EO says you can't be charged if you don't know it's a crime

start business without legal department

become immune to all crimes

have legal department

reduce staff

claim you don't have enough staff to know every law in existence

become immune to legal action

new law comes out

quickly break it

argue you didn't have the time to understand it

whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/05/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-fights-overcriminalization-in-federal-regulations/

Crime Season

All thieves claim they didn’t know stealing was illegal

All murderers will claim they didn’t know it wasn’t self defense

All dindus will claim they didnt know any crime laws

This will be disproportionately abused

He has a cabinet of 13 billionaires. It's for them and their lawyers.

protip: the only people who this will hold up for are corpos who "accidentally" release 500lbs of benzene into the water table because they didn't follow a safety regulation they "didn't know existed" or blow up 10,000 endangered salamanders with a strip mine or friends of Congress that "accidentally" help them do a little insider trading. You get the gist.

I’m not disagreeing with you, all bad faith actors will use this.
But it is far harder to make the argument that the above average intelligence billionaire didn’t understand he was defrauding someone, than it is to make the argument that the 75iq didn’t understand he was raping a woman and thought it was consensual

kek how does this even work? to know a law to the letter and it's spirit is something lawyers debate every day. What if you know you're in a 2 party state but you say you thought it was a 1 party state and you record a conversation. who can prove that? do they check everyone's search history in a trial?

This doesn't apply to your state's laws, as they are separate sovereigns, and the POTUS, even through the supremacy clause, can't absolve you of state crimes you're accused of committing. This only applies to federal regulations and mainly affects people who violate securities, DHS (such as immigration hiring), FCC, FEC, FDA, and US EPA rules, not USC LAWS.

its regulating government ticky tack laws to protect you, really it should be a part of the constitution, if you understand law you'll realize this is unfathomably based

Sorry ATF, I didn't know dropping an auto-sear into my AR-15 and putting my homemade suppressor on it was a crime! :^)

check your state laws, goy.

imagine allowing someone else to tell you what to do.

I was arrested for drinking alcohol on the streets, I didn't know it was a crime because I hadn't been given a handbook detailing what the laws are in Canada. I have no obligation to read the latest police act regarding specific laws before they happen, Yet the people he is talking about have access to written regulations specifying the law and are further punished for not complying with them.
They have no excuse, whereas the little man does, since his human rights make no mention of having to have read, or be aware of, ANY laws.
There is no 'these are laws you must live by' handbook.

Most states don't have anything on the books for NFA stuff unless they're giga-cucked shitholes. In fact, quite a number of states have laws that explicitly disregard the NFA and other federal gun laws.

You can single out ticky tacky laws better. They're known, you can list them. Making an EO where not knowing is the biggest factor doesn't make sense unless you're in it to help your billionaire buddies.

My moment has arrived.

It only applies to Regulations, now laws

Wrong. This EO will hopefully alleviate the ridiculous "tack on" charges.

Guy runs from police

Policeman in pursuit falls and breaks ankle

Guy charged with running from police AND assault on officer AND intent to break ankle

Yes I know this is federal and that example isn't perfect and there's no charge for intent to break ankle, but it's demonstrative of the tack on charges that the isrealis that run our government have used to charge people way beyond the actual crimes they've committed.

List them and lawniggers will make more, make them illegal and they can't make more, this is a solution with merit that should be ratified in a more long lasting way ideally

Crime is about intent and now that I know that's a law, if it's really a law, of some sort they can use it against me THANKS MORON

Fuck yeah, I'm starting a bank, I know they make a fortune and I know nothing about banking regulations.

all bad faith actors will use this

Jemil is going to be told to fuck off and charged anyway, this is just for the ruling class.

I hear your argument but you’re a stupid nigger posting clickbait so I hope you die of aids you fuckin porch monkey.

hurr durr we Don’t have a legal department so clearly we didn’t know that bleach in our water bottles is dangerous or that fork trucks could impale people if used for jousting

Pretending to be retarded is absolute niggatry and thinking you’re clever for it is sad and shameful. Are you a journalist? You think like one. Disingenuous scumbag. Seriously kill yourself before your family gets hurt. You’re going to hurt someone who could actually provide value unlike you.

Overcomplicate and bloat laws

Whine that they stop meaning shit

If you didn't want it to be like this you should not have allowed the body of law to get this bloated, unknowable and incoherent.

Seriously if you cannot understand natural law supercedes any human or religious laws you have no business doing anything law-related.

And yes basic logic falls under natural law.

But that just creates an extra effort for all laws to be better known to all businesses. Good, but the information is already publicly available. This has too much wiggle room for bullshit. If you know the bad laws it's better to address them. They're just giving ammo to rich people who can afford the lawyers to say "your honor, my client is just a little guy, he couldn't have known" all day.

whitehouse.gov

clickbait

Fun times.

This And this It is a law for the rich and corporates to avoid stuff that you can claim is unknown to them in court.
Best move now is for NGOs and activists to sue corporates in a preventive way that they cant claim they didnt knew that law existed.

Good question. When a corporation produces a thing, cant i expect them to know what the laws are?

ignorance of the law will now be a defense to violating the law

:DDD This is eggcellent

Right, it opens the door to do a new crypto type scam, break the law, cheat people, and then argue in court that you didn't know how existing regulations can apply to this new thing.

dont know how to read

dont know what the laws are

BEING A NIGGER JUST WENT EAZAAAAAAAAYYYYYY MODE

Can you actually argue a large corporation with a requirement to understand its licensing requirements didn't understand the legal environment of its field?
All this law does is protect you and me from ticky tack bullshit

You don't get those protections unless you have enough money to pay for the legal proceedings and the time to go back and forth in court. Large corporations have that time and money and can stretch the application of the "well how was I supposed to know" defense as they're the ones with the means to overwhelm the system and the ones who are more likely to bring it up as they more often tred new grounds especially in the finance industry. The finance industry is in bed with government, in more than just JD Vance who is a known shill for them.

aw the poor little guy, the mom and pop finance industries with their underdog crypto schemes and private equity firms

Fuck off.

I'm a rabbi. How could i have known??

the “laws” here in murrica are so voluminous no one could read them all in one lifetime
call a horse a fucking son of a bitch and flip it off in a national park? felony fucker
tail lights in your car not stamped DOT? 5-15 years fucker
this is great, let freedom ring

This is about regulations though and there have been sweeping deregulations since Reagan. Consumer and worker protections, regulations, have been further eroded. Private equity firms didn't exist 50 years ago.

A bloobugganiggerspeech

A large corporation has no defense using this but the little guy does anon, it's very easy to argue in court that

Disney, being in business for a niggers fortnight cannot argue that they do not understand the regulations of their industry

Meanwhile

how could nigger cakes incorporated know that not serving that nigger his fried watermelon cake was illegal discrimination, as they are a small company not able to hire advanced legal teams or study regulations and laws

I understand the fears but this is genuinely an excellent step forward, it should be added to the constitution along with a "reasonable expectation of ignorance" stipulation - could the accused be reasonable expected to be ignorant of the law, this would solve the remaining nigongos getting out of jail free worries, leaving black fathers in the only place they'll ever willingly interact with their children

breaks a pattern set my hammurabi

What does it mean

By*

For those that dont know, hammurabi's code were the first codified laws

It meant ignorance of the law was not immunity to the law

Trump is reversing bronze age shit

This should have been the law a long time so. Government constantly passing and changing laws amongst themselves and not informing any of the people. They're not being democratic about any of it and they're trying to make everyone completely and totally preoccupied to be informed much less participate. If they want it to prosecutable then the responsibility should be on them to make everyone included and informed and have sufficient proof that they have done so. Which obviously they don't want to do, because they don't want an informed participating people. Then fuck off with prosecutions.

good point
fuckin jews did this unironically

It meant ignorance of the law was not immunity to the law

And it was completely wrong.

checked
yeah man , things are getting set straight.
we’ve been fighting a fucking semite desert demonic dick and blood cult for 6000 years and it’ll persist for another 6000 if we don’t fix it right now

Interesting I’m sure this won’t be abused in anyway by our wonderful overlords. Good thing all the plebs know the law tho

"Discourage" criminal enforcement

"Prioritizes" prosecutions

So it's a completely subjective "try your best" that doesn't actually protect anyone specifically and will definitely be selectively enforced.

violate "regulations"

So it's just gonna be used as an excuse to let big companies off the hook, not average joes.

Also no one in this thread has realized this is in line with trumps policy of bringing factories back to the US

it means if you get a notification about a rule your breaking you get a chance to stop, if you continue your fucked.

not average joes

You know the law chud but let me remind you it’s illegal to boycott our greatest ally israel. I for one only ever buy israeli products to maintain absolute compliance with the law as will you

I have to imagine it's more to protect people from retarded local laws that are obscure and obfuscated in purpose than "I didn't know murder was illegal".

Literal orange nigger of American president.

Howard Lutnick: "I had never been Secretary of Treasury before, so I didn't know market manipulation and insider trading was a crime"

Hammurabi didn't write millions of pages of codes, compliance, and licensing requirements for you to operate a modern business.
He wrote like 5 laws with basic punishments.

all bad faith actors will use this

How lol?
"B-but I totally didn't know and the president said to prioritize those who did!!"
The bad faith actors will be big company lawyers arguing that a regulation is unclear about whether something is a crime or not.

Reading the article it's also less of a new policy for general judicial or law enforcement, it's a review of regulations and which ones require some sort of intent and how that is defined with a goal of reducing regulation in general.

See above.

As to what you mentioned about lawyers and knowing the law though; There is precedent that cops are sometimes allowed to break a law they didn't know about because they "can't be expected to know all the ins and outs like some fancy lawyer".
I'm paraphrasing but that was essentially the ruling, I think the case was about an unwarranted search.

Here come the sexual emergencies.

the end of the law.
Of course, the premise that ignorance of the law is not an excuse is invalid. Through various means, the court system doesn't even know the matter and application of law until the trial and facts don't even exist until the jury deliberates.
It is such a clown construction.

There are so many shill and AI responses in this thread it's amazing, it's also amazing how far AI has come

This is how the FBI got away with not sentencing both Hilary and Biden

They're already labeling foreign students "terrorists" for protesting Israel as an excuse to arrest/deport them and "home grown are next".

Which do you think are AI?
seemed a little scripted to me but they could just be a rambling autist.

It'll get marked as spam if I give them all (you)s, knowers know, no point pointing them out

If only there were a way to discern who is telling the truth

I’m just reminding you of the law so you have no excuses you will support the genocide of innocent people chud don’t get any ideas or it’s 25 years to life