Aren't there safeguards against such obvious forms of conflict of interest?

encomiast 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Safeguards only matter when there are people and institutions to enforce them. Remember all those people they fired? All part of the plan.

	▲	reactordev 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		This. Everyone is waiting for “the day” to come but they were all laid off back in April. This is why no one is stopping this. Everyone is doing it.

▲

mattmaroon an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Actually no, not really. The safeguards were mostly customs, not laws, so they can be safely ignored.

And what few laws there are, like the emoluments clause, seem to be entirely unenforceable because it’s not clear anyone has standing to bring a suit and the president presumably isn’t going to enforce the law on himself.

What we’ve learned in the last twelve years is our democracy was built on the good will of the people we elected, and when we stopped demanding the good will with our votes it was no longer guaranteed.

	▲	kayodelycaon an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Congress has the power to remove the President. That’s how this was supposed to work. IF the Supreme Court rules only Congress can impose the current tariffs, Trump will have a much harder time taking over. If the Supreme Court is also complicit, all three branches under control of a single president.

▲

globalise83 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There were, but it turns out that the moral fortitude required to defend them was just a figment of the national imagination.

▲

an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

orwin 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The senate?