> But a CEO that intentionally starves the beast (their own company) would be criminally liable to the state and civilly liable to shareholders.

The "beast" in this context is the government, not the country, on the argument that the former is slowing down the latter.

I don't like them, but I don't think they're illegal?

If another country were to force us into debt intentionally by sabotage, wouldn't that be a hostile act?

	▲	ben_w 37 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Even if you could actually prove Trump was an asset of a specific other nation (and given his total lack of shame about everything, I don't see how he'd be able to keep his mouth shut about it if he was), mere debt isn't what would count as such because the US has been arguing with itself about that for a very long time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_debt_ceiling That said, a president threatening war without Congressional approval is already bad, doing so with with a friendly nation is worse, doing so when US is bound to a mutual defence alliance with that nation by a treaty signed by Congress where Congress also passed an extra law to prevent the nation leaving that treaty* is "why have they not removed him from office yet?" territory. * Section 1250A, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2670