this post was submitted on 25 Nov 2024
266 points (99.6% liked)

politics

19135 readers
2209 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Donald Trump faces criticism for refusing to sign agreements under the Presidential Transition Act, which mandates funding limits and donor disclosure for a smooth power transfer.

By not signing, Trump avoids donor limits and disclosure rules, enabling secret contributions, including foreign ones, which raise concerns about financial corruption.

Critics, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren, warn this undermines transparency and governance, as FBI background checks on nominees are delayed.

The White House confirmed the agreements remain unsigned, with Trump relying on private donors instead of federal funds.

top 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 3 points 8 hours ago

Did they miss his first term? He literally ran a pay to play scheme.

[–] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 116 points 1 day ago (4 children)

The fact that this is optional at all is just fucking wild. So much of our government has apparently been operating on a simple gentleman's agreement and it's only stood up because nobody challenged it until now. We're so absolutely fucked.

[–] TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world 42 points 1 day ago

So much of our government has apparently been operating on a simple gentleman's agreement and it's only stood up because nobody challenged it until now.

Politicians have been challenging it from the beginning, it's just most of them had the good sense not to do it so overtly. Trump doesn't worry so much about that because he's successfully convinced a large segment of Americans that up is down, black is white, and that he is the messiah.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 35 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

It's not optional: https://newrepublic.com/post/188300/donald-trump-presidential-transition-breaking-federal-law

There just just aren't any explicit other rules to prevent inauguration. Seems like they fucking should have thought of that.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 50 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

If there's no consequences of not doing it, it's effectively optional. Just like pretty much all other laws and regulations designed to keep politicians acting in good faith and/or held accountable by the public from stepping over the lines..

[–] Nollij@sopuli.xyz 29 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Related, "If the penalty for a crime is a fine, then that law only exists for the lower class"

There would need to be real penalties, with enforcement. Turns out we have neither.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 12 points 22 hours ago

The penalty is not having funds released, and in place organizations and workers not being able to interface with the transition team. These shitheads do not care anyway though, because the goal is to ransack the country.

[–] Kalkaline@leminal.space 11 points 22 hours ago

So why aren't they arresting him?

[–] eran_morad@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago

Everything is optional when you have enough power.

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 9 points 22 hours ago

In the end, democratic government requires some amount of good faith. You can harden it a little, but there's only so much you can do.

The problem is that we have elected someone with so little regard for laws and people.

[–] medgremlin@midwest.social 18 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

"Concerns about financial corruption"?

Really? There's no "concern" here for anyone with 2 brain cells to boop together. It's a known, reliable fact, not a "concern".

[–] BranBucket@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago

It's a feature, not a bug. Part of the plan all along. If it weren't for the charges getting dropped, I'd say it's the whole plan.

[–] Absaroka@lemmy.world 62 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Financial corruption is the entire point.

You have to assume at this point everything is able to be bought, from cabinet positions to getting your nephew a job in whatever agency you'd like.

[–] Sabata11792@ani.social 6 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Shocking news is seeing the government do something meaningful without thousands in bribes.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 3 points 20 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Sabata11792@ani.social 4 points 19 hours ago

*Could be if it ever occurred in my lifetime

[–] SkavarSharraddas@gehirneimer.de 23 points 20 hours ago

Banana Republicans doing corrupt shit? Whoda thunk?

[–] macarthur_park@lemmy.world 37 points 23 hours ago

“Masked man with a gun ordering the teller to put the money in the bag faces criticism for risking a bank robbery.”

[–] snekerpimp@lemmy.world 25 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Only thing he knows is corruption. There’s no “risk” of it, it’s being done out in the open, and has been done for almost a decade.

[–] lemmy_outta_here@lemmy.world 7 points 18 hours ago

Pretty sure corruption was a literal campaign promise. "Vote for me and I will put my chief donor in charge of ruining your stupid lives" turned out to be a compelling message

[–] eran_morad@lemmy.world 39 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

“Risking”

fkn lol

[–] EleventhHour@lemmy.world 20 points 23 hours ago

”risking”???

[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 7 points 19 hours ago

Surely this time he will face consequences?

[–] Red_October@lemmy.world 4 points 17 hours ago

Pretty sure he doesn't give a fuck, won't bother trying to hide it, and will send the MAGAstapo after anyone who tries to prosecute.

[–] WhatYouNeed@lemmy.world 2 points 15 hours ago

Guess the transfer of power can't happen until this is complete.

[–] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 9 points 22 hours ago

And?

It's not like the motherfucker hid any of his intentions here and not like he didn't do the same things during his first term.

Nice of the lame stream media to finally take notice and publish stories about his blatant plans for corruption now though. /S

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 22 hours ago

Why is anyone surprised

[–] Kalkaline@leminal.space 4 points 22 hours ago

Those fucks in Congress had 4 fucking years to fucking act and they did fuck all.

[–] horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world 4 points 23 hours ago

There is no risk, the system is working as intended.

[–] HulkSmashBurgers@reddthat.com 3 points 21 hours ago

Add it to the pile!

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 1 points 18 hours ago

That risk became an issue decades ago.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 3 points 23 hours ago

Russia, North Korea, Israel, China....etc