One of the first orders of business

[Aviation Pro]

After the Democrats regain the presidency and expand the House and Senate numbers in 2029 is to declare the entire Fucking Pedophile's family business a terrorist organization and seize every asset they've stolen from the American people.

I want to see his whelps with squeegies in their fucking hands and panhandling for change.

(By then the fucking chomo will be a rotting corpse in his mausoleum at Merde-a-Lardo and that will be owned by the U.S for future use as the world's largest open-air toilet).

Context: The fucking shitbag's business is booming according to the WSJ.

[Clouds Passing]

1. Put them all in cuffs now. We can't take 3 more years of this nonsense of hate and theft

[Jamesm9164]

2. I second that!

[GreenWave]

3. Third!

[Intractable]

4. We'll need a real AG for that. No Merrick Garland types.

How about Kamala Harris?

[Ol Janx Spirit]

7. I think Harris would be too cautious and institutionally-minded. We need someone with a proven record of...

...going after the Slime Boss: Letitia James and Jasmine Crockett come to mind.

[EdmondDantes_]

5. That would be both illegal and immoral

Declaring something a crime and punishing them for it without a trial is bad. Declaring everything we don't like is terrorism is also bad. It's dumb when Trump declared us as far left terrorists and we don't need to adopt his tactics.

[Ol Janx Spirit]

8. I think a legal argument can be made. I mean, not even al-Qaeda managed to destroy a whole wing...

...of the White House, and they were most definitely terrorists.

As a side note: both al-Qaeda and the Turnip/Kushner organizations get a lot of funding from the Gulf region.

But I do agree that, "[d]eclaring something a crime and punishing them for it without a trial is bad." That should never be our stance.

However, putting the right people in place to doggedly pursue every legal and political avenue available should be a priority if and when we have the chance.

[AllaN01Bear]

6. this.

[Martin Eden]

9. No. Trump's vile tactics should be rejected, not emulated

Slapping the "terrorist" label on people or groups is a Trump tactic for taking actions which otherwise would not comply with Constitutional rule of law.

There are indeed domestic and foreign terrorist organizations which have justly been designated as such, but what's being proposed in this thread sounds more like what Trump is doing than a dispassionate and judicious application of that designation.

Trump and many of his cohorts have committed crimes for which they can be convicted by normal due process of law.

While it is true that ICE is acting in a manner which can truthfully be described as terrorism, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (aside from the Trump administration’s illegal directives) is a Congressionally authorized and necessary arm of the federal government.

Slapping the "terrorist" label on that federal agency would be like designating the US military a terrorist organizaion because of the unlawful orders issued by Trump and Hegseth.

Prosecuting criminals for their specific crimes through the legal system of due process is what true patriots do in upholding their sworn oaths to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.

Designating as terrorists domestic and foreign opponents to circumvent the law is what Trump does -- something we are passionately protesting against in our struggle to save America from authoritarian tyranny.

[Aviation Pro]

10. For your edification here's the definition of domestic terrorism

Domestic terrorism: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.

Kind of fits doesn’t it?

[Martin Eden]

11. For your edification, here's what I found in the official website of Congress

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47885

Unlike foreign terrorism, the federal government does not have a mechanism to formally charge an individual with DT, which sometimes makes it difficult (and occasionally controversial) to formally characterize someone as a domestic terrorist. Further, domestic terrorists may adhere to the ideologies of certain extremist movements or belong to hate or extremist groups, but unlike the formal process involved in designating foreign terrorist organizations, DT movements and groups are not officially labeled as such by the federal government, thereby making it difficult to categorize the threat presented by any group or movement as a DT threat. While some observers may look to terrorism-related incidents, investigations, and arrests to help understand the scope of the DT threat, these data are limited.

bold is mine

When put on trial for crimes, adding "domestic terrorism" to the charges could place a greater burden of proof on the prosecution. It's possible this could stick to some actions taken by ICE, but I disagree with officially designating the defendants beforehand as terrorists in order to circumvent due process of law.