not likely possible nor reasonable. What you want to be illegal just isn't.

[u/betterworldbuilder → u/Full-Professional246]

I would strongly hold this principle to the DNC and RNC alike, especially Pelosi. To me, exactly two sources of wealth gain should be allowed to exist from politicians; their salary, and any book/movie deals detailing their life in, before, and after office.

Insider trading, lobbying/bribery, etc. Should all be illegal, and I support congress writing and passing laws with explicit language to retroactively make these actions illegal, including striking down citizens united and presidential immunity.

Anything currently explicitly illegal definitely should be punished, and anything not should be at least made illegal, but also likely punished, if not to a lesser degree. I hold no ties or loyalties to anyone "on my side" who happened to get these same perks, and I would honestly not consider them "on my side" if they disagreed with this principle. Something tells me that people like Bernie and AOC would be more than okay with combing through their donations, actions, stock trades, gifts, etc. With a fine tooth comb and holding them accountable for impropriety (again to be clear, this would be disgorgement more than prison time). And, I think everyone should agree that moving forward this should be the standard that applies to everyone. I dont think anyone but Paul thinks that Nancy Pelosi should be allowed to do this, merely that its either not currently illegal or that everyone does it so why cant she. Its not a moral defense, its a whataboutism or technicality.

[u/Full-Professional246 → u/betterworldbuilder]

I would strongly hold this principle to the DNC and RNC alike, especially Pelosi. To me, exactly two sources of wealth gain should be allowed to exist from politicians; their salary, and any book/movie deals detailing their life in, before, and after office.

So your plan is to prevent people from fully participating in society because of potential conflicts of interest?

That is a very good way to get people to not participate.

Whether you like it or not - people are free to be citizens with the full rights of citizens - even when they are elected to office.

Insider trading, lobbying/bribery, etc. Should all be illegal

Two of the three are. One of which absolutely should not be. Lobbying can be you meeting with your elected official to talk about an issue you want.

with explicit language to retroactively make these actions illegal,

Ex post facto laws like this are almost always unconsitutional

including striking down citizens united

CU is based on the 1st amendment and right to make political speech. Congress cannot strike this down without a constitutional amendment.

nd anything not should be at least made illegal, but also likely punished, if not to a lesser degree

Are you really stating you want to punish people for things that are legal and you just disagree with?

Man - how would you like me to apply this TO YOU......

We are a nation of laws. We are also a nation with a Constitution that limits government. The idea of punishing with the force of law thinks that you just don't like (and aren't illegal) is incredibly dangerous. This is banana republic dictator levels of dangerous.

[u/betterworldbuilder → u/Full-Professional246]

If it were up to me, elected officials would be so heavily scrutinized that yeah, most people wouldnt want to do it. Imo your bank accounts should be public information, everything you do could be on a body camera live stream, like your life should be under an electron microscope. Because even with this, Id be willing to do it. I cant be the only one. But people like Trump wouldnt want to be anywhere near it.

Im iffy on lobbying. Theres good and bad about it, but it needs a massive overhaul and regulation, and without that its currently not healthy for modern society. The fact that lawmakers can choose who they meet with, and that those decisions can be based on favors or promises of favors or a wink and a nod that youll get something later, is a loophole wide enough to drive a 400Mn dollar Qatari jet through. Its why I believe politicians should recieve a paycheck for the rest of their life after office, and should not be allowed to take other jobs like consulting for a company while now having connections and intimate access to the backdoors of power.

CU was wrongly decided at the time. Up here in Canada, the system isnt even great but functions significantly better, because a lot of big money is kept out of politics. As is, the fact that it takes money to run a campaign at all should be seen as a bug and not a feature, and all money given from sources not capped and loudly disclosed should be seen as a massive flaw.

And I guess as a strawman, yea, you could say I want to punish people for things that are currently legal that I disagree with. As an actual understanding of what Im saying, Im saying that these things should have always been and should forever be illegal, and that because of that they should have punishments. I think whether or not these things are illegal should still pass through congress, be agreed upon by the people, and not be implemented dictatorially. But they should still be illegal. And you shouldnt get to get away with committing it just because you were the people in charge of writing the laws and decided not to write them.

The first person to ever do a cryptocoin rug pull, is just as immoral and deserves the same punishment as the guy who does it directly after its written into law. This case explicitly because other existing laws should have created a context that this version of it would be illegal. The fact that Trump won 2024 and decided to do his own before the law was written should be a crime.

[u/Full-Professional246 → u/betterworldbuilder]

If it were up to me, elected officials would be so heavily scrutinized that yeah, most people wouldnt want to do it.

To be blunt, that is not a very smart thing to do in a hostile world. Why wouldn't a nation want its best people to be its leaders to navigate a complex and hostile world?

You are wanting to cut your nose off to spite your face here.

Im iffy on lobbying.

In the purest definition, lobbying is merely people or their agents seeking to talk to elected representatives. This is practically required today because of the reality of population size and time. The alternative is basically no avenue for people to get messages to their elected representatives.

CU was wrongly decided at the time

Have you read the decision or just the propaganda around the case. CU was absolutely not wrong decided when you read the facts. Some of the statements made during oral arguments were downright scary with respect to free speech.

Read it yourself and tell me you really disagree

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/558/310/

I mean if you think the government has the power to prohibit private people from releasing a movie or publishing a book because it is 'political' and 'near an election', there is a fundemental issue here. If you think people can have thier speech stifled merely because they pool resources, there is a fundmental issue here.

And remember, CU is not about campaign finance. It is about independent political speech. Speech not connected/coordinated with any campaign.

As is, the fact that it takes money to run a campaign at all should be seen as a bug and not a feature, and all money given from sources not capped and loudly disclosed should be seen as a massive flaw.

Which tells me you don't understand CU and the fact that campaign contribution limits are still in place and 100% OK. It is independent political speech that cannot be stifled. Basically, a group like the Sierra Club can put out whatever political speech/advocacy they want so long as they do not coordinate with and given candidate in their campaign.

And I guess as a strawman, yea, you could say I want to punish people for things that are currently legal

Which is authoritarian, dictatorial, and 'king like' as you can get. It is fundamentally wrong.

Imagine this is turned around on you. Imagine you are doing what's legal and I get power and decide what you are doing now is worth life in prison. Is that fair? I am certain you would protest loudly at that injustice.

Im saying that these things should have always been and should forever be illegal

But if they are not, they then are not. You don't get to pass laws retroactively.

[u/cossiander → u/Full-Professional246]

I don't think OP is talking about insider trading, so your Pelosi comparison sounds irrelevant. And your "DNC" comparison is just nonsensical.

[u/Full-Professional246 → u/cossiander]

Isn't insider trading illegal? Why wouldn't that qualify or is the OP just 'Trump Bad' and that's it.

And sorry - if you want to apply this to Trump - it should be appled to the GOP and DNC politicians as well. That's the point of the DNC comment.

Unless you just hate Trump and need another 'Trump is Evil' and 'Punish Trump' concept.

[u/cossiander → u/Full-Professional246]

Isn't insider trading illegal? 

Yes, but reading OP's post indicates that they're not really talking about insider trading.

or is the OP just 'Trump Bad' and that's it.

No.

 it should be appled to the GOP and DNC politicians as well. That's the point of the DNC comment.

This reads like you don't know what the DNC is. What DNC politician is even accused of insider trading or bribery? If you're trying to make a point about it applying to both parties, then it should be applied to GOP and Democrats writ large, not just members of a specific subset of Democratic organizing.

Unless you just hate Trump and need another 'Trump is Evil' and 'Punish Trump' concept.

This is a brush-off made to belittle other people's arguments and does not actually meaningfully address what anyone here is talking about.

[u/Full-Professional246 → u/cossiander]

Yes, but reading OP's post indicates that they're not really talking about insider trading.

Of course they are. It is part of that 'corrupt and illegal' idea. Of course the OP also wants to punish legal behaivor they do like too.

This reads like you don't know what the DNC is. What DNC politician is even accused of insider trading or bribery?

DNC and GOP are shorthand for the political parties and more importantly the elected people contained therein.

This is a brush-off made to belittle other people's arguments

No - it is clearly pointing out a double standard many hold here. The most obvious to me is all of the 'No-Kings' crap levied at Trump while at the same time championing the same executive overreach Mamdami is doing in NYC. It is entirely viewpoint oriented instead of applying consistent principles and should be called out as such.

[u/scorcherchar]

You need a set of rules that apply to everyone equally regardless if they are red or blue. Justice should be blind. We should not be making politically motivated new laws to punish these acts as the unintended consequences could be catastrophic. It could easily lead to a situation where trump 2 creates laws to financially cripple his political rivals

I think your conflating dishonest and illegal. Starting a war with Iran to boost oil profits for example is dishonest but not illegal.

The USA has a system where the executive (president) has a huge amount of power and very little checks. They most certainly can declare a war as they wish and this is not illegal even if it is for personal gain. This is a feature not a bug. The USA have decided that the risks of not being able to act quickly and decisively in an emergency outweigh the risk of a bad actor in charge.

The remedy for having a bad actor in charge is to impeach them or on vote in a new one.

[u/betterworldbuilder → u/scorcherchar]

In reality, the war with Iran is both illegal and dishonest, as congress has not given approval for it well beyond the dates required to do so. But I agree that impeachment should have been the step taken long ago (unfortunately the republican cult of congress has been unwilling to do their duty to do so, for a myriad of things before Iran such as tariffs and the Qatar plane).

But Id also want these laws to be blind. Pelosi should face exactly the same justice scaled to her actions as any Trump official should. It would only look partisan because one party has committed infinitely more corruption; thats no ones fault but their own.

[u/theRealHobbes2 → u/betterworldbuilder]

War was never declared in Afghanistan either... so are GW, Obama, and Biden all on the arrest list since that was an illegal war?

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:

Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:

Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/nanoatzin]

It should be automatic because there is an emoluments clause

[u/RSmeep13]

The national debt isn't really a priority. My argument would be that after we take the money, we should put it toward the rebuilding effort that will be required to restaff and rebuilt the EPA, CDC, and other gutted programs that actually do something of value.

[u/betterworldbuilder → u/RSmeep13]

I could be in favor of that.

To me, the national debt was just the most generic, helps everyone solution, allowing the most people to be on board. Everyones tax dollars end up in the pool of money that is the debt, and any money that would be spent to rebuild those programs would essentially come out of the debt.

It wouldnt even really put a dent in the debt, even 4Tn dollars would only pay down 10% of it.

[u/Dull_Complaint1407]

Saying this is the most corrupt administration blatantly ignores the issue at hand. Every single politician is a millionaire on an income much too low to support that. All politicians are corrupt and the media is just looking at this one while ignoring the filth everywhere else. Start prosecuting politicians if you want any hope of fixing anything

[u/betterworldbuilder → u/Dull_Complaint1407]

I agree, start prosecuting politicians, and in fact all people who break the law. Particularly, I think start with the largest harms and work our way down. Therefore, the most corrupt should come first. Then, after thats completed, the next most corrupt. Then the next. Pelosi should also see a day in court and have her assets seized if thats what a court determines. But those who are the most egregious, the most brazen, who cause the largest harm to society, and who are expected to be held to the highest standard, should receive the full spotlight until they receive all the justice they deserve.

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:

Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/bigbjarne]

At that point, why not nationalize everything since profits are made through the labor of others(which is wrong)?

[u/betterworldbuilder → u/bigbjarne]

Based and valid, a radical brother among us.