Traitor Watch - The 45 & 47 Thread
- Thread starter Wheelimus
- Start date
How are there any fools with money left?
What are they saying? The worst even I can muster is that it's hilariously lame. Imagine getting actually angry about this—and I say that as the guy whose thread on NFTs is literally named "The blockchain is going to destroy everything".
Oh, they aren't against NFT's, per say: given how it's basically a ponzi scheme I can understand why they like them, but they think the person who told trump to do this needs to be fired.
They're still kissing his ass, they just think this is stupid. Given how they were expecting a POLITICAL announcement, I get the anger.
They're still kissing his ass, they just think this is stupid. Given how they were expecting a POLITICAL announcement, I get the anger.
Even idealized as a physically perfect superhero, Trump still has that ridiculous combover.
Monday is gonna be a rough day for Trumpie.
www.huffpost.com
Jan. 6 Panel Eyes Recommending 3 Criminal Charges For Trump
The House panel investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol is considering recommending the pursuit of three criminal charges against former President Donald Trump.
Trump’s Badly Photoshopped NFTs Appear to Use Photos From Small Clothing Brands
Gizmodo found the address for the company behind the NFT auction is out of a UPS store in Utah, though company LLC registration points elsewhere.
gizmodo.com
But here's the trading card he actually deserves.
And in perfect character for trump: he stole the images used in his NFTs.
More on the NFTs!
threats.substack.com
The fine print includes that if an NFT is ever resold, Trump gets 10% of the money. The fine print also links to a terms and conditions page which doesn't exist. And the trail of where the company producing the NFTs is registered leads to some fun and interesting places!
Trump's Trading Card Grift is Worse than You Think
Shell companies, rubbing elbows with international criminals, and worse in his scam of scams
threats.substack.com
Alright, so... I kinda get the whole taking it slowly thing. Given the office in question of the person in focus: you want an airtight case because you are literally setting precendent that will be the bedrock of similar decisions going forward.
This would have applied if it was literally any other person. Not trump.
But for trump they really should have done it literally ages ago, because he's OPENLY admitted to committing those crimes. A ******* no brainer.
This would have applied if it was literally any other person. Not trump.
But for trump they really should have done it literally ages ago, because he's OPENLY admitted to committing those crimes. A ******* no brainer.
Also, if they can just make this happen by passing a law, they didn't technically need to follow any judicial procedure that required all the evidence the committee spent the last two years gathering. They just needed a simple majority—i.e. all of the Democrats—to vote "yay" in both houses. Or even just most of the Democrats plus the Republicans that voted to impeach and convict Trump back in January.
Problem being with that is the republicans that voted to impeach trump will not vote for a law which restricts the powers of the presidency, or ensures consequences for their actions because those same republicans might be president some day and they want to get away with all the jive like trump did.