this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2023
265 points (96.8% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7211 readers
218 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I thought this was a preemptive step to prevent the shenanigans.
It's a step to prevent further shenanigans of the same kind that he's already been doing for years
An ex president has faced a corporate death sentence before? I feel like we're in uncharted waters here. His tricks really don't seem to hold up in court, other than delay, delay, delay, and that tactic seems to be running out of steam.
An ex president shouldn't have had a corporation to dissolve in the first place because he should've been forced to divest due to the Emoluments Clause.
I'm not sure that's relevant since we're talking about laws he's broke, not laws we wish were in place. As far as I know, divestment is not a requirement.