• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

the trump administration and crypto fraud

The Great Zaganza said:
The competition will make sure that consumers will get the very best treatment.
Click to expand...
It crossed my mind that if money-laundering becomes easier then the current organizations that do that might find themselves losing business and reacting badly. Bearing in mind the kind of organizations some of these are...well, it's adding yet more interesting to the times we're in.
 

report that trump having talks with binance about buying some stake in it in exchange for a pardon. i read elsewhere not necessarily credibly that includes talking about investing in its own stablecoin through world liberty financial.

bloomingbit.io

Zhao Changpeng Directly Refutes WSJ Report... "No Discussions with Trump"

Zhao Changpeng (pictured), founder of the world's largest cryptocurrency exchange Binance, has directly refuted a Wall Street Journal (WSJ) report. On
bloomingbit.io bloomingbit.io

zhao, disgraced fraudster ceo of binance, denies the allegations.

www.pbs.org

Binance founder Changpeng Zhao sentenced to 4 months in prison for allowing money laundering

A judge on Tuesday credited Zhao for taking responsibility for his wrongdoing. But he said he was troubled by the Binance founder's decision to ignore U.S. banking requirements that would have slowed the company's explosive growth.
www.pbs.org www.pbs.org

article related to his 4 month prison sentence and $4.3b settlement for money laundering. you can literally do this with every single one of these major crypto players, find them being fined or sued or going to prison for financial crimes btw
 
www.levernews.com

Trump Issues Ethics Waiver For His AI/Crypto Czar

The White House granted the waiver to David Sacks a month after Trump fired the director of the independent agency charged with enforcing federal ethics statutes.
www.levernews.com www.levernews.com

trump fired the clears the government of lawyers and agencies that handle ethics statutes. then he gives david sacks, his "crypto czar", whatever the ◊◊◊◊ that's supposed to mean, a waiver against any conflicts of interest, which allows him to work directly on matters that influence his financial interests. as they set up a crypto network to rob the country blind.

something to think about if you ever head over to a discussion of government waste and fraud
 
At least in the case of a potential pardon, ethics rules and corruption laws don't matter. Handing out pardons is a core function of the President, and SCOTUS has ruled that anything to do with the core functions of a President cannot even be inquired into for potential criminal prosecution. Nothing prevents Donald Trump from selling pardons.
 
JayUtah said:
At least in the case of a potential pardon, ethics rules and corruption laws don't matter. Handing out pardons is a core function of the President, and SCOTUS has ruled that anything to do with the core functions of a President cannot even be inquired into for potential criminal prosecution. Nothing prevents Donald Trump from selling pardons.
Click to expand...
Does anything prevent the president from ordering the murders of his enemies and promising to pardon anyone who gets caught?
 
TragicMonkey said:
Does anything prevent the president from ordering the murders of his enemies and promising to pardon anyone who gets caught?
Click to expand...
Considering the outcome of the January 6 prosecutions, probably not. That wasn't an explicit quid pro quo, but the promise is effectively out there.

The boundaries of the current ruling haven't been tested and have no effective precedent. The Chief Justice essentially invented this doctrine out of thin air, so no one but he knows what was going on in his head or how this is supposed to work. If the quo is a pardon (or any other core function), then any discussion of a quid in connection with it is immune from any kind of prosecutorial inquiry. Where we think this might run aground is whether the proposed deal is public knowledge (e.g., the President announces it from the Rose Garden), and whether the quid is separately actionable regardless of any quo that might follow. But if the President pulls someone into the Oval Office and says, "If you kill So-and-So for me, I will pardon you for it," then the current thinking is that no prosecutor can touch that.

The current SCOTUS doctrine is that only express quid pro quo corruption is punishable in any context. You can't prosecute according to a general understanding—no matter how obvious—that anyone who commits murder to advance the President's objectives will be pardoned.

ETA: I need to disclaim part of this by noting that there is famously no federal statute for murder per se. You cannot be charged for simple murder under federal law, so you cannot be pardoned by the President for it. But there are a number of muder-adjacent crimes (e.g., terrorism) you can be charged with under federal law, including some that carry a death penalty.
 
Last edited:
well i guess it just goes to show you that the constitution isn't some magical document that has all the answers because that's ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ stupid
 
dirtywick said:
well i guess it just goes to show you that the constitution isn't some magical document that has all the answers because that's ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ stupid
Click to expand...
Indeed I can go off on the extremely stupid and inappropriate way that self-proclaimed SCOTUS originalists interpret the constitution, but I don't have time today. There is a whole discussion to be had on the folly of trying to parse individual syllables for their historical meaning. If you torture a text enough you can make it say whatever you want. But here, Chief Justice Roberts just invented the notion of a bold and fearless President apparently by staring at his toenails in the bathtub. There is nothing whatsoever in the Constitution to support it, and Roberts didn't even try to say there was. But there's quite a bit about holding officers accountable.

The whole notion that you can't even inquire into the President's activities even for evidence of wrongdoing in a constitutionally irrelevant predicate activity was apparently a bridge too far for the conservative coalition. When you lose Justice Barrett (who dissented on that point), you've really crossed a Rubicon.
 
www.tronweekly.com

Hawk Tuah Girl Cleared As SEC Closes Investigation Into HAWK

Hailey Welch, the "Hawk Tuah" girl, has been cleared of wrongdoing as the SEC closed its investigation into the $HAWK memecoin crash.
www.tronweekly.com www.tronweekly.com

sec finds no fraud in the hawk tuah coin rug pull scam, closes investigation


doge finally ready to start finding fraud and waste in the sec

pretty close to fraud being legal here guys
 
Coffeezilla mentions that in his latest video on YouTube.

They had to drop it as it's exactly what Trump did
 
Another example of short termism IMO. A complete lack of regulation will allow the rubes to be fleeced in the short term but in the medium to long term it'll undermine confidence in the whole edifice and drive away the big, legal, money
 
The Don said:
Another example of short termism IMO. A complete lack of regulation will allow the rubes to be fleeced in the short term but in the medium to long term it'll undermine confidence in the whole edifice and drive away the big, legal, money
Click to expand...
i think we'll find that deregulating risky and damaging behavior means will only incentive big legal money to get in on it
 
It's a floor cleaner and a dessert topping. (Jane Curtin)

vs

It's medium of exchange and an investment.

:c2:
 

saw this posted in another thread and seems pretty relevant. really just a way to intermingle bank assets and crypto "assets" as in funnelling actual money into unregulated and easily manipulated crypto markets, by removing regulations preventing banks from carrying such foolishly risky assets. and, i suppose, government bailouts for massive losses when an asset or exchange collapses. usually involving large amounts of fraud.

luckily, we can probably trust the finance industry to wisely regulate itself as it has always done so in the past.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom