✅ 2025-sats bounty live for 24 hours!

Win in 4 ways:

- Top zapper takes 1418 sats

- One random like wins 203 sats

- One random repost wins 203 sats

- One random comment wins 203 sats

I don’t knowww

Zap it

Nice 🫡

💫

This is from perplexity:

Actions a President Working for U.S. Enemies Might Take (With Plausible Deniability)

If a U.S. president were secretly working for America's enemies but wanted to maintain plausible deniability, they might:

Undermine U.S. alliances (e.g., NATO, EU) by sowing discord or refusing to support collective defense, weakening America’s global position while publicly claiming to prioritize “America First” policies.

Refuse or delay implementing sanctions against hostile foreign powers, justifying it as diplomatic strategy or economic necessity.

Publicly side with adversarial leaders over U.S. intelligence agencies, casting doubt on American institutions and emboldening foreign rivals.

Attack or discredit domestic institutions (e.g., the FBI, intelligence community, free press) to erode public trust and create internal division, all while claiming to fight corruption or “the deep state”.

Obstruct investigations into foreign interference or downplay evidence of attacks on U.S. democracy, arguing such probes are politically motivated.

Promote policies or rhetoric that divide Americans along racial, political, or economic lines, increasing domestic instability under the guise of “free speech” or “law and order”.

Share sensitive information with adversaries under the pretense of diplomacy or transparency.

Maintaining Plausible Deniability

Such actions could be framed as legitimate policy disagreements, administrative priorities, or misunderstandings, making it difficult to prove “specific intent to betray” the United States—a key requirement for a legal treason conviction. The Constitution requires clear evidence of “levying war” or “adhering to enemies, giving them aid and comfort,” plus either a confession or testimony from two witnesses to the same overt act. As a result, even blatantly harmful actions could be excused or rationalized, protecting the president from prosecution for treason unless intent and direct aid to the enemy are clearly established.

😁🤙

LFG

🤙

🫡🫂

🤘🤩

😁🤙

LFG ✨🫂🫡

Asking the new Grok for me a good response that ended with this:

No evidence suggests any current or past U.S. president has engaged in such behavior. This response is purely speculative, addressing a hypothetical scenario as requested.

Obviously, that's wrong, so I asked app Grok what date he's current to... Mid 2024! He literally responded that Biden is president.

So, I asked the version on X... Current to NOW. He no longer says no president has done these things.

Here’s a detailed response to your query, expanding on actions Donald Trump has taken since returning to office in 2025 that align with the hypothetical scenario of a president intent on undermining America. I’ve focused on two key areas you emphasized: installing compromised or inappropriate leadership in agencies like the FBI, Department of Justice (DOJ), and Department of Defense (DoD), and using fear as a weapon, including through market instability. Below is a list of 30 specific examples, each interpreted as potentially weakening America’s stability, security, and democratic institutions. These actions often maintain a veneer of legitimacy but collectively risk eroding trust, sowing division, and consolidating power.

Leadership Appointments: Compromised or Inappropriate Figures in Key Agencies

Trump has placed loyalists in critical roles, often prioritizing allegiance over qualifications, which risks politicizing agencies meant to serve the public independently.

Kash Patel as FBI Director

Trump appointed Kash Patel, a former aide with a controversial history of discrediting investigations into Trump, to lead the FBI. This move is seen as ensuring the bureau aligns with Trump’s personal agenda rather than maintaining its traditional independence, potentially compromising its ability to conduct impartial investigations.

Pam Bondi as Attorney General

Pam Bondi, a staunch Trump supporter who defended him during his first impeachment, now heads the DOJ. Her track record suggests she may prioritize loyalty over objective justice, raising concerns about the department’s integrity and its ability to uphold the rule of law fairly.

Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defense

Pete Hegseth, a former Fox News host with no military experience, was appointed to lead the DoD. Critics argue his lack of qualifications risks destabilizing military leadership and decision-making, potentially weakening national defense through politicization.

Elon Musk to Overhaul Federal Workforce

Trump tasked Elon Musk, a private-sector figure with no government experience, with streamlining federal operations. While framed as efficiency, this risks disrupting institutional expertise and crippling agency functionality, reflecting inappropriate leadership for such a critical role.

Loyalists in Intelligence Roles

Beyond Patel at the FBI, Trump has installed other loyalists in key intelligence positions. This could politicize intelligence operations, compromising national security and eroding trust in the objectivity of agencies like the CIA.

Todd Blanche and Emil Bove in Top DOJ Roles

Both served as Trump’s personal defense lawyers during his criminal trials. Their appointments to high-ranking DOJ positions blur the lines between personal loyalty and public service, risking the department’s independence and impartiality.

Fired Independent Inspector Generals

Trump removed independent Inspector Generals from multiple agencies, reducing oversight and accountability. Replacing them with loyalists creates fear of unchecked corruption and weakens the integrity of government operations.

Fear Tactics: Market Instability and Beyond

Trump’s policies and actions have generated fear—economic, social, and institutional—mirroring tactics dictators use to maintain control. Market instability is a key mechanism, alongside purges and divisive measures.

Broad Tariffs Causing Market Instability

Trump imposed a 10% tariff on all trading partners except Canada and Mexico, disrupting global supply chains and raising costs for consumers and businesses. This economic uncertainty creates fear among investors and the public, destabilizing markets and straining alliances.

Purged FBI Agents from January 6 Cases

The dismissal of FBI agents involved in January 6 investigations or Trump-related cases has fostered a climate of fear within the agency. Agents may hesitate to pursue politically sensitive cases, undermining law enforcement integrity.

Fired DOJ Prosecutors from January 6 Cases

Removing prosecutors who worked on January 6 cases and replacing them with loyalists signals a purge of dissenters. This creates fear among career officials and erodes trust in the justice system.

Politicized Military Leadership

Trump dismissed experienced military leaders, replacing them with loyalists and even naming an “F-47” fighter jet in his honor. This politicization risks undermining military morale and effectiveness, creating fear of a defense apparatus beholden to one man.

Threatened Funding Cuts to Sanctuary Cities

By threatening to cut federal funding to “sanctuary cities,” Trump instills economic fear in local governments and immigrant communities, potentially destabilizing urban areas and heightening social tensions.

Mass Layoffs of Federal Workers

Firing thousands from agencies like the FBI, CIA, and USAID disrupts operations and creates economic fear among workers and their families. This weakens institutional resilience and fosters insecurity.

Attempted to End Birthright Citizenship

Through an executive order, Trump challenged a constitutional right, creating legal uncertainty and fear among immigrant families. This risks social unrest and legal chaos, amplifying division.

Sanctioned Law Firms Representing Opponents

Targeting legal professionals who opposed him chills dissent and creates fear within the legal community, undermining judicial independence and public trust in the system.

Additional Actions: Expanding the Scope of Fear and Instability

These examples further illustrate how Trump’s leadership and policies erode institutional integrity, deepen social divides, and consolidate power through fear.

Controlled National Archives (NARA)

Placing NARA under direct presidential control risks manipulating historical records, creating fear of historical revisionism and loss of transparency in government narratives.

Eliminated LGBTQ+ Protections

Wiping out federal protections and declaring only two genders fosters fear and uncertainty among LGBTQ+ individuals, potentially increasing discrimination and social division.

Banned Transgender Military Service

Banning transgender individuals from the military and moving transgender women to men’s prisons creates fear and discrimination, undermining trust in government fairness and social cohesion.

Disbanded FBI Election and Lobbying Teams

Eliminating these teams reduces oversight of elections and lobbying, creating fear of unchecked interference and corruption, weakening democratic safeguards.

Implemented Schedule F for Federal Workers

Reclassifying federal employees as at-will workers under Schedule F allows easier firings, creating job insecurity and fear among civil servants, potentially purging non-loyalists.

Demanded Lists of FBI Agents

Requesting names of agents who worked on January 6 cases for potential firing creates a chilling effect on law enforcement, compromising investigations and national security.

Diverted Military Resources to Border Wall

Redirecting military funds to build the border wall weakens readiness and creates fear of a militarized domestic policy, blurring defense and political lines.

Threatened DOJ Use Against Opponents

Trump’s rhetoric suggests weaponizing the DOJ to target critics, creating fear of legal persecution among dissenters and stifling opposition.

Withdrew from Paris Climate Agreement

Reversing climate commitments undermines global efforts and creates fear of environmental and economic fallout, isolating the U.S. internationally.

Imposed Tech Policy Changes

Policies to remove “ideological bias” from tech companies could stifle innovation and create fear of government overreach, harming a key economic sector.

Pardoned January 6 Rioters

Pardoning those convicted in the Capitol attack undermines the rule of law and signals tolerance for political violence, deepening fear and division.

Rolled Back Environmental Regulations

Declaring an energy emergency to fast-track fossil fuel projects risks ecological crises, creating fear of long-term health and economic consequences.

Cut Infrastructure Funding

Ignoring crumbling infrastructure fosters fear of systemic failures in transportation, energy, and safety, weakening national resilience.

Undermined Election Trust

Disbanding FBI election teams and casting doubt on electoral integrity creates fear and mistrust in democracy, risking future instability.

Harsh Immigration Crackdown

Mass deportations and severe policies create fear among immigrant communities, potentially leading to humanitarian crises and further national division.

Conclusion

These 30 actions—ranging from appointing loyalists like Kash Patel, Pam Bondi, and Pete Hegseth to key agencies, to generating fear through market instability, purges, and divisive policies—paint a picture of a presidency that could undermine America’s foundations. While often framed as reforms or ideological wins, their cumulative effect risks eroding economic stability, institutional integrity, and social trust. Fear, as you noted, is a dictator’s tool, and these steps—whether through economic uncertainty or institutional intimidation—align with that strategy, weakening America from within.

Let’s get buzzed

😇

Gm

GM ☕🧡🌅

GM ☕💜☀️

GOOD MORNING ☕💜☀️

GM ☕💜🌄

GM 🫂☕🌞

Lfg

Woof Woof!

Amazing 👏

Great Opportunity!

Good Morning ☕🫡

Gm ☕💜🏞️

Great post

Gm 🫡

Done

Done ser

👍

.

I used a locally downloaded DeepSeek R1 Distill Quen 7B version to do this.

Here's it's thought process:

"Okay, so I'm trying to figure out what a president working for our enemies might be doing right now and how he could maintain a cover while destroying America. The user provided an example where the president is framing global leaders as traitors or part of a secret league with David Koch. That's pretty extreme but also shows how someone could use plausible deniability.

First, I need to break down what plausible deniability means in this context. It's about presenting false information that seems credible at first glance but is actually false. So the president would create stories that seem plausible, maybe involving well-known figures or institutions, to deflect attention from his real actions against American interests.

I should consider how such a person might frame events. For example, they could blame global leaders for economic issues or political turmoil, suggesting they're part of a league with Koch, which is a real person but not exactly a secret group. That way, it seems like he's accusing others of conspiracy without directly implicating himself.

Another angle is the use of social media and public statements. The president could release talking points that align with conspiracy theories, making them seem more like news than fiction. This would spread the narrative widely, creating a false consensus among the populace about his motives.

He might also work within his party, using political machinery to push these narratives further. By getting members of Congress or other leaders on board, he can amplify the message and make it harder for anyone to question without facing backlash. This internalization of the lie could help sustain the cover longer.

Additionally, economic policies that don't actually benefit the country but obscure real issues are a way to hide the true agenda. By tying prosperity or failure to external factors like global trade or energy prices, he can divert attention from what's really going on.

I should also think about how such a president would manage exposure. If leaks occur, he could deflect responsibility by suggesting others caused them or that it was an accident. This keeps the narrative alive without direct accountability.

In summary, maintaining plausible deniability involves creating false narratives aligned with conspiracy theories, using public and political platforms to spread these lies, working within his party to internalize the message, and diverting attention from real policies through economic framing. All of this allows him to present a facade of neutrality while secretly undermining American interests."

And now, its response:

"In constructing a plausible yet devastating narrative, a president working for our enemies might employ several strategies:

1. Conspiracy narratives: Frame global leaders or institutions as part of a secret league (e.g., involving Koch), creating false credibility.

2. Public statements and media releases: Use talking points that align with conspiracy theories to influence public opinion, spreading the lie widely.

3. Political manipulation: Engage party members and political figures to internalize the narrative, solidifying it without questioning.

4. Economic diversion: Policies framed as prosperity or failure influenced by external factors like trade or energy prices to obscure real issues.

5. Risk management: Deflect responsibility for leaks by suggesting others caused them or it was an accident.

Through these methods, the president maintains a facade of neutrality while secretly undermining American interests, all within a plausible deniability framework."

Venice AI

A president of the U.S. who worked for our enemies and is attempting to destroy America while maintaining plausible deniability might be engaging in various activities, including:

Secret meetings with foreign officials: The president might be secretly meeting with high-ranking officials from a hostile nation, exchanging sensitive information, and discussing plans to compromise America's national security.

Example: The president is meeting with a Russian diplomat at a private estate in the countryside, discussing the recent election interference and the sale of classified military technology.

Sharing classified information with foreign agents: The president or their associates might be sharing sensitive information with foreign agents, either directly or through intermediaries, compromising national security and putting America at risk.

Example: The president is sharing classified information about America's military operations in the Middle East with a known Iranian agent, who is feeding this information back to the Iranian government.

Using backdoors in the intelligence system: The president or their allies might be exploiting vulnerabilities in the intelligence system to feed disinformation or manipulate the narrative to favor their foreign allies.

Example: The president is using a backdoor in the NSA's system to feed false intelligence to the FBI, which is then used to discredit America's allies and create divisions within the government.

Colluding with foreign companies: The president or their associates might be colluding with foreign companies to compromise America's economic interests, such as by sharing sensitive technology or stealing intellectual property.

Example: The president is secretly meeting with a Chinese executive to discuss a merger between a Chinese tech company and an American firm, which would give China access to sensitive American technology.

Subverting America's democratic institutions: The president might be working to subvert America's democratic institutions, such as by spreading disinformation, manipulating public opinion, or using social media to influence the narrative.

Example: The president is using social media to spread false information about their opponents, creating divisions and confusion among the American public.

Using shell companies and secret funds: The president or their associates might be using shell companies and secret funds to launder money, bribe officials, or finance covert operations.

Example: The president is using a shell company to funnel money to a foreign agent, who is using it to finance a covert operation to disrupt America's ally.

Infiltrating America's government and institutions: The president or their allies might be infiltrating America's government and institutions, using moles or sleeper cells to gather intelligence or influence policy.

Example: The president has appointed a known moles to key positions in the government, who are feeding intelligence back to their foreign handlers.

Using executive power to cover tracks: The president might be using executive power to cover their tracks, such as by issuing executive orders, manipulating the media, or using the executive branch to intimidate or silence critics.

Example: The president is using executive power to issue an executive order that restricts freedom of speech, effectively silencing critics and opposition voices.

These activities would allow the president to destroy America while maintaining plausible deniability, as they would be carried out in secret and behind the scenes.

Plot twist, he's talking about Biden

✌️