782
submitted 9 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

Michael Cohen — who long served as former President Trump’s personal lawyer and fixer — warned Sunday of the potential risk of sending Trump back to the White House with mounting legal fees and financial liabilities.

“We need to be very careful about him as a potential president because he is for sale,” Cohen, now an outspoken critic of the former president, said in an interview on MSNBC’s “The Weekend” on Sunday.

“He needs to figure out where he is going to raise $500-plus million over a short period of time,” Cohen continued.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] bamboo 2 points 9 months ago
[-] prole@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 months ago

Yes it did...

But back to the question: anyone remember what happened specifically with Jared Kushner's security clearance after it was denied over and over and over by the US Intelligence Community?

Ah fuck it, I'll just spoil it myself: Trump was able to override it and give him the clearance anyway! Yay checks and balances!

[-] DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

Presidents and politicians in general misusing their power is always an issue. That being said, there is nothing wrong with an elected representative of the people (president) overriding an unelected official who is his employee. At least presidents are accountable to the people in theory.

[-] prole@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Then why even have a vetting process? In what world would anyone (including Democrats) be ok if Biden or Obama did anything close to this... I mean truly, go read the full story of just how many times Kushner was denied clearance and for what reasons. It's a fucking travesty, and defending it should embarrass you.

Also, we're not talking about just any job, we are talking about trusting this person with the highest level of secrets and sensitive information you can have access to. You don't just rubber stamp your skeezy son in law into the highest levels of security clearance, and ignore the decisions of the actual people who's literal career it is to make sure only certain people receive that access. Literally any other person on the planet wouldn't even have had a second chance, let alone like fucking 8.

I don't think you understand that the president isn't a king. This country was meant to have checks and balances to protect us from this kind of thing, but turns out all of that shit was based on the honors system. Oops.

[-] DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Please try to re-read what I wrote. I am by no means defending issuing a clearence to Jared. I am saying the president is given this power by law, and in my opinion for a good reason.

Therefore Trump should definitly be held accountable by voters (as in no self-aware being should vote for him), but it is not a legal issue. What he did is (and should remain) legal.

this post was submitted on 19 Feb 2024
782 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19096 readers
3512 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