Comparing gov’t officials to civilians is a stupid comparison.
Biden abolishing police is hyperbole.
CZ enabled a lot of dark shit. He is somehow simultaneously so powerful as to help millions of Chinese, but powerless to do anything about a few thousand of criminals and pedophiles?
It isn't just hyperbole it is completely divorced from reality. Biden said "fund the police" at a state of the union address. Federal law enforcement didn't see cuts. Funding for state police (the bulk of police around the country) increased, with very few localities actually shifting funds from police to other things.
Changpeng Zhao broke the law and got caught. Everyone agrees on that. What you present above is revisionist history about "political persecution," which is the favorite justification of the current administration for pardoning convicted felons, even in the total absence of any evidence supporting a conclusion of political persecution. See also George Santos, J6 rioters, etc.
I don't think it's really necessary to pretend that this pardon was deserved. The pardon happened because (a) Trump wants the support of crypto billionaires and (b) Trump received a large bribe. It's really not complicated.
Painting Trump as sympathetic to ethnic discrimination is really ridiculous. No one believes that, even people who cynically use that justification to support his lawlessness.
You sound biased. If you believe this narrative, I got a few questions for you…
- How was Binance any different than any other crypto exchange?
- Should Coinbase and every other crypto platform be charged for the same crimes?
Is there a place for a logical counter-point in there not having been charges against people responsible for the 2008 financial crisis? It seems like a selective enforcement of rules or consequences in both situations to me.
Your argument is a non sequitur. You are saying in essence: "Someone, somewhere, under totally different circumstances was not prosecuted. Therefore, this particular prosecution is selective prosecution, and therefore inappropriate." By that logic, we should just stop prosecuting crimes altogether, on the logic that we are unable to prosecute all crimes consistently.
There wasn't an argument per se, but an attempt to point out a possibly, similarly politically-influenced miscarriage of justice.
It may be a non sequitur to suggest that the pardon of one convicted financial criminal is similar to the lack of convictions in another likely financial crime context, but it seemed germane and parallel to me.
They should be charged too. Every conviction for financial crimes is an incredibly hard fought victory, because this country runs on fraud. Your argument is why we should treasure CZs conviction and seek many many many more like it.
This was part of my point and a nuance I appreciate as well, and that the pardon resonates for me with the apparent lack of charges for those responsible for the financial crisis.
Yes, exactly, and yet I don't think there has been much in the way of charges brought against those responsible for fraudulently rating the securities.
Some form of fraud for misrepresenting the risk that the mortgages that were bundled together, seems like the obvious answer. But I'm not a forensic accountant or someone with the nuanced legal understanding to define a charge here. Do you think there was no crime in the actions taken by either the banks or the rating agencies? No failure of fiduciary responsibility?
The law says he should have prevented those bad apples from moving dirty money around, and he did not follow the law.
Do you have a rebuttal for coffeezillas assertion that 2 billion dollars of Abu Dhabi money was invested in Binance using the Trump family coin in order to buy a pardon?
The president is clearly pro crypto and doesn't think this dude did anything wrong, but he also wasn't gonna give a pardon away for free. It's a disgusting abuse of office he should be impeached over. Selling pardons, what a shit show.
I would think any serious actor would know better than to store funds where they could be seized at a moments notice, so while I'm sure every exchange is guilty, Binances crime was getting caught.
Kinda like getting a speeding ticket, the fact that other people were also speeding isn't a defense.
With these characters, from Trump on down, discourse is not the point.
He is flexing his power by showing he can make an obviously fatuous point and get away with it. Because there are no consequences, for someone like him.
Comparing gov’t officials to civilians is a stupid comparison.
Biden abolishing police is hyperbole.
CZ enabled a lot of dark shit. He is somehow simultaneously so powerful as to help millions of Chinese, but powerless to do anything about a few thousand of criminals and pedophiles?
This is not a serious take.
It isn't just hyperbole it is completely divorced from reality. Biden said "fund the police" at a state of the union address. Federal law enforcement didn't see cuts. Funding for state police (the bulk of police around the country) increased, with very few localities actually shifting funds from police to other things.
Changpeng Zhao broke the law and got caught. Everyone agrees on that. What you present above is revisionist history about "political persecution," which is the favorite justification of the current administration for pardoning convicted felons, even in the total absence of any evidence supporting a conclusion of political persecution. See also George Santos, J6 rioters, etc.
I don't think it's really necessary to pretend that this pardon was deserved. The pardon happened because (a) Trump wants the support of crypto billionaires and (b) Trump received a large bribe. It's really not complicated.
Painting Trump as sympathetic to ethnic discrimination is really ridiculous. No one believes that, even people who cynically use that justification to support his lawlessness.
You sound biased. If you believe this narrative, I got a few questions for you… - How was Binance any different than any other crypto exchange? - Should Coinbase and every other crypto platform be charged for the same crimes?
Coinbase had the "right" kind of people on their board, and reacted much more rapidly to KYC requirements. For good or for ill, that's the reality.
The real question is about Kraken. How they've managed to remain untouched is a mystery.
> Should Coinbase and every other crypto platform be charged for the same crimes?
Absolutely.
Is there a place for a logical counter-point in there not having been charges against people responsible for the 2008 financial crisis? It seems like a selective enforcement of rules or consequences in both situations to me.
Your argument is a non sequitur. You are saying in essence: "Someone, somewhere, under totally different circumstances was not prosecuted. Therefore, this particular prosecution is selective prosecution, and therefore inappropriate." By that logic, we should just stop prosecuting crimes altogether, on the logic that we are unable to prosecute all crimes consistently.
There wasn't an argument per se, but an attempt to point out a possibly, similarly politically-influenced miscarriage of justice.
It may be a non sequitur to suggest that the pardon of one convicted financial criminal is similar to the lack of convictions in another likely financial crime context, but it seemed germane and parallel to me.
They should be charged too. Every conviction for financial crimes is an incredibly hard fought victory, because this country runs on fraud. Your argument is why we should treasure CZs conviction and seek many many many more like it.
This was part of my point and a nuance I appreciate as well, and that the pardon resonates for me with the apparent lack of charges for those responsible for the financial crisis.
The right thing to do is to prosecute the responsible for 2008, not to pardon people responsible for other crimes...
Yes, exactly, and yet I don't think there has been much in the way of charges brought against those responsible for fraudulently rating the securities.
Those people responsible for the 2008 financial crisis yet not charged, they should be charged with breaking what law?
Some form of fraud for misrepresenting the risk that the mortgages that were bundled together, seems like the obvious answer. But I'm not a forensic accountant or someone with the nuanced legal understanding to define a charge here. Do you think there was no crime in the actions taken by either the banks or the rating agencies? No failure of fiduciary responsibility?
>In the physical world, the Biden admin gleefully abolished the police.
When did this happen?
In the imaginary rhetorical timeline
I wonder which police it was, as well, since the only police the Biden administration had control over were federal agencies such as the FBI.
I’m tempted to think “Fox News is a hell of a drug.”
I thought he was talking about the band.
How does a seemingly intelligent person reach such an empty conclusion?
Bad faith or possibly seeming intelligent != being intelligent.
The law says he should have prevented those bad apples from moving dirty money around, and he did not follow the law.
Do you have a rebuttal for coffeezillas assertion that 2 billion dollars of Abu Dhabi money was invested in Binance using the Trump family coin in order to buy a pardon?
The president is clearly pro crypto and doesn't think this dude did anything wrong, but he also wasn't gonna give a pardon away for free. It's a disgusting abuse of office he should be impeached over. Selling pardons, what a shit show.
Would you agree that all crypto exchanges have moved dirty money around? I don’t see anyone else being punished for similar crimes in crypto.
I don’t doubt Trump tried to advantage himself when doing this. But I do feel like the Binance charge wasn’t consistent at all.
I would think any serious actor would know better than to store funds where they could be seized at a moments notice, so while I'm sure every exchange is guilty, Binances crime was getting caught.
Kinda like getting a speeding ticket, the fact that other people were also speeding isn't a defense.
He's not making an argument.
With these characters, from Trump on down, discourse is not the point.
He is flexing his power by showing he can make an obviously fatuous point and get away with it. Because there are no consequences, for someone like him.