Trump 2025 Corruption
Trump purchased $100M+ in bonds since January
President Trump purchased more than $100 million worth of bonds since he took office for his second term in January, according to Office of Government Ethics filings.
The filings, released Tuesday night, showed the president began purchasing on Jan. 21, the day after the inauguration, and purchased more than 30 more corporate and municipal bonds in that month, and it includes debt sold by companies, local governments and entities that could be directly affected by his sweeping agenda. Through Aug. 1, he made nearly 700 bond purchases.
The active trading by a president of the United States is unprecedented, and it puts Trump in a direct position to benefit — or lose out — if any of the entities that own the bonds he has purchased succeed or fail. It’s also another example of Trump’s pursuing business endeavors and transactions to increase his wealth in office.
Trump’s buying continued at a steady clip for months, including bonds from megabanks Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo and Citigroup worth at least $100,000 apiece.
Trump’s direct ownership of bonds from three of the country’s banking giants also comes as he considers an eventual replacement of Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell and weeks after he nominated one of his top aides, Stephen Miran, to a seat on the Fed’s board. The Fed can directly affect a bank’s profit by lowering or raising interest rates, along with myriad regulatory actions. As a Fed governor, Miran would have a direct say in many of those actions.
Trump purchases also included at least $500,000 of bonds apiece from chipmaker Qualcomm, mobile provider T-Mobile USA, Home Depot and UnitedHealth Group, the country’s largest private health insurance company.
The filings also show that Trump bought at least $250,001 of Meta’s bonds. CEO Mark Zuckerberg attended Trump’s inauguration and donated $1 million to the event.
Likewise, Trump’s ownership in hundreds of municipal bonds puts him in line to benefit when those municipal entities pay back the debt, and it comes when the administration has been tightly controlling the distribution of funds from the federal government to local and regional governments.
Trump’s net worth is around $5.5 billion, according to the Forbes Billionaires List, up a staggering $3.2 billion since last year.
Typically, presidents divest their financial assets before or shortly after they enter office, but Trump has rejected that precedent and retained most of his empire since his first term.
Trump has been criticized for mingling politics with his business interests throughout his second term, with ethics watchdogs and Democrats accusing him of profiting off of the presidency through ventures like the launch of a cryptocurrency, Trump-branded sneakers, Bibles and a line of fragrances.Unbelievable. The grift and corruption just keep coming but is just right out in the open now.
That means this fool is now positioned to profit directly from companies and local governments impacted by his own policies.
The line between public power and private profit just got even thinner.
No wonder he wants a rate cut from the Fed, which will surely send bond prices up.. His presidency is one big con job.Yup. And it's happening in plain sight. They dont hide it. The country is numb and he does whatever he wants.
Interesting how you forgot THIS piece of the story.
"The official added that neither Trump nor any member of his family had direct input into the investments and all decisions are made by independent management."That's laughable. You believe a liar like Trump?
What is laughable it that President Donald Trump didn't say this. It was in the article published by The HILL. It is a quote from a government official.
I suggest you read the entire article. The left often cherry picks what they want from articles that support their agenda.
This is evidence of it.
This is no conflict of interest? and the Emoluments Clauses of the Constitution...what of that?? He will be able to influence policy in the direction of personal profit...
Hi Mike, I did some research on this issue. I thought some facts could stop the spread of what is factual and what is not. First I wanted to add that I think it odd this subject is being brought up today, with the victory that Trump had in the court today. But to move on. I see that the left media have turned to a popular accusation "emolument Clauses.. They have short memory, that they used the ploy in Trump s first term --- and yes lost those cases were lost...
The Constitution contains two Emoluments Clauses: Dems have been there, did that in his first term --- Lost
Foreign Emoluments Clause (Article I, Section 9, Clause 8) – Prohibits federal officials, including the president, from accepting gifts, payments, or benefits from foreign states without congressional consent.
Domestic Emoluments Clause (Article II, Section 1, Clause 7) – Bars the president from receiving any compensation from the United States or from any state beyond the fixed presidential salary.
https://constitution.congress.gov/brows … hatgpt.com
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitutio … hatgpt.com
Neither clause directly prohibits a president from owning or trading private assets, such as stocks or bonds. Courts have consistently held that presidents are not legally required to divest financial holdings or place them in a blind trust; it has been a norm of modern presidents, not a constitutional requirement.
Several lawsuits were brought during Trump’s first term alleging violations of the Emoluments Clauses based on his continued business dealings. Federal courts ultimately dismissed those cases without ruling on the merits, finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing.
The Supreme Court vacated the lower court opinions after Trump left office in January 2021. As a result, there is currently no binding legal precedent that Trump’s private financial dealings, including bond purchases, violate the Emoluments Clauses.
Under existing law, the primary guardrail is disclosure: presidents must file financial reports with the Office of Government Ethics. But beyond disclosure, the Constitution and federal law impose no ban on a sitting president buying bonds, stocks, or other assets.
So while ethics experts and watchdogs argue that such trading poses serious conflict-of-interest risks, the hard legal fact is that as of today, it is not prohibited by the Emoluments Clauses, federal statutes, or binding court rulings.
Let's add facts on the subject of the recent bond purchaese
President Donald Trump has reported his bond transactions through the U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE). According to a financial disclosure filed on August 12, 2025, Trump made nearly 700 bond purchases totaling at least $103.7 million since his second term began in January 2025. These transactions include investments in corporate and municipal bonds from entities such as Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo, Meta, Qualcomm, T-Mobile USA, The Home Depot, UnitedHealth Group, and various local governments and utilities.
The OGE Form 278-T, which Trump filed, requires disclosure of securities transactions exceeding $1,000. The form provides details about each transaction, including the description, type, date, and the amount involved .
Reuters https://www.reuters.com/business/financ … e=chatgpt.
While disclosures offer transparency into Trump's financial activities.
Once again, the narrative is all conjecture—no solid facts, just endless ‘maybes’You forgot to add that his assets are in a blind trust and a management company makes all of the investment decisions.
If the president did such a thing it may not be illegal, but I believe it would be unethical. So, I imagine this is something democrat presidents have done in the past.
Not President Donald Trump or any member of his family.
Yeah, he has given full disclosure of his financial dealings.
Now, we won't mention hunter biden and his financial dealings or how they benefited "the big guy" biden. Another discussion for another day.It's sad to see so many acting like rabid yard dogs going after Trump... Just like such abused animals they don't know who the real enemy is...
Jeffrey Sachs... The 13 minute mark:
https://youtu.be/m4GQJWIIiUw?si=trsJQsL_oU2f3v2L"You forgot to add that his assets are in a blind trust"
You forgot a source for this erroneous statement...
Part of me really wishes they'd outlaw any trading for government officials and their affiliates. They have an unquestionably unfair insider advantage on all of their trades and purchases, and it's disgusting that they can use any number of resources at any given moment to manipulate the markets in their, or their friends', favors.
However, I also appreciate their unethical trading and purchasing behavior, because they have to file all of their trades and purchases. With sites like QuiverQuantitive tracking their trades and legislation they oversee, my portfolio is up up up. Nancy Pelosi is one of my favorite traders to follow, because she never seems to miss. Especially so because she sits on many of the regulation committees that directly affect the stocks she invests in.
Truly, I'm torn on this topic.Yuppers. Don't complain about the game to no good end...learn to play it.
The article definitely grabs attention, especially for those looking to say the president is doing something wrong. It points out Trump’s bond purchases, his holdings in big banks and tech companies, and connections to the Fed and figures like Mark Zuckerberg, all in a way that suggests misconduct. But legally, there’s nothing wrong here, presidents can own bonds and other investments as long as they disclose them, which Trump did through the Office of Government Ethics. Sure, most presidents divest or use blind trusts to avoid even the appearance of conflict, but that’s tradition, not a law. So while the article makes it sound shady, it doesn’t actually show any illegal activity. You have to wonder if this kind of reporting is really necessary, or even ethical, when the president is following the rules. The bias comes through in the way the story emphasizes certain connections and uses loaded language to make normal financial activity look suspicious.
Your header leaves me asking myself--- where is the corruption? The author pointed out nothing of illegal activity or corruption.Trump just bought $100 MILLION in bonds
-When Interest Rates go down, bond prices go up
-Trump has been pushing for interest rate cuts he would personally benefit from
Unheard of levels of corruption and grift. Yet Republicans say nothing.
Why all the pearl clutching over the ethics of others from Maga but an absolute blind eye turned to your leader?? Time to admit it, ethics, in reality, just aren't a priority for maga.Trump’s bond-buying binge stands out because he, unlike other presidents, has not put his investments into a true blind trust. Otherwise, Trump’s bond purchases, whether directed by him or the person in charge of his finances, look like the typical bet of a deep-pocketed investor—one who thinks interest rates are set to fall, said Russell Rhoads, a clinical associate professor of financial management at Indiana University.
Again, from the article from "The Hill"
"The official added that neither Trump nor any member of his family had direct input into the investments and all decisions are made by independent management."
Trump purchased $100M+ in bonds since January, filings show
President Trump purchased more than $100 million worth of bonds since he took office for his second term in January, according to Office of Government Ethics filings.
The filings, released Tuesday night, showed the president began purchasing on Jan. 21, the day after the inauguration, and purchased more than 30 more corporate and municipal bonds in that month. Through Aug. 1, he made nearly 700 bond purchases.
The filing is a periodic report released after the Office of Government Ethics reviewed the transactions and certified them as in compliance, including getting Trump’s signature, according to a senior White House official. The official said the president has no role in managing his investments, and they are managed by a third-party financial institution.
The official added that neither Trump nor any member of his family had direct input into the investments and all decisions are made by independent management.
The bonds Trump purchased, according to the filings, were sold by entities like Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority, a health facility in Alachua County, Fla., a Michigan public power agency and a Johnson County, Kan., parks and recreation office.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administra … ce-ethics/"The official added that neither Trump nor any member of his family had direct input into the investments and all decisions are made by independent management."
Who is "THE OFFICIAL"??
And again Trump is a bona fide pathological liar...There have been no charges in regard to your concerns. Why do you dwell on "could be's?" Here are the facts regarding your concerns. Take time to note the legalities Trump has followed via the U.S. Office of Government Ethics regarding his financial actions. You seem to ignore what has been posted and repeat your posts. I went to the trouble of reposting posting facts. Regarding your concerns. And the permalink.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/369 … ost4380302
Copypaste --- The Constitution contains two Emoluments Clauses: Dems have been there, did that in his first term --- Lost
Foreign Emoluments Clause (Article I, Section 9, Clause 8) – Prohibits federal officials, including the president, from accepting gifts, payments, or benefits from foreign states without congressional consent.
Domestic Emoluments Clause (Article II, Section 1, Clause 7) – Bars the president from receiving any compensation from the United States or from any state beyond the fixed presidential salary.
https://constitution.congress.gov/brows … hatgpt.com
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitutio … hatgpt.com
Neither clause directly prohibits a president from owning or trading private assets, such as stocks or bonds. Courts have consistently held that presidents are not legally required to divest financial holdings or place them in a blind trust; it has been a norm of modern presidents, not a constitutional requirement.
Several lawsuits were brought during Trump’s first term alleging violations of the Emoluments Clauses based on his continued business dealings. Federal courts ultimately dismissed those cases without ruling on the merits, finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing.
The Supreme Court vacated the lower court opinions after Trump left office in January 2021. As a result, there is currently no binding legal precedent that Trump’s private financial dealings, including bond purchases, violate the Emoluments Clauses.
Under existing law, the primary guardrail is disclosure: presidents must file financial reports with the Office of Government Ethics. But beyond disclosure, the Constitution and federal law impose no ban on a sitting president buying bonds, stocks, or other assets.
So while ethics experts and watchdogs argue that such trading poses serious conflict-of-interest risks, the hard legal fact is that as of today, it is not prohibited by the Emoluments Clauses, federal statutes, or binding court rulings.
LET'S ADD CURRENT FACTS ---on the subject of the recent bond purchaese
President Donald Trump has reported his bond transactions through the U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE). According to a financial disclosure filed on August 12, 2025, Trump made nearly 700 bond purchases totaling at least $103.7 million since his second term began in January 2025. These transactions include investments in corporate and municipal bonds from entities such as Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo, Meta, Qualcomm, T-Mobile USA, The Home Depot, UnitedHealth Group, and various local governments and utilities.
The OGE Form 278-T, which Trump filed, requires disclosure of securities transactions exceeding $1,000. The form provides details about each transaction, including the description, type, date, and the amount involved .
Reuters https://www.reuters.com/business/financ … e=chatgpt.
While disclosures offer transparency into Trump's financial activities.
Once again, the narrative is all conjecture—no solid facts, just endless ‘maybes’
Yes, a statement was issued by the Trump Organization affirming that President Donald Trump has no involvement in the management of the family's business ventures during his presidency. The company clarified that Trump has no role in day-to-day operations, including investment decisions, and that all such activities are overseen by his sons, Eric and Donald Trump Jr. This arrangement is designed to address potential conflicts of interest while he serves in office.
Reuters"What does it matter? There have been no charges in regard to your concerns. Why do you dwell on "could be's?"
Haven't many posts on this forum centered around information coming from unnamed sources??? That's not important anymore? I am to take unnamed sources as completely credible when they support Trump but disregard them when they don't, I see...
I think the issue here is ethics. It's his ability to influence policy and in turn make a billions for himself.
It’s truly odd that anyone would think Donald Trump could break the law without consequences. If he did, he would be charged, or in cases of impeachment, articles would be filed based on the suspicion alone. We have to consider the pattern of accusations Democrats have made in the past: they often charge first, initiate impeachment, and only then start looking for evidence. One can be almost certain that they closely monitor every aspect of Trump’s business dealings, ready to seize on any hint of wrongdoing, even without cause or proof of misconduct.
What is truly odd? Followers that support a liar.
Like Biden... Clinton...?
What liar ...followers?
On a side note, they should call this Trump's revenge tour.
Everyone from Bolton to Biden is being destroyed for attacking/betraying/framing Trump.
Karma is such a...Ken, thank you. And I am so enjoying "Trump's Magical Mystery Tour". He is doing a great job at rounding up the swamp creatures. I mean, so many in two weeks. The list grows.
Like this one??
"I like (Bolton)," Trump said in 2015 while appearing on "Meet the Press" just weeks after announcing his candidacy for the White House. "I think he’s, you know, a tough cookie, knows what he’s talking about."I just posted a long well well-thought-out comment on my feelings about your post. I have offered my view... Hopefully, some will read it before jumping on this latest media blurb bandwagon. My gosh, some out there in our society are getting so very desperate. It would be nice if there were a vaccine for TDS.
You are right, it is magic because he is a master con-artist with his illusions.
Trump is creating his own laws with his Emergency Executive Orders. He is changing the culture of this country with his own definition of what it should be...and it ain't good.
He is conning the country into thinking there are emergencies when there really aren't. Then he cons the people into thinking he solved them in nothing flat by federalizing troops.
It's all a big con just like a used car salesman selling you a lemon. He is very good at it, He calls it "deal making", but it is all a con where he always tries to be the winner. But if he loses, he plays the victim and attacks those who uncovered the con. "If I lose, then the system must be rigged. When he says, "people say and many say...", that's a con, because there is no proof who these people are.Calling Trump a “con-artist” ignores the legal and constitutional reality. Presidents have long used Executive Orders and emergency powers to respond to crises, from natural disasters to national security threats. These are not “self-made laws” or scams; they’re tools granted by Congress and the Constitution. Federalizing troops or directing agencies in emergencies is standard practice, not a con. Labeling decisive action as deception twists bold, lawful leadership into fiction, while ignoring the real issues these orders address.
It's all about what those executive orders are used for. Yes all presidents use executive orders, but not for federalizing troops when there is no need to do it. It's not fiction, that is your opinion and it's scary to me to see it being done when there is no need for it. Trump is a master con-artist. You just won't accept it. "If I lose, the election is rigged."
Could you give me another example of an EO that you feel is a problem, in your view? I think one will do. I hope to see what most disturbs you, to understand where you are coming from.
I think, and it is my view, he believes the election was rigged. I have seen no evidence to back up his claim. So, I accepted the election at face value."he believes the election was rigged. I have seen no evidence to back up his claim. So, I accepted the election at face value
I don't know, what do they say about people who don't accept reality in the face of overwhelming evidence? Or is it just another lie he perpetrates and carries on?"I don't know, what do they say about people who don't accept reality in the face of overwhelming evidence? Or is it just another lie he perpetrates and carries on?" willow
I don’t suggest that anyone lacks the right to their beliefs, just as I wouldn’t want anyone to question mine. I use the word lie or liar infrequently.
I will leave that to others. I go high when others go low.When someone holds a "belief" that lacks any basis in reality.. that's called a delusion.
Really? I don’t deny anyone the right to their beliefs or how they got there, but I’m not signing up to be the referee who declares which ones are “delusional."
"Delusional" has a standard definition. No referee needed.
Crime Emergency in Washington, D.C.
Declared by: President Trump
Date: August 11, 2025
• Trump invoked the D.C. Home Rule Act to seize control of the Metropolitan Police Department.
• Deployed National Guard troops and federalized law enforcement.
• Critics argue the move was politically motivated, as violent crime had actually declined.
National Energy Emergency
Declared by: President Trump
Date: January 20, 2025
• Framed as a response to grid instability and high energy costs.
• Accelerated domestic energy production, including coal and critical minerals.
• Used to override environmental regulations and fast-track infrastructure projects.
Alien Enemies Emergency
Declared by: President Trump
Date: March 2025
• Invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, targeting a Venezuelan gang allegedly conducting “irregular warfare.”
• Enabled detention and deportation without due process.
• Intelligence agencies disputed the existence of such a coordinated threat.
Foreign Trade Emergency
Declared by: President Trump
Date: April 2025
• Cited the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose global tariffs.
• Claimed unfair trade practices were undermining U.S. sovereignty.
• Legal scholars questioned whether IEEPA even authorizes tariff powers.
These declarations show how emergency powers are being used not just for natural disasters, but increasingly for political and economic maneuvering.
National emergencies often trigger a legal gray zone where executive power expands—and civil liberties contract. Here's how recent emergency declarations are affecting citizens' rights in practice:
1. Suspension of Due Process
• Under Trump’s Alien Enemies Emergency, Venezuelan nationals linked to alleged gang activity can be detained or deported without standard legal proceedings.
• This bypasses normal immigration courts and undermines the right to legal counsel, even for permanent residents or asylum seekers.
Federal Override of Local Authority
• The Crime Emergency in D.C. allowed Trump to seize control of the local police force, overriding elected officials and local governance.
• Residents lost their right to community-based policing and local accountability, with law enforcement now directed by federal agencies.
Freedom of Movement and Assembly
• Emergency declarations often justify curfews, checkpoints, and restrictions on protests or gatherings.
• Legal experts warn that these measures—while sometimes necessary—can be used to suppress dissent or target specific communities.
Psychological and Social Impact
• Families affected by ICE raids under emergency immigration powers report trauma, anxiety, and disrupted schooling—even among U.S. citizen children.
• These ripple effects erode trust in institutions and create long-term psychological harm.
Erosion of Democratic Norms
• Emergency powers concentrate authority in the executive branch, often sidelining Congress and the courts.
• Without robust oversight, temporary measures risk becoming permanent—normalizing surveillance, militarization, and executive overreach.
And why would Bolton be categorized as a "swamp creature"?? Because Trump doesn't like him? Because Bolton has been critical of trump?
From what I read, this was part of a national security investigation into how classified documents were allegedly handled. The raids were reportedly authorized by a court order, and officials emphasized that no one is above the law.
It seems the investigation focuses on claims that Bolton may have sent classified materials to his family using a private email server while he was at the White House. They are also reportedly looking into his 2020 memoir, The Room Where It Happened, although the current probe is said to be separate from the earlier scrutiny over the book.
He hasn’t been charged, and it seems they’re still in the middle of investigating him. From what I’ve seen, the searches of his home and office were legal. Maybe the case will be dropped if no evidence is found—that’s more or less what JD Vance shared. I notice how some of your discussions often jump from one issue to another, and usually it comes down to you focusing on just a word or two."Maybe the case will be dropped if no evidence is found—
LOL "maybe?" certainly it will be dropped when they can't make a case.
Oh yeah, make an accusation, go fishing in an attempt to find evidence and then the case will be shoved into the corner when none is found... Just like the others that Pam has shoved into the corner. This is all a show. It is all revenge and retribution toward Bolton because Trump is a snowflake and couldn't take Bolton's criticism. All of this nonsense is to inflict pain on Bolton. Nothing more. Trump is a petty, ugly man.They must’ve learned from the pros… I swear this is straight out of the Dems’ playbook, “Cheap Ploys,” page 288. Step 1: Accuse. Step 2: Leak lies to the media. Step 3: Go hunting for evidence. Step 4: If that fails, drag in a grand jury or a Special Counsel. Step 5: Cross your fingers and pray they stumble on a crime. Looks like my party just had one big epiphany.
About time.
Drain the swamp...
Lock em all up... Confiscate all their assets to help pay off the debt they created by selling out America/Americans.It’s clear we’re in the opening act of ‘Trump’s Magical Mystery Tour,’ and I’m here for every minute. Honestly, Trump could easily be called a one-man bunker bomb—explosive, unpredictable, and impossible to ignore!
So glad I have a front row seat. He is quickly keeping promises, and I feel the pace will pick up and have dems' heads spinning.
The principle here is to avoid the ‘appearance” of impropriety and inappropriate behavior. This entire thing stinks and Trump is at the center of it. So, what does it means to “set the example? But when speaking about Trump and integrity , jumping to the moon on a pogo stick would be more believable.
I don’t think you’re alone in your opinion. However, if Trump is not breaking any laws, yet some feel, as you do, that it’s about appearance or impropriety, can we really deny his rights if he’s following the law? Can we act as judge and jury? Can we change the way he is treated simply because of his personality or character? Can society be divided in this way?
Do you honestly believe Trump wouldn’t be brought up on impeachment if there were a legitimate reason? Every move he makes is scrutinized closely for any illegal slip-up. If you follow his court cases, you’ll see that he usually ends up winning on appeal, which should be telling. Could he be scrutinized and sued unjustly? In my view, we may soon see the felony case against him tossed. Has Trump been treated unfairly simply because he not only rocked the boat but sank it?You need to listen to a preacher... Trump may be bad. But he is great compared to the alternative presented:
https://youtu.be/mAYzH40EP_Y?si=a1s813O3b_Gz19UP
JD Vance...
“We” are in the very early stages of an investigation? Who is the “we”
In this sentence? White House is not supposed to be investigating anyone.... Oh tell me more about weaponization LOL
THE VIDEO IS FROM X.... THE SAME EXACT VIDEO CAN BE FOUND AT 100 OTHER SOURCES... TAKE YOUR PICK
https://x.com/McFaul/status/1959006714944241912I'll have to remember in the future not to be sipping on my coffee while watching videos
Vance continues to say the quiet part out loud!
This latest media story is yet another example of how the press combs through an entire interview just to snatch one word and spin it into fresh rhetoric against Trump, creating a new conspiracy where none may exist.
When the Vice President (or any administration official) uses the term “we” in reference to an investigation, it usually doesn’t mean the White House itself is conducting one. The executive branch has multiple agencies under its authority, such as the Department of Justice, the FBI, and regulatory bodies, that are tasked with investigations. While the White House does not directly investigate individuals, officials often speak collectively about the federal government’s role in addressing wrongdoing or gathering facts.
So in this case, “we” more likely referred to the administration as a whole, not the President’s or Vice President’s personal office running an investigation. The Constitution is clear that law enforcement and prosecutorial power sit within the executive branch, but checks and balances exist to prevent direct political misuse. That doesn’t mean concerns about weaponization are invalid; it’s fair to debate whether investigations are being applied fairly or politically. But to dismiss the phrase “we” as outright proof of improper White House involvement is to take her words too literally and ignore the broader context of how administrations usually frame federal actions. Quite frankly, these ploys are getting ridiculous to many Americans who see through them.
Worse, this kind of nitpicking, driven by media headlines built on one stray word, weakens serious constitutional debates. It distracts from real government overreach and makes it harder to hold leaders accountable when the Constitution truly is being violated.
Much like the endless “Russia, Russia, Russia” narrative, I still hold out hope that the full truth will come to light about that Democratic ploy. To me, it wasn’t just politics as usual; it was the most blatant case of a White House and a political party weaponizing the power of government to attack an opponent. That kind of abuse didn’t just target Trump, it undermined the trust of millions of Americans in our institutions and remains one of the darkest chapters of political manipulation in modern history.
In my view, addressing this now will prevent unnecessary distraction.
Please all don’t take this as argumentative, but more out of genuine curiosity. I’ve noticed that most Presidents, Vice Presidents, and cabinet members, when speaking about investigations and issues that are being addressed by other agencies. often use the word “we” in the context of referring to their administration as a whole. I find myself wondering why it suddenly becomes offensive when this Vice President uses that same language. What’s even more curious is that some now act shocked by it, as though it’s unprecedented.
When the Vice President (or any administration official) uses the term “we” in reference to an investigation, it usually doesn’t mean the White House itself is conducting one. The executive branch has multiple agencies that fall under its leadership, such as the Department of Justice, the FBI, and regulatory bodies that are tasked with investigations. While the White House doesn’t directly investigate individuals, it often speaks collectively about the federal government’s role in addressing wrongdoing or gathering facts. So in this case, “we” more likely referred to the administration as a whole, not the President’s or Vice President’s personal office running an investigation. The Constitution is clear that law enforcement and prosecutorial power sits within the executive branch, but checks and balances exist to prevent direct political misuse.
I have provided quotes to help make my point, and how I derived my view.
Barack Obama
On FBI conduct during the Clinton email probe (2016):
“We don’t operate on innuendo… we operate based on concrete decisions that are made.” Obama Here, “we” refers to the government’s standard investigative norms, emphasizing objectivity in investigations.
On the Secret Service scandal (2012):
“What happened here in Colombia is being investigated by the director of the Secret Service. I expect that investigation to be thorough and I expect it to be rigorous… We’re representing the people of the United States… the investigation needs to continue and needs to be completed.” Obama
Obama uses “we” to invoke the administration’s shared responsibility for upholding integrity and completing the investigative process.
On the attempted airline bombing (2009):
“A full investigation has been launched … we will not rest until we find all who were involved and hold them accountable.” Obama
“We” here signifies the administration’s collective determination to pursue the investigation.
On the Boston Marathon bombing (2013):
“We will get to the bottom of this… we will find out who did this, we’ll find out why they did this… we will hold them accountable.” Obama
Again, "we" indicates the administration speaking as one, committed to investigating and ensuring accountability.
In a January 2, 2025 news briefing, President Biden remarked on the status of probes following two separate incidents. He said:
“We're tracking the explosion of a Cybertruck outside the Trump Hotel in Las Vegas. Law enforcement and the intelligence community are investigating this as well, including whether there's any possible connection with the attack in New Orleans.” Biden
I could have written a book of quotes.Obama...
"We’re representing the people of the United States…
"We" used properly.Your comment - "Willowarbor
JD Vance...
“We” are in the very early stages of an investigation? Who is the “we”
In this sentence? White House is not supposed to be investigating anyone.... Oh tell me more about weaponization LOL" Willow
And now this---
Obama...
"We’re representing the people of the United States…
"We" used properly." Willow
Last I looked --“We’re” is a contraction, which means it’s a shortened form of “we are.” I thought that both “we are” and “we’re” are correct—they mean the same thing. The difference is formality and style: So he who has the last laugh----
Believe it or not, I always feel bad about coming back at snarky comments. But, when one is prone to continuously post snarky comments, I think it's sort of a kind thing to do.Missed the point. It's not about the rules of the English language.
The idea is that Obama correctly conveyed the fact that the DOJ represents the people... Not the president. Maga appears to be under the impression that the Department of Justice is the personal attorney for Trump. That's not how it works.
Vance.. "if there's no crime here we're not going to prosecute it...."
Excuse me? IF?? SO AN ACCUSATION IN SEARCH OF A CRIME. IN SEARCH OF EVIDENCE. GOTCHA. A FISHING EXPEDITION, THEY'RE JUST GOING TO POKE AROUND.
Interesting how it was done so differently with Mar-A-Lago... Where Trump was repeatedly asked to turn over shit BEFORE FBI came in....Bolton? NOTHING
And another thing, the VP should not be commenting on cases... This isn't how it's done.It appears some of the same medicine is being delivered.
Well we didn't get to see all of Jack Smith's evidence did we? When the Democrats take control of the midterm, I would expect all of that to be let loose.
Yes, all of the federal criminal charges Jack Smith brought against Trump were either dismissed or willingly dropped, either due to legal barriers (like presidential immunity), constitutional issues over Smith’s appointment, or DOJ policy. So, it would seem you feel he had other evidence of crimes that he did not bring Trump up on charges?
I would not be so sure about predicting a midterm. Not sure if you remember that the last time around soooo many were predicting a redwave. Yes, leading up to the 2022 midterm elections, many Republicans anticipated a "red wave", a significant gain in seats for the GOP in both the House and Senate. This expectation was fueled by factors such as President Biden's low approval ratings, high inflation, and concerns about crime, which traditionally benefit the opposition party in midterm elections. Republican strategists and media outlets frequently highlighted these issues, suggesting a strong likelihood of a Republican surge.
However, the actual results defied these predictions. While Republicans did gain control of the House of Representatives, the margin was narrower than expected. The Senate remained under Democratic control, with Democrats even flipping a key seat in Pennsylvania. The anticipated red wave did not materialize, leading to discussions about the factors that contributed to the GOP's underperformance.Smith closed the case because Trump was coming into office and about to wipe them out anyway....
I will be looking forward to all of this being dragged back out into the light after the midterms. The public deserves to see that information.
It's good to know that this administration
feels so strongly about the appropriate handling of highly classified documents....
MY GODDelivered to who? Bolton couldn't be more of a conservative. He's a republican.. Trump chose the man to work in the administration.... The only thing being "delivered " is retribution from a very small man. So I don't get it, what's the same medicine being delivered?? Lol the libs certainly don't claim Bolton
John Bolton is not very well liked within the Republican party.
He is more tolerated than anything else.Mike, what I saw--- Honestly, Trump and Bolton were never a good fit. At first, Trump called him “a tough cookie” and thought he’d be useful because of his foreign policy experience. But Bolton’s old-school hawkish views clashed badly with Trump’s America First instincts. Trump wanted to explore deals with North Korea, talks with the Taliban, and a less interventionist approach overall. While Bolton kept pushing hardline stances, even referencing the “Libya model,” which Trump later called a disaster.
Over time, it went from policy disagreements to personal disdain. Trump started describing Bolton as “crazy,” “not respected,” “not a smart guy."
The final straw was Bolton opposing Trump’s idea of bringing the Taliban to Camp David, on top of constant clashes over Iran, Afghanistan, and North Korea. By September 2019, Trump tweeted that he’d fired him, while Bolton claimed he had actually offered his resignation, so the exit was messy and contradictory.
In the end, Trump got fed up with Bolton constantly undermining his diplomatic efforts and pushing for more wars, so he finally cut him loose. Since then, you could say the Republican Party has pretty much shunned him.
Being president for Trump was always about the money.
And the perks.
Screwing people over was just a side benefit.Trump has repeatedly claimed without evidence that BLS “rigged” economic data to make his administration and Republicans look bad. So he fires him and hires a replacement, hoping to get better numbers. He has to win, even when he is losing. It's a sickness.
Yes and it looks like the replacement at the BLS wants to suspend reporting the numbers. Someone in that Administration is smart enough to know that the numbers are about to be in the toilet. But maga is going to tell us what a great idea it is to get rid of the reporting.
You so underestimate him...
It's about power and paying back those who tried to harm him (vengeance) while also making America a better place for Americans.
Not foreigners...not foreign powers, unlike Biden or Clinton that were bought and paid for shills for China and others... Not for the Soros Open (border) Society...
I'll take the guy who puts Americans first and watch happily as he destroys the people who have done their best to sell America out.
Related Discussions
- 29
Has President Donald Trump Been Compromised by Russia?
by Allen Donald 7 years ago
How else do you explain his behavior over the past few days and in Helsinki? Why does he refuse to hold Putin and Russia responsible for interfering in our election? Why, whenever he's given the chance, does he describe Putin as a strong leader and criticize America?Here are a couple of links. The...
- 74
Trump and Conduct Unbecoming of a President
by Mike Russo 7 years ago
Too bad there is not an article or amendment in the Constitution that outlines how The President of the United States of America should act and behave. I don't think one has been necessary until Trump has come into office.When I was in the Air Force, the military had/has the Uniform...
- 62
Will Ex-President Trump Go To Prison?
by Miebakagh Fiberesima 14 months ago
Ex-President Donald Trump has been lately convincted for all the 34 court counts of the actress Daniels hush money trial. Will Trump go to prison? Is there not an appeal from...
- 43
Is It Time to Impeach President Trump?
by Allen Donald 8 years ago
Here's an article about a group of legal scholars calling for the impeachment of President Trump based on his violation of the Constitution:http://time.com/4658633/impeach-donald-trump-congress/Here's the part of the Constitution he's violating:Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution. It's clause...
- 75
President Donald Trump is a Historic and Legendary American Figure
by Readmikenow 7 months ago
Monday, Jan. 20, 2025 will be an amazing, historic inaugural of the new president.Only the 1789 inauguration of President George Washington and the deeply threatened first inaugural of President Abraham Lincoln in 1861 will remain more significant in historic terms. However, it will rival the 1933...
- 118
Shouldn't the Impeachment of a President Be Open and Transparent?
by The Minstrel 5 years ago
With something so serious, you would think that Pelosi and the rest of her conspirators would bring a level of respectability to their so-called impeachment inquiry by following a strict adherence to the Constitution and rules. No, they have chosen to use their majority to run a kangaroo court....