this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2023
298 points (97.2% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7253 readers
332 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
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.