Topic: TRUMP CONVICTED!
Anonymous A started this discussion 1 year ago #118,255
HAHAHAHAHAAHAHA
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 year ago, 1 minute later[^] [v] #1,299,866
Guilty on ALL counts! Oh, how the might have fallen!
boof joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 6 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,869
whao there he was found not guilty on everything, I read it in blacks and whites
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 7 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,870
@previous (boof)
> whao there he was found not guilty on everything, I read it in blacks and whites
https://www.reuters.com/legal/jurors-begin-second-day-deliberations-trump-hush-money-trial-2024-05-30/
> whao there he was found not guilty on everything, I read it in blacks and whites
https://www.reuters.com/legal/jurors-begin-second-day-deliberations-trump-hush-money-trial-2024-05-30/
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 9 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,871
Read it and weep: https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/trump-trial-verdict-jury/
boof replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 12 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,872
well like, that's just 12 people's opinion, man
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 12 minutes later, 24 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,879
RIP to the America I grew up in where you could freely break the law to cover up cheating on your 3rd wife with a porn star. Killed by the Biden regime and the Demonrats.
(Edited 20 seconds later.)
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 34 minutes later, 59 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,881
@1,299,871 (A)
What's there to weep about? I think it's great that America will soon elect the first Felon President
What's there to weep about? I think it's great that America will soon elect the first Felon President
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,883
Won't be sentenced until July 11, giving him and his army of mentally deficient sycophants plenty of time to do something really fucking despicable that gets him off the hook. I'm not celebrating until he's behind bars.
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,884
Speaking of convicted felons, there's a fella named Marsden Miller who has been very successful in the oil industry despite his felony conviction. He's even working with the Biden crime family!
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,885
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,888
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,889
@1,299,879 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
You can still do that though, just gotta not piss of the demonrats
You can still do that though, just gotta not piss of the demonrats
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 32 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,896
Was there ever any doubt a Manhattan jury would pass up any opportunity to find him guilty?
The whole thing is clearly a political hit job. But I don't think it will have the desired effect. If anything they've made even more of a hero out of him, and if they lock him up it will almost certainly ensure his victory in the elections... unless the Democrats steal the election again.
The whole thing is clearly a political hit job. But I don't think it will have the desired effect. If anything they've made even more of a hero out of him, and if they lock him up it will almost certainly ensure his victory in the elections... unless the Democrats steal the election again.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,897
What was the crime supposed to be again?
Anonymous I replied with this 1 year ago, 37 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,899
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,900
@1,299,897 (J)
@previous (I)
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-found-guilty-on-all-34-counts-of-falsifying-business-records-heres-a-breakdown-211334652.html
@previous (I)
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-found-guilty-on-all-34-counts-of-falsifying-business-records-heres-a-breakdown-211334652.html
Anonymous I replied with this 1 year ago, 7 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,904
@previous (A)
Anon J asked what crime i.e. felony was he supposed to have committed. In New York, falsifying records (which is what all 34 counts are for) is a misdemeanor.
Anon J asked what crime i.e. felony was he supposed to have committed. In New York, falsifying records (which is what all 34 counts are for) is a misdemeanor.
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,907
@1,299,896 (I)
Why would an adversarial government give him a trial when he could be assassinated with much less effort?
Why would an adversarial government give him a trial when he could be assassinated with much less effort?
Anonymous J replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,910
@1,299,900 (A)
So the crime was that he wrote "legal expenses" on a piece of paper instead of "personal payment" or something along those lines?
Hardly Al Capone...
So the crime was that he wrote "legal expenses" on a piece of paper instead of "personal payment" or something along those lines?
Hardly Al Capone...
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 32 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,911
Those gold shoes he was slinging surely were a fashion crime.
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,912
Anonymous I replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,913
@1,299,907 (K)
That's a very naive question. If people found out that the government had had a political opponent assassinated, that would be the end of them, or else they would have to own the fact that they are a dictatorship, not a democracy. I don't think the democrats have the guts to go down that road.
What they are doing instead is not far off what happens in banana republics though - trump up charges, get your opponent jailed during the election cycle, and in general do your best to smear him in the media (and trust your voters are stupid enough not to realise what you're doing).
That's a very naive question. If people found out that the government had had a political opponent assassinated, that would be the end of them, or else they would have to own the fact that they are a dictatorship, not a democracy. I don't think the democrats have the guts to go down that road.
What they are doing instead is not far off what happens in banana republics though - trump up charges, get your opponent jailed during the election cycle, and in general do your best to smear him in the media (and trust your voters are stupid enough not to realise what you're doing).
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 51 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,914
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,916
@1,299,913 (I)
> That's a very naive question.
No it isn't. Shinzo Abe was assassinated and no member of the Japanese far-right ever avenged his death.
It seems to me that Trump's supporters are a bunch of whiny pussies.
> That's a very naive question.
No it isn't. Shinzo Abe was assassinated and no member of the Japanese far-right ever avenged his death.
It seems to me that Trump's supporters are a bunch of whiny pussies.
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,917
@1,299,913 (I)
> I don't think the democrats have the guts to go down that road.
But the Republicans do, right?
> I don't think the democrats have the guts to go down that road.
But the Republicans do, right?
Anonymous I replied with this 1 year ago, 8 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,919
@previous (O)
> But the Republicans do, right?
Of course not. No government who claims to be a democracy would dare take that kind of risk.
> But the Republicans do, right?
Of course not. No government who claims to be a democracy would dare take that kind of risk.
Anonymous P joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 6 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,920
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,921
@1,299,910 (J)
> So the crime was that he wrote "legal expenses" on a piece of paper instead of "personal payment" or something along those lines?
>
> Hardly Al Capone...
It was a MASSIVE CONSPIRACY to payoff a porn star who had hired an attorney who specializes in extorting celebrities. He did it ahead of an election! He don' influenced an election!
> So the crime was that he wrote "legal expenses" on a piece of paper instead of "personal payment" or something along those lines?
>
> Hardly Al Capone...
It was a MASSIVE CONSPIRACY to payoff a porn star who had hired an attorney who specializes in extorting celebrities. He did it ahead of an election! He don' influenced an election!
(Edited 44 seconds later.)
Anonymous J replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,922
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 38 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,923
Anonymous J replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,925
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 18 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,926
Anonymous O replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,927
@1,299,921 (E)
@1,299,914 (A)
@1,299,910 (J)
@1,299,896 (I)
@1,299,883 (F)
He should have just let Stormy tell the press they'd had extra-marital relations. It wouldn't have affected the election results; his followers would have been impressed that the man who grabs women by the pussy fucked a hot-looking porn star.
@1,299,914 (A)
@1,299,910 (J)
@1,299,896 (I)
@1,299,883 (F)
He should have just let Stormy tell the press they'd had extra-marital relations. It wouldn't have affected the election results; his followers would have been impressed that the man who grabs women by the pussy fucked a hot-looking porn star.
(Edited 59 seconds later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,929
@previous (O)
If they lock up Trump, don't they have to lock up Stormy too? After all, she conspired with her lawyer to interfere with the integrity of the 2016 election
If they lock up Trump, don't they have to lock up Stormy too? After all, she conspired with her lawyer to interfere with the integrity of the 2016 election
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,930
@1,299,889 (H)
True but I want to live in a country where anyone regardless of political affiliation can cheat on their wife with a porn star and illegally cover it up without fear of reprisal.
True but I want to live in a country where anyone regardless of political affiliation can cheat on their wife with a porn star and illegally cover it up without fear of reprisal.
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,931
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Wait, which part was illegal again? Who wrote the wrong word on the check? The check that Stormy's lawyer testified was in consideration of a civil settlement agreement, totally unrelated to any kind of "hush money" or "extortion" scheme
Wait, which part was illegal again? Who wrote the wrong word on the check? The check that Stormy's lawyer testified was in consideration of a civil settlement agreement, totally unrelated to any kind of "hush money" or "extortion" scheme
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous J replied with this 1 year ago, 6 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,932
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,933
Anonymous J replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,935
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 7 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,936
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,937
@1,299,933 (A)
Why? They apparently believe what the prosecution fed them to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. I'd just like to know what it is that they believe. Was it a conspiracy to interfere in an election? Was it a violation of campaign finance law? Does paying a porn star count as a political donation?
Why? They apparently believe what the prosecution fed them to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. I'd just like to know what it is that they believe. Was it a conspiracy to interfere in an election? Was it a violation of campaign finance law? Does paying a porn star count as a political donation?
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,938
@1,299,931 (E)
> Wait, which part was illegal again
The part where he said he was paying his attorney a retainer when in fact he was reimbursing his attorney for buying the silence of the woman he had an extramarital affair with. Unfortunately, knowingly and willfully lying to the government about what your business spends money on is a crime.
> Wait, which part was illegal again
The part where he said he was paying his attorney a retainer when in fact he was reimbursing his attorney for buying the silence of the woman he had an extramarital affair with. Unfortunately, knowingly and willfully lying to the government about what your business spends money on is a crime.
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,939
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
I'm genuinely curious, where were the funds being spent from? The famous 11 checks look like personal checks, were they not?
I'm genuinely curious, where were the funds being spent from? The famous 11 checks look like personal checks, were they not?
Anonymous J replied with this 1 year ago, 24 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,940
@1,299,936 (A)
Well they convicted him of a crime when he din do nuffin wrong, they had to hate him a lot
Well they convicted him of a crime when he din do nuffin wrong, they had to hate him a lot
Anonymous J double-posted this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,941
@1,299,938 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Monsieur Cohen was not on retainer, but submitted monthly expense fees of 35k, 100k of which was reimbursement for fronting the slut silencer fund
Monsieur Cohen was not on retainer, but submitted monthly expense fees of 35k, 100k of which was reimbursement for fronting the slut silencer fund
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,942
@previous (J)
Did Trump know that Cohen had made that payment at the time and how Cohen would choose how to go about it? Why was Trump being billed for it well into 2017? When did he violate campaign finance law?
Did Trump know that Cohen had made that payment at the time and how Cohen would choose how to go about it? Why was Trump being billed for it well into 2017? When did he violate campaign finance law?
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 1 year ago, 11 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,944
@1,299,939 (E)
You can see the checks and stuff at the NYT in this article here. They came from either his trust or his personal account. depending on the item.
You can see the checks and stuff at the NYT in this article here. They came from either his trust or his personal account. depending on the item.
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,946
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Can you post them here? I don't have $4/week in my budget to allocate to the failing New York Times
Can you post them here? I don't have $4/week in my budget to allocate to the failing New York Times
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 1 year ago, 7 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,949
@previous (E)
I probably could but I'm not going to because it would be a pain. If you cut out on eating one avocado toast per week you could afford it.
I probably could but I'm not going to because it would be a pain. If you cut out on eating one avocado toast per week you could afford it.
boof replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,951
I made a down payment on an entire city block with seventeen avacados
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 6 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,952
Anonymous O replied with this 1 year ago, 4 hours later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,968
@1,299,929 (E)
I suppose, but I seriously doubt Trump will spend so much as a moment in prison. He'll get a stern warning from the judge along with the obligatory fine, then go on to win the 2024 presidential election. Because - let's face it - the guy's covered with teflon.
I suppose, but I seriously doubt Trump will spend so much as a moment in prison. He'll get a stern warning from the judge along with the obligatory fine, then go on to win the 2024 presidential election. Because - let's face it - the guy's covered with teflon.
Anonymous Q joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,979
Anonymous R joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 4 hours later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,300,027
Father Dave !RsSxeehGwc joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 50 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,300,029
Good thing for that jury that Bert isn't still with us.Anonymous J replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,300,035
Why are people shouting and dancing outside the courthouse like it's some huge victory
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,300,038
@1,300,029 (Father Dave !RsSxeehGwc)
> Good thing for that jury that Bert isn't still with us.
the only reason it bothers you is because he wasn't 10 years old
> Good thing for that jury that Bert isn't still with us.
the only reason it bothers you is because he wasn't 10 years old
Anonymous C double-posted this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,300,039
@1,300,027 (R)
> It's not nice to call Kyle Rittenhouse mentally ill.
kyle "Retarded faggot" rittenhouse
> It's not nice to call Kyle Rittenhouse mentally ill.
kyle "Retarded faggot" rittenhouse
Anonymous Q replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,300,042
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,300,049
Father Dave !RsSxeehGwc replied with this 1 year ago, 12 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,300,052
@1,300,039 (C)
> > It's not nice to call Kyle Rittenhouse mentally ill.
>
> kyle "Retarded faggot" rittenhouse
Why are you so angry about people who murder child molesters? Do they make you nervous?
> > It's not nice to call Kyle Rittenhouse mentally ill.
>
> kyle "Retarded faggot" rittenhouse
Why are you so angry about people who murder child molesters? Do they make you nervous?
Anonymous U joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 17 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,300,055
Anonymous V joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 31 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,300,058
@1,300,052 (Father Dave !RsSxeehGwc)
> > > It's not nice to call Kyle Rittenhouse mentally ill.
> >
> > kyle "Retarded faggot" rittenhouse
>
> Why are you so angry about people who murder child molesters? Do they make you nervous?
Kill yourself faggot
> > > It's not nice to call Kyle Rittenhouse mentally ill.
> >
> > kyle "Retarded faggot" rittenhouse
>
> Why are you so angry about people who murder child molesters? Do they make you nervous?
Kill yourself faggot
Father Dave !RsSxeehGwc replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,300,063
Anonymous W joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 41 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,300,066
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 18 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,300,071
@1,300,035 (J)
Because it's the first time in the asshole's life that he is being held accountable for his many horrible crimes and his horrible life.
Because it's the first time in the asshole's life that he is being held accountable for his many horrible crimes and his horrible life.
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 44 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,300,078
@previous (A)
You applaud the felony conviction of Trump for a "conspiracy to influence an election" but you loved it when Biden suppressed the Hunter laptop story. You don't care about justice or election integrity
You applaud the felony conviction of Trump for a "conspiracy to influence an election" but you loved it when Biden suppressed the Hunter laptop story. You don't care about justice or election integrity
(Edited 30 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 21 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,300,081
@previous (E)
Congress has been having hearing on "Hunter's laptop" and have yet to produce a single charge or piece of evidence.
Congress has been having hearing on "Hunter's laptop" and have yet to produce a single charge or piece of evidence.
Anonymous I replied with this 1 year ago, 6 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,300,082
@1,300,035 (J)
> Why are people shouting and dancing outside the courthouse like it's some huge victory
Because mental retardation.
> Why are people shouting and dancing outside the courthouse like it's some huge victory
Because mental retardation.
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 21 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,300,086
@1,300,081 (A)
So what? It doesn't matter what was on the laptop or if there's an iron clad case against the Biden crime family arising from it or not. Suppressing the story influenced the election. Nobody proved that Trump's penis went into Stormy either, and yet here we are
So what? It doesn't matter what was on the laptop or if there's an iron clad case against the Biden crime family arising from it or not. Suppressing the story influenced the election. Nobody proved that Trump's penis went into Stormy either, and yet here we are
(Edited 6 minutes later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 5 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,300,087
@previous (E)
How did suppressing a laptop influence an election, and what did Biden do exactly to suppress it?
How did suppressing a laptop influence an election, and what did Biden do exactly to suppress it?
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,300,088
@previous (A)
10% of Biden voters polled say they would not have voted for Biden if they had known about the laptop story. Thanks.
Biden's team worked with the FBI to direct social media companies to remove any information about the story. Thanks.
10% of Biden voters polled say they would not have voted for Biden if they had known about the laptop story. Thanks.
Biden's team worked with the FBI to direct social media companies to remove any information about the story. Thanks.
(Edited 53 seconds later.)
Anonymous I replied with this 1 year ago, 6 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,300,089
@1,300,086 (E)
Do you think that engineering a conviction and locking up a presidential candidate during an election cycle should also count as "influencing the election"? If so, do you think Alvin Bragg should also be prosecuted for abusing his office to damage a presidential candidate ahead of an election?
Do you think that engineering a conviction and locking up a presidential candidate during an election cycle should also count as "influencing the election"? If so, do you think Alvin Bragg should also be prosecuted for abusing his office to damage a presidential candidate ahead of an election?
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,300,091
@previous (I)
> Do you think that engineering a conviction and locking up a presidential candidate during an election cycle should also count as "influencing the election"? If so, do you think Alvin Bragg should also be prosecuted for abusing his office to damage a presidential candidate ahead of an election?
If that's the game, then yes. Apply the rules to all players
> Do you think that engineering a conviction and locking up a presidential candidate during an election cycle should also count as "influencing the election"? If so, do you think Alvin Bragg should also be prosecuted for abusing his office to damage a presidential candidate ahead of an election?
If that's the game, then yes. Apply the rules to all players
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,300,092
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 10 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,300,095
@previous (A)
Which sources do you accept as valid? Do you want to hear a riveting tale about how staff at Twitter were forced to suppress the story? Start here: https://x.com/mtaibbi/status/1598822959866683394
All checks out, and written up by a respectable reporter.
Which sources do you accept as valid? Do you want to hear a riveting tale about how staff at Twitter were forced to suppress the story? Start here: https://x.com/mtaibbi/status/1598822959866683394
All checks out, and written up by a respectable reporter.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 22 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,300,217
Jami !!1fFjfSYjI joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 6 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,300,270
He can parden himself if reelected though lol