Elizabeth Warren's Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Is Unconstitutional On Its Face | WLT Report Skip to main content
BoomMag: Readers and Fans
Advertise With Us Newsletter

WLT Report WLT Report

Advertise With Us Newsletter
We may receive compensation from affiliate partners for some links on this site. Read our full Disclosure here.

Elizabeth Warren’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Is Unconstitutional On Its Face

1.1k views

Time to go deep on a topic that doesn’t get much attention…

But that’s what we do here.

We do the heavy lifting and we shine light on things you wouldn’t otherwise hear about.

That’s been our mission since 2015 and let’s just say business is good!

ADVERTISEMENT

Today’s topic is Elizabeth Warren’s pet Agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

You might have heard about it, but I bet you have no idea what it is, what is does, or how wildly Unconstitutional it is!

Shout out to Mark Andreesen for originally bringing this to my attention, and I think that’s an excellent place for all of us to start.

Watch this short video to get started as we dive in:

But that’s just barely scratching the surface.

Let’s start with the basics, what is the CFPB, who created it, when, why and how is it functioning today:

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is a federal agency created in 2010 after the 2008 financial crisis to regulate consumer finance products like credit cards, mortgages, and loans.

  • It was Elizabeth Warren’s idea, and she helped design it under the Obama Administration.

  • It was officially created by the Dodd-Frank Act and later headed by a single Director appointed for a 5-year term.

    ADVERTISEMENT

  • The CFPB is not funded by Congress but directly by the Federal Reserve, meaning Congress can’t control its budget.

  • Its Director cannot be easily removed by the President, limiting Executive oversight.

Why it’s likely Unconstitutional:

  • The Constitution gives Congress control over the purse (Article I, Section 9). The CFPB bypasses this by getting funding from the Fed.

  • The President is supposed to control the Executive Branch (Article II), but can’t remove the CFPB Director at will.

  • That means neither elected branch (Congress or President) has real power over the CFPB — a violation of separation of powers.

In short: Warren helped create a powerful agency that spends money without Congress and isn’t under the President’s full authority — making it structurally incompatible with the Constitution.

That’s bad.

Byron Donalds has introduced a Bill to abolish it:

ADVERTISEMENT

More here:

Senator John Kennedy says it’s operating illegally:

ADVERTISEMENT
NATIONAL POLL: Do You Trust Elon Musk? image

And now the best part…

It might get shut down via the same illegal mechanisms Elizabeth Warren originally created.

Oh the irony!

Now let’s end by asking AI to do a deep analysis for us and tell us if it’s Unconstitutional on its face or not.

Spoiler alert: both ChatGPT and Grok conclude without a doubt it’s wildly Unconstitutional.

The truth is folks, when all of this stuff really comes to light and the Deep State actors like Warren are truly exposed, Americans are going to be sickened — even physically — by how illegal all these people were.

ADVERTISEMENT

Remember when Q said “They won’t be able to walk the streets”?

I believe that’s coming.

These people should NEVER have been allowed to serve in Congress!

Here’s what ChatGPT told me:

Analyzing whether Elizabeth Warren’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is unconstitutional on its face, based solely on a strict textual and structural reading of the U.S. Constitution, requires evaluating the separation of powers, appointments, and appropriations clauses. This analysis assumes no deference to precedent or practical considerations, focusing purely on the Constitution’s language and original structure.

📜 1. Separation of Powers and Article II (Executive Power)

⚖️ Argument for Unconstitutionality:

The Constitution vests executive power in “a President of the United States of America” (Art. II, §1). The CFPB exercises executive powers: it enforces federal consumer protection laws, issues regulations, and imposes penalties. Yet:

  • The CFPB was designed as an independent agency headed by a single director, not subject to presidential removal at will (until Seila Law v. CFPB narrowed that in 2020).

  • This structure dilutes the President’s ability to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” (Art. II, §3).

  • Unlike traditional executive agencies (e.g. DOJ or Treasury), the CFPB sits outside the direct control of the President, which could violate the unitary executive principle.

🛑 On its face:

An executive agency that enforces federal law, but is not fully under presidential control, violates the constitutional structure of executive authority. This strongly supports facial unconstitutionality.

💵 2. Article I, §9, Cl. 7: Appropriations Clause

“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”

⚖️ Argument for Unconstitutionality:

Congress has the exclusive power of the purse. The CFPB is not funded through annual congressional appropriations, but through direct draws from the Federal Reserve (which itself is self-funded).

ADVERTISEMENT

  • The CFPB can unilaterally demand up to 12% of the Fed’s operating budget, without congressional oversight.

  • This evades the constitutional requirement that Congress approve and control all Treasury outlays via legislation.

  • By severing ongoing appropriations from congressional accountability, the CFPB nullifies the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches.

🛑 On its face:

Any federal agency wielding enforcement powers and spending federal money without an appropriations law passed annually by Congress runs afoul of the textual requirement of Article I, §9. That supports facial unconstitutionality.

🧑‍⚖️ 3. Appointments Clause (Art. II, §2, Cl. 2)

The President “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint… Officers of the United States…”

⚖️ Argument for Conditional Constitutionality:

The CFPB Director is appointed by the President with Senate confirmation, which satisfies the clause. However:

  • The extraordinary power and independence of a single director (as opposed to a multi-member commission) may amplify the constitutional harm when not subject to direct presidential control or Congress’s purse strings.

  • The Director’s long term (5 years) means one President can appoint a Director who remains in power well into a successor’s term, conflicting with the executive accountability principle.

❗Conclusion:

While not facially unconstitutional by the Appointments Clause alone, when combined with removal protections and funding mechanisms, the structural effect may push it into unconstitutional territory.

🧠 Structural Constitutionalism Summary

Strictly read, the Constitution creates a government where:

  • Congress controls the purse

  • The President controls execution of the law

  • Federal agencies are accountable to one or both

The CFPB:

  • Spends money without annual appropriations

  • Exercises executive power without presidential control

  • Is insulated from both Congress and the Executive

This configuration is a fourth branch of government, unauthorized by the Constitution. In pure structural constitutional terms, this is facially unconstitutional.

✅ Conclusion (Strict Constructionist View):

Elizabeth Warren’s CFPB is unconstitutional on its face, because:

  1. It exercises executive power without being accountable to the President — violating Article II.

  2. It draws and spends money without congressional appropriation — violating Article I, §9.

  3. Its structure creates a government entity outside the three branches — violating the Constitution’s separation of powers.

    ADVERTISEMENT

Even without considering historical precedent or court rulings, a strict textual and structural analysis of the Constitution reveals that the CFPB cannot be reconciled with the design of limited, accountable government set forth by the Framers.

And here’s what Grok told me:

To analyze whether the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), as established under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 during Elizabeth Warren’s influence, is unconstitutional on its face, we must conduct a strict constitutional law analysis based solely on the text, structure, and original meaning of the U.S. Constitution.

This analysis will avoid reliance on precedent, popular opinion, or subsequent legal developments, focusing instead on first principles derived from the Constitution itself. The question centers on the CFPB’s structure, powers, and funding mechanism, evaluating whether they comport with the Constitution’s allocation of powers, separation of powers, and specific textual provisions.

I. Background on the CFPB’s Structure

The CFPB is an independent federal agency created to regulate consumer financial products and services. Key features relevant to this analysis include:

  • Leadership:

    • Headed by a single Director, appointed by the President with Senate confirmation

    • Serves a five-year term

    • Removable by the President only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office”

  • Funding:

    • Not through congressional appropriations

      ADVERTISEMENT

    • Funded by a capped amount it requests from the Federal Reserve System (up to 12% of the Fed’s operating expenses, adjusted for inflation)

  • Powers:

    • Rulemaking, enforcement, and adjudicatory authority over consumer financial laws

    • Issues regulations, investigates violations, imposes penalties, and adjudicates disputes

  • Independence:

    • Operates independently of direct congressional or presidential control

    • Insulated by its funding mechanism and the Director’s removal protections

We will evaluate these features against the Constitution’s text and structure, focusing on:

  • Separation of powers

  • The Appointments Clause

  • The Appropriations Clause

  • The Vesting Clauses

  • The Necessary and Proper Clause

II. Constitutional Analysis

The Constitution establishes a government of enumerated powers divided among three branches—legislative, executive, and judicial—with checks and balances to prevent any branch from usurping the others’ authority.

The CFPB’s structure raises questions under several constitutional provisions.

A. Separation of Powers and Vesting Clauses

  • Executive Power and Presidential Control (Article II, Section 1):

    • The Vesting Clause grants the President the entire “executive Power.”

    • The CFPB Director is insulated from removal, limiting the President’s ability to execute the laws.

  • Constitutional Issue:

    • The “for cause” removal protection undermines the President’s authority.

    • Congress cannot shield executive officers from presidential control without violating Article II.

  • Counterargument:

    • Congress may cite the Necessary and Proper Clause.

    • However, restricting executive control is not “proper” if it disrupts separation of powers.

  • Unitary Executive Principle:

    • The CFPB fragments executive power.

    • The Constitution provides no exception for independent executive agencies.

B. Appointments Clause (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2)

  • Director’s Appointment:

    • Appointed by the President with Senate confirmation

    • Satisfies the clause for principal officers

  • Constitutional Issue:

    • Removal restrictions create a hybrid, quasi-legislative/judicial role

    • Undermines the intent that such officers be accountable to elected officials

  • Counterargument:

    • Congress may claim the right to define tenure

    • But this fails if it restricts executive control

C. Appropriations Clause (Article I, Section 9, Clause 7)

  • Clause Requirement:

    • “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”

  • Constitutional Issue:

    • CFPB receives funds from the Federal Reserve without annual congressional appropriations

    • Bypasses Congress’s exclusive spending authority

  • Additional Concern:

    • Undermines Congress’s check on executive power

    • Creates a self-funded, unaccountable agency

  • Counterargument:

    • Congress passed a law setting a funding cap

    • But an appropriation “by Law” requires periodic authorization, not a one-time delegation

D. Non-Delegation Doctrine and Legislative Power (Article I, Section 1)

  • Constitutional Issue:

    • CFPB can issue regulations defining “unfair, deceptive, or abusive” practices

    • Vague statutory language gives the CFPB broad discretion

    • Lacks an “intelligible principle” guiding its rulemaking

  • Counterargument:

    • Congress may delegate to enforce the commerce power

    • But broad discretion without accountability crosses constitutional boundaries

E. Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18)

  • Constitutional Issue:

    • Regulating commerce may be “necessary”

    • But CFPB’s structure is not “proper” if it breaks checks and balances

  • Counterargument:

    • Independence claimed to reduce political influence

    • Yet Constitution prioritizes accountability over efficiency

F. Judicial Power and Due Process (Article III and Fifth Amendment)

  • Article III Concern:

    • CFPB adjudicates cases internally

    • May usurp judicial power vested in Article III courts

  • Fifth Amendment Due Process Concern:

    • CFPB combines investigative, prosecutorial, and adjudicatory powers

    • Violates due process by lacking a neutral adjudicator

  • Constitutional Issue:

    • Private rights adjudicated without oversight

    • Power concentrated in a single unaccountable officer

  • Counterargument:

    • Administrative adjudication is common

    • But must preserve due process and Article III protections

III. Synthesis and Conclusion

Under a strict reading of the Constitution, the CFPB is unconstitutional on its face for the following reasons:

  • Violation of Article II (Executive Power):

    • “For cause” removal protections undermine the President’s control

  • Violation of Article I, Section 9 (Appropriations Clause):

    • Bypasses Congress’s spending power with a self-funding structure

      ADVERTISEMENT

  • Violation of Article I (Non-Delegation):

    • Broad rulemaking power without clear limits constitutes unconstitutional delegation

  • Violation of Article III and Fifth Amendment:

    • Internal adjudication without judicial oversight risks due process violations

  • Structural Violation of Separation of Powers:

    • The CFPB’s design creates a “fourth branch” beyond constitutional checks

A Constitutional CFPB Would Require:

  • A Director removable at the President’s discretion

  • Funding through regular congressional appropriations

  • Clearer, limited statutory authority to guide rulemaking

  • Adjudication subject to Article III court oversight or stronger due process protections

Conclusion:
Under strict constitutional analysis, the CFPB’s structure violates multiple foundational principles of the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution does not allow for an agency wielding this level of unaccountable power, no matter how worthy its goals may be.

And I’ll end with this….

Elizabeth Warren’s buddy, Gary Gensler, was possibly worse than she was.

Thank goodness he’s gone now:

Celebrating The End of Gary Gensler The Best Way Possible…

Celebrating The End of Gary Gensler The Best Way Possible...

Tomorrow is a big day for American finance, crypto, stocks and investing, because it's one more big step in the process of ending the Gary Gensler reign of terror.

Yes, I know Gary Gensler officially resigned back on January 20th, and yes so much has already happened in those last two months, but we've also been in a bit of a holding pattern until new SEC Chief Paul Atkins is sworn in.

He was initially announced and nominated by President Trump back on December 4, 2024:

It's shocking to me that it's taking this long, but it's historically not unprecedented.

Taking until April or May has historically been the norm, and we're on pace for that same schedule with Atkins:

Paul Atkins has been nominated by President Donald Trump to serve as the next Chair of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), but as of March 26, 2025, he has not yet been sworn in. The exact date of his swearing-in remains uncertain because it depends on the Senate confirmation process, which has not been completed.

A Senate Banking Committee hearing to review Atkins' nomination is reportedly scheduled for March 27, 2025, according to posts on X and reports from sources like Cointelegraph. However, this hearing is only a step in the process. Following the hearing, the Senate Banking Committee must vote to advance his nomination to the full Senate, and then the full Senate must vote to confirm him. Only after Senate confirmation can Atkins be sworn in as SEC Chair. The timeline for these steps can vary depending on Senate scheduling, political priorities, and any potential delays, such as those related to financial disclosure paperwork, which some reports suggest have slowed the process.

Historically, SEC Chairs have taken office months after a presidential inauguration. For example, Gary Gensler was confirmed on April 17, 2021, and Jay Clayton on May 4, 2017, both well after the January 20 inaugurations of their respective presidents. Trump was inaugurated on January 20, 2025, and if Atkins follows a similar timeline, his confirmation could occur in April or May 2025, with the swearing-in shortly thereafter. However, no official date has been confirmed as of now, and the process could move faster or slower depending on Senate action.

In summary, while the Senate hearing is set for March 27, 2025, Paul Atkins’ swearing-in as SEC Chief will occur after Senate confirmation, likely in the weeks or months following, with no precise date yet established.

Atkins takes his next big step tomorrow with Senate Banking Committee hearings....and just like everyone else in the Trump Administration the adults are finally back in charge.

Atkins has disclosed $327 million in assets, with $6 million directly invested in crypto:

But check this out....

He does NOT own Bitcoin:

The holdings seem mainly centered around these three buckets:

  • A position in Anchorage Digital, a crypto custodian.
  • Stakes valued between $1 million and $5 million in Off the Chain Capital, a crypto-focused investment fund.
  • Call options in Securitize, a tokenization firm where he served as a board member until February 2025, worth up to $500,000.

Fortune has more details on his holdings:

Paul Atkins, President Donald Trump’s nominee for chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, holds as much as $1 million in equity in two crypto companies, and up to $5 million in a crypto investment fund, according to an ethics disclosure released Tuesday. These holdings, along with Atkins’ pro-crypto policy stances, stand in marked contrast to his predecessor, Gary Gensler, who was a strident critic of the industry.

The ethics filing shows that, up until February, he held a board seat on Securitize, the BlackRock-backed tokenization firm, and owned between $250,000 and $500,000 in call options in the company. Atkins also held between $250,000 and $500,000 in equity in Anchorage Digital, the crypto custodian valued at over $3 billion as of its last funding round. His other crypto holdings come in the form of a stake, worth between $1 and $5 million, in the investment firm Off the Chain Capital, where Atkins is a limited partner.

The three companies did not immediately respond to a request for comment or whether Atkins has already sold his holdings. In his ethics agreement, he agreed to divest his assets shortly after his confirmation. His confirmation hearing is scheduled for Thursday.

High-level nominees and cabinet members are required to submit ethics agreements and asset disclosures to the Office of Government Ethics. These disclosures only require nominees to specify estimates of their holdings. Atkins and his spouse have a combined net worth of at least $327 million, Bloomberg reported.

The incoming SEC chair’s crypto holdings amount to a small portion of his total wealth, which he earned primarily from a business consulting firm he founded.

Others have noted a history with Reserve Rights (RSR) token (Disclaimer: the author of this article holds RSR):

Yes, Paul Atkins has been associated with the Reserve Rights (RSR) project, though the exact nature and timeline of his role are somewhat murky based on available information. He is often described as having served as an advisor to the Reserve Protocol, the blockchain initiative behind RSR, particularly in its early stages. This connection has been widely noted in crypto circles, especially following his nomination by President-elect Donald Trump as SEC Chair in December 2024, which sparked a significant rally in the RSR token price.
Regarding his role, Reserve co-creator and CEO Nevin Freeman has confirmed that Atkins was an advisor "back at the beginning of the project" but is not actively consulting now. Historical mentions, such as a 2019 Medium post from the Reserve team, suggest Atkins was expected to guide the project through legal and regulatory landscapes, though no official title like "director" is consistently attached to him—advisor seems the more common descriptor. His involvement aligns with his broader crypto advocacy, including his role as co-chair of the Token Alliance since 2017.

ADVERTISEMENT

As for whether he would naturally have holdings in RSR from this affiliation, it’s plausible but not directly confirmed by his recent financial disclosures. Advisors in crypto projects are often compensated with tokens, equity, or other incentives, especially in the early days of a protocol like Reserve, which launched its RSR token in May 2019. If Atkins received RSR tokens as part of his advisory role, it would be reasonable to assume he might still hold some, unless he sold or divested them later.
However, his March 25, 2025, financial disclosure, filed ahead of his Senate confirmation hearing on March 27, 2025, does not explicitly list RSR or any specific cryptocurrencies among his assets. Instead, it details up to $6 million in crypto-related holdings, including investments in Anchorage Digital, Off the Chain Capital, and Securitize—firms tied to the broader digital asset ecosystem rather than individual tokens. He has explicitly stated he does not own Bitcoin, but there’s no mention of RSR or other altcoins like it. If he held RSR from his advisory stint, it could be bundled under these broader crypto-related investments or omitted if below a reporting threshold or divested prior to the disclosure.

The lack of specific mention of RSR in his disclosure doesn’t rule out past or present holdings—it’s just not itemized. Given his early advisory role, it’s likely he received some form of compensation, potentially including RSR tokens, which was common practice in the crypto space at that time. Whether he still holds them as of March 2025 is uncertain without further detail, but his affiliation would naturally position him to have had such holdings at some point. The surge in RSR’s price following his nomination suggests the market assumes some lingering connection, though that’s speculative sentiment rather than hard evidence of current ownership.

But now I want to get to the main thing I really wanted to show you....

One of my favorite songs of all time, and it's not from the radio or any part of the Big Music Industry.

The credit all goes to Jonathan Mann (YouTube channel here) who wrote one of the best songs not just about crypto but about our world in general.

I legit have this on my playlist and I'll hit play on this song far more often than any big name artists you are inundated with on the radio.

Please enjoy:

LYRICS:

Hucksters, Fraudsters, Scam Artists, Ponzi Schemes
Hucksters, Fraudsters, Scam Artists, Ponzi Schemes

Hucksters (hucksters), Fraudsters (fraudsters), Scam Artists (scam artists), Ponzi Schemes (ponzi schemes)

Yeah we got a lot of all that stuff
But man you’re not looking close enough
And by the way take a look at your own house
It’s burning down

There’s musicians and writers, illustrators and thinkers
From all walks of life looking for something better
Than the world you built with investment banks
Who the fuck are you

Hucksters (hucksters), Fraudsters (fraudsters), Scam
Artists (scam artists), Ponzi Schemes (ponzi schemes)

Hucksters (hucksters), Fraudsters (fraudsters), Scam Artists (scam artists), Ponzi Schemes (ponzi schemes)

Scammers suck, grifters bad
Man that’s some observation you’ve had
Why don’t you do something about it
Instead of choking me and my friends

You’re giving keynotes at investment banks
Anti-Crypto Army, fill up your ranks
I’ll be here staking and singing
Selling my songs as NFTs

Hucksters (hucksters), Fraudsters (fraudsters), Scam Artists (scam artists), Ponzi Schemes (ponzi schemes)

Hucksters (hucksters), Fraudsters (fraudsters), Scam Artists (scam artists), Ponzi Schemes (ponzi schemes)

If anyone owns the NFT to this song, please contact me and I'll buy it from you.  I have never purchased a single NFT in my life, but I'd buy the rights to this one if that's still a thing.

Why do I love that song so much?

Of course it's catchy, and that helps, but it's all about the lyrics.

It's all about what we've all lived through the past 5-10 years.

Even in the first Trump Administration, President Trump was very against Bitcoin and Crypto.  That's all changed now, and he's rightfully done a 180, but he was not a friend of crypto initially.

Then came the Biden Regime and the Gary Gensler reign of terror, literally setting back the crypto industry four calendar years, but it felt like 20 years in "rat years".

Even our First Lady Melania Trump was "debanked" by Gary Gensler, Elizabeth Warren, and their highly Unconstitutional "Operation Chokepoint 2.0".

It was a lawless regime and it's finally over and in the process of new leadership coming in.

But what I find so interesting about all of this is that the people in the crypto army, and especially those fighters in the XRP Army, have been on nearly the EXACT SAME journey for the past 10 years as we have here.

In 2015, I started this website from scratch, and we simply started publishing the truth that the MSM didn't want you to see.

Flash-forward 10 years later and we discovered politics and DC are dirtier and slimier than we ever imagined.  Sure we knew it was bad, that wasn't ever the surprise.  The surprise was the magnitude of how bad it was ended up being beyond anyone's comprehension.

Even President Trump has commented on being shocked at what he learned beginning in 2015.

He was used to the nasty world of real estate, finance and the entertainment media, but he's publicly commented many times that he was not prepared for how truly evil the Deep State running this country had become.

And I think my friends in the crypto army and XRP Army in particular have made those same discoveries.

Ten years ago, I would have told you the SEC was here to protect investors.

Now, in 2025, after "ETH-gate" and the Bill Hinman debacle, the phony "decentralization test" that never existed outside the minds of a few twisted individuals, and so much more, we see the Deep State has permeated nearly every aspect of our lives.

The very Agency originally founded to protect investors has been highly weaponized against Americans to pick winners and losers -- and spoiler alert: if you're not in the club, you're not the winner!

But just as the country literally dodged a bullet by mere centimeters that fateful day in Butler, PA, the crypto world also dodged a bullet.

Gary Gensler is gone.

There is light again at the end of the tunnel, and it's not just the light of Elizabeth Warren's anti-crypto army train....it's true optimism built on American innovation and ingenuity!

America will once again lead the world in the most important emerging tech of our lifetimes, set to completely redefine (and reset?) the financial system.

So it's with all that in mind, which we all lived through over these last 10 years, that I listed to that song by Jonathan Mann and it becomes not just a catchy song but truly an Anthem for what we all lived through and where we're going.

We don't get here without President Trump tilting his head at just the perfect moment in Butler, PA, which I believe can only be explained as the Hand of God reaching down into history by Divine Providence....

But we also don't get here without Ripple, Brad Garlinghouse, Stu Alderoty, and the XRP Army choosing to not just roll over, but to fight back against a tyrannical SEC far in abuse of it's statutory power, weaponized against American investors, American companies and American innovation.

They lead the way.

They showed you did not have to just cave.

They showed the same heart that President Trump did when he rose up, ear bloodied, and shouted "FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!"

While these last 5 years were some of the toughest in our Nation, so many of us -- so many of YOU! -- rose to the challenge.  You took the call.  You stood firm and fought back, legally and patriotically, of course.

Ripple eventually defeated the SEC, in multiple ways and at multiple times actually.

ADVERTISEMENT

President Trump was guarded by the mighty right hand of God and he won 2024.

Gary Gensler resigned (because he knew he'd be fired).

And now we have new hope.

America has a new spirit.

Hope is back.

Toughness is back.

Weak times create strong men and strong men create good times and I think you're in the second half of that cycle right now.

So to all the crypto army who has discovered just how evil the Deep State is and just how deep it reaches, thank you for banding together with us to elect President Trump.  We have far more in common than any of us ever realized.  Let's move forward united in strength and let's build for tomorrow.

Instead of making you scroll back up, I'll just end with this one more time -- see if it doesn't hit a bit different with all of that in mind.

Please enjoy:

LYRICS:

Hucksters, Fraudsters, Scam Artists, Ponzi Schemes
Hucksters, Fraudsters, Scam Artists, Ponzi Schemes

Hucksters (hucksters), Fraudsters (fraudsters), Scam Artists (scam artists), Ponzi Schemes (ponzi schemes)

Yeah we got a lot of all that stuff
But man you’re not looking close enough
And by the way take a look at your own house
It’s burning down

There’s musicians and writers, illustrators and thinkers
From all walks of life looking for something better
Than the world you built with investment banks
Who the fuck are you

Hucksters (hucksters), Fraudsters (fraudsters), Scam
Artists (scam artists), Ponzi Schemes (ponzi schemes)

Hucksters (hucksters), Fraudsters (fraudsters), Scam Artists (scam artists), Ponzi Schemes (ponzi schemes)

Scammers suck, grifters bad
Man that’s some observation you’ve had
Why don’t you do something about it
Instead of choking me and my friends

You’re giving keynotes at investment banks
Anti-Crypto Army, fill up your ranks
I’ll be here staking and singing
Selling my songs as NFTs

Hucksters (hucksters), Fraudsters (fraudsters), Scam Artists (scam artists), Ponzi Schemes (ponzi schemes)

Hucksters (hucksters), Fraudsters (fraudsters), Scam Artists (scam artists), Ponzi Schemes (ponzi schemes)

And speaking of Gary, did you know this too?

Man this is one sick son of a bitch:

DON’T FORGET: SEC Chair Gary Gensler Was Clinton Campaign’s CFO During Russiagate Scandal!

DON'T FORGET: SEC Chair Gary Gensler Was Clinton Campaign's CFO During Russiagate Scandal!

Earlier this morning, we brought you this report below, where President Trump makes clear he is now open to prosecuting Hillary Clinton....

ADVERTISEMENT

You remember: "LOCK HER UP!"

He passed on it the first time out of a misplaced sense of honoring "decorum" but he's now making clear he won't make that mistake again.

If you take a swing at the King, you'd damn sure better make sure you kill him otherwise you're about to see what happens when you don't come January 2025.

President Trump Prepping The Public For The Arrest of Hillary Clinton

But it's not just Hillary Clinton.

It's many, many others but there's one rat bastard in particular I'd like to focus on right now.

Because if you're not in crypto, he's not necessarily a household name, but he should be:  Gary Gensler.

Gary has DEEP ties to Hillary Clinton and DEEP ties to "Russiagate".

Take a look at this:

BREAKING: SEC Chief Gary Gensler Was Hillary’s Campaign CFO During Russia-gate Payments!

Gary Gensler is the type of guy who thinks he knows what's better for you than you.

A bureaucratic pencil pusher to the core—Gensler could not survive on his own talents if he was forced to...

Instead he is forced to nourish himself off the hard work and financial affairs of others—the classic definition of a government parasite according to the late and great Ayn Rand.

According to a very illuminating report from ProCoin News, Gary Gensler the current Chair of the S.E.C. was Hillary Clinton's C.F.O. during the Russiagate scandal...

This in no way means that he did anything wrong or that this implicates him in that particular scandal, but perhaps further investigation is needed—he was after all the one tasked with handling the money...

Here's what we currently know:

ProCoin News explains:

Her campaign’s CFO at the time?

Gary Gensler.

Why is this important?

Because many of the allegations made by Durham include the intentional payments of money to promulgate the Russia-gate hoax, and it appears to be inconceivable that those could not have flown through Gensler.

ADVERTISEMENT

A 2015 report from CNN praised Gensler:

Bart Chilton, a former CFTC commissioner who served alongside Gensler, told CNN that Gensler was an “effective leader” at the agency, adept at juggling the demands of working with lawmakers on Capitol Hill and regulating the financial sector.

“Secretary Clinton will be well served by his financial and strategic acumen,” Chilton said. “I know he’s deeply committed to the Secretary, and to her public policy agenda.”

He LOOKS like a rat because he is a rat.

And I wouldn't shed one tear if this rat ended up in an 8x8 cell.

Legally, of course.  After a full and fair trial.

President Trump Prepping The Public For The Arrest of Hillary Clinton

Is President Trump prepping the general public for the upcoming arrest of Hillary Clinton?  And others?

Liz Crokin and many others say yes.

In fact, President Trump himself is the one saying "yes".

Allow me to show you....

It all comes from his latest interviews, one with Greg Kelly and one with Sean Hannity.

President Trump has previously said when asked about getting retribution on all of his enemies that, quote: "our ultimate retribution is success".

But after the Guilty Conviction came down last week, he's been asked if his opinion has changed and it seems it has.

And I can't fault him for it one bit.

Watch this short clip here:

Hannity tried to bait him last night into saying he wouldn't go after any of his enemies and President Trump did not take the bait:

My friend the Digital Asset Investor points out that not only does this mean Hillary, but never forget the CFO for Hillary's Campaign and the man who allegedly wrote the check for the Steele Dossier was Gary Gensler, our current head of the (very corrupt) SEC:

As much as I can't stand Hillary, I may be even more happy to see that smug bastard Gensler locked up!

The damage he has done to American finance infrastructure with his illogical war on crypto is horrible.

He set us back at least 4 years, but perhaps that was simply the plan all along?

The plan for Elizabeth Warren, Gary Gensler and Joe Biden to protect their buddies in the banking world and "TradFi" (Traditional Finance) to give them time to catch up?

But back to Trump....

Let's be very clear about what he's saying here.

He's saying that he had a very clear path (and evidence) to lock up Hillary Clinton when he took office in 2016 and he choose not to do it.

He thought it would be a very terrible thing to lock up the wife of a former President, even if she was guilty as sin.

So he chose restraint, even in the face of what would have been fair justice.

And I think Hillary is but one example of dozens!  Hundreds even.

So despite all the fear mongering and hand wringing about Donald Trump being a dictator and the "New Hitler" if he got into office, his first four years prove the exact opposite.

But what do Biden's four years tell us?

A completely weaponized Administration.

A DOJ weaponized against Donald Trump, creating crimes where none exist -- even writing and rewriting new laws in desperate attempts to try and "Get Trump".

An IRS weaponized against the American people....

An SEC weaponized against American crypto holders...

And unlawfulness and Unconstitutional moves at every turn.

So now President Trump is asked what will he do?

Turn the other cheek (again)?

Let them off the hook (again)?

How can he do that?

Why would he do that?

Why would anyone want that?

Let me make it very simple and clear here what my position is and what I believe President Trump is saying in these clips:  He is not going to illegally or unlawfully or Unconstitutionally go after anyone.  He is simply going to apply the law and justice equally and fairly.  No more two tiers of justice.  He is not going to find crimes where none exist, but he's no longer going to look the other way out of some sort of ill-placed allegiance to "decorum" because that ship sailed under the Biden Regime.  The Biden Regime opened that door, not Trump.  And Hannity can wring his hands all he wants and try to get Trump to say he won't walk through that door, but I don't think that's what anyone in MAGA wants.  And I think Hannity just exposed himself once again.

Love to know what you think....

RELATED REPORT (from before the Guilty Conviction):

President Trump Explains How He'll Get The "Ultimate Retribution"

President Trump, during his Fox News Town Hall, shared his plan for “ultimate retribution”.

ADVERTISEMENT

During his Town Hall, Trump shared “We are run by fools. We’re run by stupid people. But we ran it very smart for four years and we won everything. We won everything.”

This led to Fox News host Brett Baierto asking, “You get questions about what a second term’s going to look like when you’re in your rallies. You spend a lot of time talking about retribution, and so there are questions about how much a second term of a Donald Trump presidency, a second term, would be about retribution and looking backward in grievances and how much would be looking forward?”

Trump responded, “Well, first of all, a lot of people would say that that’s not so bad. Look what they did. Russia, Russia, Russia hoax, the FBI Twitter hoax, the 51 intelligence agents hoax. All of these different hoaxes that they did. I mean, a lot of people would say, that’s probably quite normal.”

He concluded, “I’m not going to have time for retribution,” he continued. “We’re going to make this country so successful. Again, I’m not going to have time for retribution. And remember this, our ultimate retribution is success.”

Watch Trump here:

ADVERTISEMENT

Per ABC:

Donald Trump has made the idea of "retribution" a centerpiece of his 2024 campaign for the White House, telling supporters at rally after rally he would use the full force of the presidency to go after his perceived political enemies.

The rhetoric has stoked alarm among critics that a second Trump term could usher in a wave of authoritarian revenge.

MORE: Trump's unprecedented campaign pitch: Elect me to be your revenge on the government
But on Wednesday night, in a sudden change, Trump backed off the message he's spent nearly a year touting on the stump.

"I'm not going to have time for retribution," Trump said during a town hall with Fox News in Iowa, where he sat down with the network's Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum as his Republican opponents traded attacks on stage at Drake University.

"We're going to make the country so successful again, I'm not going to have time for retribution," Trump claimed. "And remember this: our ultimate retribution is success."

Per The Daily Wire:

Former President Donald Trump said he will not “have time for retribution” during a second term in the White House in an apparent walk-back of comments made earlier in the campaign.

Trump sat with Fox News hosts Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum during a live town hall event in Iowa on Wednesday evening. The Trump event took place as CNN held a debate between Trump’s Republican primary foes, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley.


, ,

 

Join the conversation!

Please share your thoughts about this article below. We value your opinions, and would love to see you add to the discussion!

log in

Forgot password?

reset password

Back to
log in
Leave a comment
Thanks for sharing!
Thanks for sharing!
We invite you to become a WLT Report insider. Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.