Trump is the most corrupt US president in history

DiscostewSM · May 24, 2026

Wario32 said:
It boggles my mind to no end. Trump won't even go to his own son's wedding, and Trump supporters think he cares about them.

A viral post claims he's not going because of some restriction the Bahamas have regarding adjudicated rapists from America. Unlikely true, but then, I would not be surprised if it was true. Then again, it's rather interesting how Trump's claim was he needed to stay in Washington D.C., at the White House at this moment in time....... and then the next day we get reports of gun fire outside the WH.

Oh no! Another assassination attempt? We need a ballroom!

Wario32 said:
Now he's stealing money from the American people and some people are even applauding that. That's your money and you won't see a cent of it

Going back to this corruption, remember when Trump and his administration had claimed things like how the J6 protestors were Antifa and paid protestors by the left? Yet with this lawsuit, he's...... paying them recompense? So which is it? Is he paying his supporters, or his enemies? At what point are supporters of Trump going to realize he's a phony? That he will make any claim he wants, go against any law enacted, dismiss orders by those in authority, all for the purpose of his own gain?

SeltzerMist · May 24, 2026

He couldn't attend his son's wedding because he had the assassination attempt on his calendar already

Foxi4 · May 24, 2026

titan_tim said:
LOL, a wall of text? Your previous ramble had 288 words in a single rambling paragraph and mine had 212 nicely broken down in points saying where you are wrong. I know that reading makes you tired, but at least try to keep up.

Then to top it all off, after being told twice in there that you're conflating two issues, you continue to double down on being wrong. I'll put the core of what was said here again because it needs to be hammered home:

"Stop conflating the issues here. It's not that he's not allowed to try and sue. It's that a president doesn't have the authority to negotiate away core government powers for his own benefit."

Definitely a wall of text considering it’s a convoluted response to one statement - Trump being president does not preclude him from seeking restitution. The fact that he’s Chief Executive who’s been wronged by the Executive branch is immaterial here because what happened affected him in private life, not in any official capacity. If that wasn’t the case, any public servant would effectively waive their rights the moment they are sworn in which is an asinine point of view. If you don’t understand that, that’s your cross to bear. As I already said, this matter isn’t particularly interesting to me, so I won’t be wasting more time arguing about it. By all means, continue telling the DOJ what is and isn’t illegal, the DOJ being the literal arbiter of justice in the country.

Sir Tortoise said:
I wouldn't say "run by direct family members" is similar to a blind trust.

Carter’s farm was ran by his long-term friend Charles Kirbo who served as his confidant/advisor and frequently visited the Oval Office - he was not a stranger. This was cause for some controversy at the time and re-characterised the trust as “open”, legally speaking, but nobody stepped in to stop Carter from doing this. You’re welcome to correct yourself at any time - Carter didn’t “get rid of his farm” for any reasons other than financial ones, to protect the remainder of his estate, and only after his presidency.

Sir Tortoise · May 24, 2026

Foxi4 said:
Definitely a wall of text considering it’s a convoluted response to one statement - Trump being president does not preclude him from seeking restitution. The fact that he’s Chief Executive who’s been wronged by the Executive branch is immaterial here because what happened affected him in private life, not in any official capacity. If that wasn’t the case, any public servant would effectively waive their rights the moment they are sworn in which is an asinine point of view. If you don’t understand that, that’s your cross to bear. As I already said, this matter isn’t particularly interesting to me, so I won’t be wasting more time arguing about it. By all means, continue telling the DOJ what is and isn’t illegal, the DOJ being the literal arbiter of justice in the country.
Carter’s farm was ran by his long-term friend Charles Kirbo who served as his confidant/advisor and frequently visited the Oval Office - he was not a stranger. This was cause for some controversy at the time and re-characterised the trust as “open”, legally speaking, but nobody stepped in to stop Carter from doing this. You’re welcome to correct yourself at any time - Carter didn’t “get rid of his farm” for any reasons other than financial ones, to protect the remainder of his estate, and only after his presidency.

To be clear, when I said he gave up his farm, I was referring to the blind trust. I actually had no idea there were any further developments after that, so, cool history lesson but also not the point either.

Not sure what point you were going for either: Carter had a friend run his farm, and that makes it okay for Trump's sons to run companies and crypto schemes that are way more involved with government policy than a bloody peanut farm? I just find it very interesting that it was once a controversy, and then the ten thousand Trump peanut farms never even get a mention.

Imagine the controversy if Carter's friend was selling Carter Peanuts that gave you exclusive dinner invitations to hang out with Carter. That might have been tricky with the blind trust though.

titan_tim · May 24, 2026

Foxi4 said:
Definitely a wall of text considering it’s a convoluted response to one statement -

Yes, it was text. Less text than your sprawling rant. Have you ever heard of paragraphs?

Foxi4 said:
Trump being president does not preclude him from seeking restitution.

Tripling down on conflating the issues, I see. I even underlined the issue at hand, and you still couldn't comprehend it? Hmmm..... should I enlarge it this time?

"Stop conflating the issues here. It's not that he's not allowed to try and sue. It's that a president doesn't have the authority to negotiate away core government powers for his own benefit."

Will you quadruple down this time? We'll see.

Foxi4 said:
* pointless text whining about the same wrong conflation of issues *

I can explain it to you, I just can't make you understand it.

Foxi4 said:
By all means, continue telling the DOJ what is and isn’t illegal, the DOJ being the literal arbiter of justice in the country.

Yes, the same DOJ being run by his own personal lawyer. LOL!!!!

You've said some dumb things here. Some are just opinions that I don't agree with, but that one is the most bad-faith excuse of a comment you've made to date. Well done!

Foxi4 · May 24, 2026

Sir Tortoise said:
To be clear, when I said he gave up his farm, I was referring to the blind trust. I actually had no idea there were any further developments after that, so, cool history lesson but also not the point either.

Not sure what point you were going for either: Carter had a friend run his farm, and that makes it okay for Trump's sons to run companies and crypto schemes that are way more involved with government policy than a bloody peanut farm? I just find it very interesting that it was once a controversy, and then the ten thousand Trump peanut farms never even get a mention.

Imagine the controversy if Carter's friend was selling Carter Peanuts that gave you exclusive dinner invitations to hang out with Carter. That might have been tricky with the blind trust though.

In what way is “retaining all ownership of the farm and telling your best buddy and advisor to manage it while you’re busy” equivalent to “getting rid of the farm”? If that’s your baseline, Trump is currently not in charge of any of his enterprises, his sons are. What was leaked was his personal records and as a citizen he sought restitution from the government, which he’s entitled to. If there was a rogue agent in the IRS targeting Carter’s farm and releasing his private documents for all the world to see then I sure as shit would expect Carter to have a big problem with it, yes.

titan_tim said:
You've said some dumb things here. Some are just opinions that I don't agree with, but that one is the most bad-faith excuse of a comment you've made to date. Well done!

It’s in bad faith to expect the government to compensate citizens for its fuck-ups? Okay. You can repeat yourself to your heart’s content, all you’ve said so far boils down to “Trump shouldn’t be doing this because he’s currently president” which is intensely stupid. You are yet to rebuff that, and it makes your entire argument fall apart, which is precisely why you won’t address it, making this exchange a huge waste of time like I said earlier. You have zero evidence that Trump is “negotiating on his own behalf”, your only indication of that is that he’s Chief Executive. The Chief Executive has the same rights as any ordinary citizen, that’s why I keep bringing it up.

Sir Tortoise · May 24, 2026

Foxi4 said:
In what way is “retaining all ownership of the farm and telling your best buddy and advisor to manage it while you’re busy” equivalent to “getting rid of the farm”? If that’s your baseline, Trump is currently not in charge of any of his enterprises, his sons are. What was leaked was his personal records and as a citizen he sought restitution from the government, which he’s entitled to. If there was a rogue agent in the IRS targeting Carter’s farm and releasing his private documents for all the world to see then I sure as shit would expect Carter to have a big problem with it, yes.

So, to go back to the original point you skipped over, is it possible for a president to have a conflict of interests if their personal and presidental acts can be seperated like you suggest?

titan_tim · May 24, 2026

Foxi4 said:
It’s in bad faith to expect the government to compensate citizens for its fuck-ups?

LOL! He does it again!!! Arguing against a position NOBODY stated.

Foxi4 said:
Okay. You can repeat yourself to your heart’s content, all you’ve said so far boils down to “Trump shouldn’t be doing this because he’s currently president” which is intensely stupid. You are yet to rebuff that, and it makes your entire argument fall apart, which is precisely why you won’t address it, making this exchange a huge waste of time like I said earlier. You have zero evidence that Trump is “negotiating on his own behalf”, your only indication of that is that he’s Chief Executive. The Chief Executive has the same rights as any ordinary citizen, that’s why I keep bringing it up.

Your entire defense rests on treating “he has the right to sue” as if it automatically means “therefore any settlement terms are fine." That's completely wrong. The government cannot sign away powers it legally does not have authority to surrender, even voluntarily.

With a simple extreme hypothetical it becomes even more clear:
“If he was unfairly targeted before becoming president, then DOJ should also agree to permanently ignore any past murders he may have committed.”

See where it breaks down now? Again, plain and simple for the nth time:
The executive branch cannot suspend law enforcement powers for the personal benefit of the person running the executive branch.

If you can't understand that much, then you're truly a lost cause. I mean, you basically already were at this point, but seriously, it's beyond embarrassing at this point.

The Catboy · May 25, 2026

DuoForce said:
I can't believe this dude still has supporters. I even see morons on this site defend him from time to time. Always insane to see.

I honestly think people supporting him need to be investigated. Literally just mishandling of the Epstein files should be enough for any decent person to stop supporting him. Anyone still supporting him this far down the road doesn't deserve respect.

Foxi4 · May 25, 2026

Sir Tortoise said:
So, to go back to the original point you skipped over, is it possible for a president to have a conflict of interests if their personal and presidental acts can be seperated like you suggest?

Sure, it’s possible.

aoimatsuri · May 25, 2026

Have you seen Trumps stock portfolio ?

This boy is "self interest" only.
Just wat.

Foxi4 · May 25, 2026

titan_tim said:
LOL! He does it again!!! Arguing against a position NOBODY stated.

Your entire defense rests on treating “he has the right to sue” as if it automatically means “therefore any settlement terms are fine." That's completely wrong. The government cannot sign away powers it legally does not have authority to surrender, even voluntarily.

With a simple extreme hypothetical it becomes even more clear:
“If he was unfairly targeted before becoming president, then DOJ should also agree to permanently ignore any past murders he may have committed.”

See where it breaks down now? Again, plain and simple for the nth time:
The executive branch cannot suspend law enforcement powers for the personal benefit of the person running the executive branch.

If you can't understand that much, then you're truly a lost cause. I mean, you basically already were at this point, but seriously, it's beyond embarrassing at this point.

I’ve asked you time and time again to support your case and you haven’t done so, still. Which enumerated powers is the government giving up? Government agencies absolutely can be barred from investigating specific individuals under specific circumstances, and have been in the past. I repeat, if you want to claim the terms of the settlement are illegal then you must necessarily state in what way. Only in the event of such a finding would the terms be null and void, so the ball is in the judiciary’s court if either party is unsatisfied with the resolution.

EDIT: Before it spirals further into nonsense, many government officials are barred from starting *or* stopping investigations by the IRS. This list includes the President. It does *not* include the Attorney General who is explicitly authorised to do just that.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7217

More importantly, the deal only covers currently pending claims, not any and all claims.

titan_tim · May 25, 2026

Foxi4 said:
I’ve asked you time and time again to support your case and you haven’t done so, still. Which enumerated powers is the government giving up? Government agencies absolutely can be barred from investigating specific individuals under specific circumstances, and have been in the past. I repeat, if you want to claim the terms of the settlement are illegal then you must necessarily state in what way. Only in the event of such a finding would the terms be null and void, so the ball is in the judiciary’s court if either party is unsatisfied with the resolution.

EDIT: Before it spirals further into nonsense, many government officials are barred from starting *or* stopping investigations by the IRS. This list includes the President. It does *not* include the Attorney General who is explicitly authorised to do just that.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7217

More importantly, the deal only covers currently pending claims, not any and all claims.

FINALLY! Getting off the strawman and into specifics. Only took four attempts. No more "Trump is allowed to sue, so stop saying he can't!!!" nonsense.

There isn’t a single law that spells out this exact scenario in plain language since that’s not how most abuse of power issues work in US law. Instead, it’s covered by a combination of things like limits on agency authority. The IRS and DOJ can only act within what Congress authorizes, conflict-of-interest rules, and constitutional separation of powers principles.

Laws like 26 U.S.C. § 7217 exist to prevent political interference in IRS investigations. Federal ethics rules prohibit officials from taking part in decisions where they have a personal financial interest.

There's also 18 U.S.C. § 208 which prevents federal employees to act in matters affecting their financial interests.

5 C.F.R. § 2635 which also says that employees can't make decisions which affect them financially.

So no matter what broad digression a position has, they don't have the ability to make decisions that benefit them or the person who's orders they are following. Todd Blanche should have recused himself from the very start and had an impartial party make any decisions.

Foxi4 · May 25, 2026

titan_tim said:
FINALLY! Getting off the strawman and into specifics. Only took four attempts. No more "Trump is allowed to sue, so stop saying he can't!!!" nonsense.

You are yet to rebuff that, despite constant prodding. He is free to sue, and the government is free to settle out of court.

There isn’t a single law that spells out this exact scenario in plain language since that’s not how most abuse of power issues work in US law.

You could’ve just stopped at “there isn’t a law that spells it out” and leave it at that.

Instead, it’s covered by a combination of things like limits on agency authority. The IRS and DOJ can only act within what Congress authorizes, conflict-of-interest rules, and constitutional separation of powers principles.

Those are gut fee-fees that do not negate the fact that Trump is free to seek restitution regardless of his current station.

Laws like 26 U.S.C. § 7217 exist to prevent political interference in IRS investigations. Federal ethics rules prohibit officials from taking part in decisions where they have a personal financial interest.

You have to decide whether this is political or personal/financial. If it’s political, how does it forward Trump’s political aspirations? If it’s financial, it’s not Trump making the decision anyway, it’s the Attorney General.

There's also 18 U.S.C. § 208 which prevents federal employees to act in matters affecting their financial interests.

Again, Trump is not making the decision.

5 C.F.R. § 2635 which also says that employees can't make decisions which affect them financially.

Third time lucky.

So no matter what broad digression a position has, they don't have the ability to make decisions that benefit them or the person who's orders they are following. Todd Blanche should have recused himself from the very start and had an impartial party make any decisions.

Todd Blanche is actually the only person who *can* make that call per the aforementioned U.S. code, this is not something that can be delegated to another employee of the executive, so his recusal would be impossible whether this was a result of a protracted legal battle or a settlement, unless you expect Trump to wait until a new Attorney General is put in place just to make you feel better about it which is unreasonable under the speedy process clause.

Sir Tortoise · May 25, 2026

Foxi4 said:
Todd Blanche is actually the only person who *can* make that call per the aforementioned U.S. code, this is not something that can be delegated to another employee of the executive, so his recusal would be impossible whether this was a result of a protracted legal battle or a settlement, unless you expect Trump to wait until a new Attorney General is put in place just to make you feel better about it which is unreasonable under the speedy process clause.

Possibly Trump shouldn't have made his personal lawyer the Attorney General, if it was going to make avoiding conflicts of interest just too darn inconvenient.

Actually, maybe that's a good example for what you're going to say about Trump having the power to do whatever he wants. Would it be a problem if Trump appointed his son as Attorney General and then this all went down, for example? It is interesting to claim that Trump's personal activities are so seperate from government when his government is run by people with personal connections to him, maybe you just don't draw the line at his own lawyer settling with his own client.

1.8 billion dollars in a fund and permanent immunity to tax investigations is a really good settlement for a rogue employee leaking tax returns. Must have been some real tough negotiations between Trump and Trump's lawyer for that one.

titan_tim · May 25, 2026

Foxi4 said:
You are yet to rebuff that, despite constant prodding. He is free to sue, and the government is free to settle out of court.

Aaaaand now we're back to the strawman.

Foxi4 said:
You could’ve just stopped at “there isn’t a law that spells it out” and leave it at that.

The "Air Bud" school of law at work here. "It doesn't say that dog's CAN'T play basketball!" Ethics rules are in place to prevent these things. They are being stepped over completely. You can not have the plaintiff be the defendant at the same time. It's so blatantly obvious that nobody would ever imagine making a law specific to it.

Foxi4 said:
Those are gut fee-fees that do not negate the fact that Trump is free to seek restitution regardless of his current station.

Conflict-of-interest analysis is not “gut fee-fees.” The entire point of ethics rules is to stop systems from relying on proving cartoonishly explicit corruption after the fact.

Foxi4 said:
You have to decide whether this is political or personal/financial. If it’s political, how does it forward Trump’s political aspirations? If it’s financial, it’s not Trump making the decision anyway, it’s the Attorney General.

Irrelevant and a false binary. Conflict-of-interest issues don’t magically disappear because the benefit doesn’t go into one category.

And your own argument now admits the AG is personally exercising unique discretionary authority in a matter directly benefiting the president who appointed him. That is literally why ethics and recusal concerns exist.

Foxi4 said:
Todd Blanche is actually the only person who *can* make that call per the aforementioned U.S. code, this is not something that can be delegated to another employee of the executive, so his recusal would be impossible whether this was a result of a protracted legal battle or a settlement, unless you expect Trump to wait until a new Attorney General is put in place just to make you feel better about it which is unreasonable under the speedy process clause.

Okay, and? 'Only one person has the authority to do it' is not the same thing as 'therefore conflict concerns magically disappear.'

The speedy process point makes no sense. The speedy trial clause protects criminal defendants from unreasonable prosecution delays. It is not a constitutional requirement that a sitting president receive immediate resolution from his own appointees regardless of conflict concerns.

And on top of all that, there’s still the appropriation of funds issue we are glossing over. Congress controls federal spending under the Constitution. Executive officials cannot simply decide on their own to hand out massive amounts of public money without congressional authorization.

This is a wall of text, but so are yours. I'm just glad they're being broken down instead of in a single paragraph now.

Foxi4 · May 26, 2026

Sir Tortoise said:
1.8 billion dollars in a fund and permanent immunity to tax investigations is a really good settlement for a rogue employee leaking tax returns.

You guys should really read the settlement - it’s one page. Might dispel some misconceptions. It does not grant “permanent immunity”. It is only pertinent to pending audits on returns filed before 19th of May 2026, likely to avoid any fruits of a poisonous tree. It does not cover any future filings.

Sir Tortoise · May 26, 2026

Foxi4 said:
You guys should really read the settlement - it’s one page. Might dispel some misconceptions. It does not grant “permanent immunity”. It is only pertinent to pending audits on returns filed before 19th of May 2026, likely to avoid any fruits of a poisonous tree. It does not cover any future filings.

Ah yeah, I see they did later issue a clarification about that. That's alright then, nothing suspicious at all about agreeing to never investigate the evidence they should already have.

titan_tim · May 26, 2026

Foxi4 said:
You guys should really read the settlement - it’s one page. Might dispel some misconceptions. It does not grant “permanent immunity”. It is only pertinent to pending audits on returns filed before 19th of May 2026, likely to avoid any fruits of a poisonous tree. It does not cover any future filings.

That still doesn’t remove the blatant conflict of interest problem. It’s still the sitting president personally benefiting from decisions being made by officials within his own executive branch, including an AG he personally appointed.

Bringing up “fruit of the poisonous tree” here is nonsensical since that doctrine applies to unlawfully obtained evidence in criminal procedure, not as some magic shield to invalidate all past wrongdoings. Are you trying to argue the IRS illegally obtained information that Trump’s own companies directly submitted to them? Because that's the only way that would make sense. At most, it could affect evidence directly brought in from the leak itself.

DiscostewSM · May 26, 2026

Makes me wonder if some people here want this to happen because they personally benefit from it....

Trump is the most corrupt US president in history

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Endless Trash

Well-Known Member

(Can't shut up)

Endless Trash

Well-Known Member

(Can't shut up)

GBAtemp Official Catboy™: Nnnaaaa

Endless Trash

Well-Known Member

Endless Trash

(Can't shut up)

Endless Trash

Well-Known Member

(Can't shut up)

Endless Trash

Well-Known Member

(Can't shut up)

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Popular threads in this forum