[HN Gopher] Justice Dept. scales back crypto cases in line with ...
___________________________________________________________________
Justice Dept. scales back crypto cases in line with Trump
administration memo
Author : planb
Score : 73 points
Date : 2025-04-09 08:58 UTC (14 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.washingtonpost.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.washingtonpost.com)
| yodsanklai wrote:
| How does separation of powers work in the US? could Trump decide
| not to prosecute let say financial fraud in general?
| etchalon wrote:
| The Executive Branch, of which Trump is granted oversight in
| our Constitution, is responsible for the enforcement of our
| laws.
|
| Our courts have established that the Executive branch can't
| decide which laws to enforce, but can prioritize which laws to
| enforce.
| bell-cot wrote:
| IANAL, but _at the Federal level_ I 'd say "yes".
|
| States can do their own thing, using their own laws &
| resources, +/- the risk of annoying Trump.
| perihelions wrote:
| Yes; the president in the US is in charge of the federal
| prosecuting agency, and has, in practice*, unlimited power to
| direct non-prosecution.
|
| (And, separately, also has plenary power to pardon federal
| crimes).
|
| *Late edit: there was an _historic_ case study of this power
| balance, just a few weeks ago. When Trump directed the DoJ to
| suspend the criminal prosecution of NYC mayor Eric Adams, in
| order to corruptly use the continuing threat of prosecution as
| a cudgel to extort policy concessions from his office, no
| federal prosecutor had any ability to resist that order. At
| least seven resigned[0] rather than obey it. The illustration
| being: whatever laws might say and whatever ethical norms exist
| --a federal prosecutor, as an employee of the executive branch
| under the POTUS, has no _practical ability_ to contradict what
| the POTUS directs them to do.
|
| [0] https://www.npr.org/2025/02/14/nx-s1-5298040/justice-
| departm... ( _" Fallout from Eric Adams case continues at the
| Justice Department"_)
| empath75 wrote:
| The check on everything that Trump is doing is _impeachment_,
| and congress can't get it's shit together to protect its own
| power. The whole design of the federal government was that
| ambitious assholes in Congress would keep ambitious assholes
| in the White House in check, and it doesn't work if Congress
| is full of lickspittles and cowards.
| mandevil wrote:
| For the longest time, it worked in the US because we had
| overlapping political parties. For reasons (mostly having
| to do with race) you had conservative and liberal Democrats
| and Republicans, and they overlapped a lot ideologically,
| so bills would pass mostly in a bipartisan way (even
| something like the creation of Medicare and Medicaid got
| about half the minority party to support it-
| https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/89-1965/h35 and
| https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/89-1965/s151). Over
| the past 30 years that has gone away and parties are
| strictly sorted ideologically. My personal theory for that
| is the decline of local news. With Facebook and Craigslist
| killing the local advertising business all that's left is
| national news sources, and so all people know about their
| local Rep or Senator is the letter after their name, and
| their opinion on the President, there is no room for
| looking at someone as an individual. And so the people who
| could be an individual have largely left, and replaced by a
| great mass of indistinguishable nonentities.
| empath75 wrote:
| I think counter-intuitively, a lot of the anti-corruption
| reforms in congress basically destroyed the ability of
| congress to write compromise bills, because you could no
| longer buy people off by building a highway in their
| district or whatever. It would probably be a good thing
| to bring back horse trading and earmarks again, somewhat.
| ramesh31 wrote:
| >How does separation of powers work in the US? could Trump
| decide not to prosecute let say financial fraud in general?
|
| He can "do" essentially anything, per the supreme court. For
| 250 years we had norms and customs and decorum and _shame_ that
| kept things from escalating to a constitutional crisis. But
| that has all been so thoroughly broken at this point that
| literally no one knows what will happens next. One thing is
| certain, that there will be no way out of this but elections.
| empath75 wrote:
| > He can "do" essentially anything, per the supreme court.
|
| This is often said, but it's not true and it has nothing to
| do with anything that Trump is doing. What they ruled is that
| he can't be _prosecuted_ for most actions he takes as
| president. It obviously doesn't mean that the Supreme Court
| can't overrule executive actions, because they continued to
| do that after that ruling was made. And as much as Democrats
| complained about it at the time, it's probably the only thing
| keeping Biden from facing some kind of phony indictment right
| now.
|
| The _only_ thing that is allowing Trump to get away with this
| is Congress's inability to act, or passive acquiescence to
| what he's doing.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > It obviously doesn't mean that the Supreme Court can't
| overrule executive actions...
|
| What is their plan for enforcing said ruling?
| empath75 wrote:
| They have only _ever_ been able to enforce their rulings
| through the acquiescence of the other branches. There's
| no enforcement mechanism in the constitution, and neither
| is judicial review, for that matter. If the president
| wants to ignore the court, and congress doesn't do
| anything about it, there's nothing the courts can do, and
| that has always been true.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Always true, not always so problematic.
| intermerda wrote:
| > This is often said, but it's not true and it has nothing
| to do with anything that Trump is doing
|
| This is not true. It has everything to do with what Trump
| is doing and has done.
|
| > What they ruled is that he can't be _prosecuted_ for most
| actions he takes as president.
|
| Again untrue. What they ruled is that he cannot be held
| criminally liable for any official actions. Unofficial
| actions are still up for debate. And you'd have to be
| extremely naive to wonder why they didn't give any
| guideline regarding distinction between official and
| unofficial actions. Or wonder why they refused to take up
| the exact same issue when asked by the prosecutor.
|
| > And as much as Democrats complained about it at the time,
| it's probably the only thing keeping Biden from facing some
| kind of phony indictment right now.
|
| This isn't true as well. If they wanted to, they can still
| go after Biden and claim that his acts were "unofficial".
|
| > The _only_ thing that is allowing Trump to get away with
| this is Congress's inability to act, or passive
| acquiescence to what he's doing.
|
| Definitely not the only thing, but one of the reasons why
| Congress doesn't act is because of violent backlash from
| the MAGA crowd. Like when credible death threats pressured
| the NC senator into voting for the SecDef -
| https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/cowardice-gop-
| faces-...
| bregma wrote:
| > One thing is certain, that there will be no way out of this
| but elections.
|
| Those inconveniences will be next for the chop. Mark my
| words.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Wanna bet? I will give you 5-to-1 odds that there will be
| elections in 2026, 2028. I win, I pay you $1000 - you win
| you pay me $200.
| wrs wrote:
| Offering only 5-to-1 odds that _the United States will
| have a presidential election_ just shows what an insane
| place we 're in right now.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| more has to do with my time preference around money and
| whether i think i could get a better return on the
| market. that said, of course we are in a more precarious
| place than anytime in the 21st c - but still not very
| precarious democracy wise imo
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Yes. For a concrete example, see marijuana.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Yes discretionary (non) prosecution is what opened the door
| to legalization. Very few lawmakers would run on that issue
| 20 years ago. But as prosecutors in some areas stopped
| bringing cases for possession, it became more normalized and
| full legalization became more acceptable as it was de-facto
| what was happening anyway. And, it's a new thing to tax which
| is always going to get attention.
| ty6853 wrote:
| The statute of limitations for many crimes exceed the term of
| any executive, so this is quite risky to rely on. You could
| just be prosecuted by the next guy for crimes done under the
| previous guy.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| The executive can fairly trivially prevent that on the way
| out.
|
| For example:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation_4483
| ty6853 wrote:
| Absolutely true but it's worth noting this has only been
| done for a small fraction of marijuana crimes, and as far
| as I know not at all through the backdoor method commonly
| used (by all administrations) where they just prosecute
| otherwise legal gun ownership as "owned a gun plus owned
| weed" and backdoor it as a gun crime.
| sunaookami wrote:
| The US has no real seperation of powers.
| wrs wrote:
| Well, yes it does, but it doesn't do any good if two of the
| branches decide not to exercise their power.
| cmurf wrote:
| To the degree that would promote widespread corruption, it's
| inconsistent with the president's oath of office and the
| Constitutionally defined duty that the president uphold the
| law.
|
| But it's also a political question (this means the Court
| probably won't get involved, not that the question is normal
| politics) because the only way to end such an obvious travesty
| is to impeach, convict, and remove from office.
|
| To whatever degree the Congress can't do that, impugns the
| Congress who all take an oath to support and defend the
| Constitution, not a leader.
|
| To whatever degree people continue to elect those who support
| and defend a cult instead of the Constitution? They have given
| in to passion, and can't be reasoned with. Why argue with
| irrational people?
| UncleMeat wrote:
| The constitution requires that the executive "shall take Care
| that the Laws be faithfully executed." The executive is not
| granted unlimited power to refuse to enforce the law.
|
| However, courts have historically given the executive leeway in
| how it chooses to prioritize things and this has led to plenty
| of cases where the federal government has official policy to
| deprioritize enforcement of certain crimes. This has not been
| abused too much in the past but I'm not sure if that norm will
| hold in the future.
| ttw44 wrote:
| Unfortunately, the Constitution's text has been increasingly
| under subject of debate. Trump himself is trying to redefine
| the meaning of the jurisdiction clause in birthright
| citizenship.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Correct. In general, the backstop would be Congress saying
| "Enough" and threatening impeachment were the law not
| enforced.
|
| There have been interesting examples on both sides of the
| aisle of strategic non-enforcement. When states began
| legalizing marijuana, the law is quite clear (as per the
| supremacy clause) that federal law enforcement can still
| enforce the restrictions on growing and selling it. The Obama
| administration made extremely clear that within the states
| where it had been legalized, enforcing the federal law would
| be a career-limiting move for the relevant federal agents.
| AFAIK, every administration since has de-facto kept that
| policy regarding those states, even though Congress has never
| moved to make marijuana legal to use and distribute.
| jefurii wrote:
| In preparation for the kleptocrats to loot various pools of money
| from the government.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| > Instead of policing crypto platforms and exchanges, Trump's DOJ
| will "focus on prosecuting individuals who victimize digital
| asset investors, or those who use digital assets in furtherance
| of criminal offenses such as terrorism, narcotics and human
| trafficking, organized crime, hacking, and cartel financing."
|
| Wonder if this hints at possibly reducing or relaxing KYC rules
| also?
| BoiledCabbage wrote:
| > Wonder if this hints at possibly reducing or relaxing KYC
| rules also?
|
| Good call, I would assume so. KYC helps prevent money
| laundering, bribes and a ton of other illegal transactions.
| Eliminating it would line up with other actions performed by
| this admin.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| On the other side KYC rules and enforcement can be anything
| from annoying to downright asinine (and not just for banks).
|
| I'd prefer if governments would take a step back and invest
| into enforcing actual crimes themselves and not just stick
| with money laundering charges because these are easier to
| prove. It was already bad under Al Capone (who got nabbed for
| taxes instead of murder), and it's way worse today.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Right, that was more my line of thinking. Possession of
| >$10,000 in cash should not be a crime or assumed to be
| evidence of one.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| Civil forfeiture is even worse, indeed. Legalized highway
| robbery.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| You should also be able to go into a bank and deposit
| $10k in cash without an anal exam or mandatory reporting
| to the federal government.
| buildbuildbuild wrote:
| At minimum all of these rules should be inflation-
| adjusted.
| seanp2k2 wrote:
| AI Capone is a great name for a crypto trading bot, thanks
| for the idea.
| pdonis wrote:
| Since KYC is a major tool for spotting the use of assets for
| criminal purposes, I would not expect it to be reduced.
| 9283409232 wrote:
| If you didn't see this coming when he launched a memecoin then I
| don't know what to tell you.
|
| > Per Blanche's memo, which was circulated on Monday, the Justice
| Department is dropping litigation and enforcement actions "while
| President Trump's actual regulators do this work outside the
| punitive criminal justice framework."
|
| Elon Musk and Russell Vought have been trying to kill the CFPB
| and the SEC is toothless now so what financial regulators is he
| talking about?
| Animats wrote:
| The words "President Trump" appears in that memo six times.
| Does someone have a "suck up" filter that inserts this?
| gmd63 wrote:
| It's so painfully obvious to anyone paying attention that his
| whole character reeks of fraud. How this news could ever come as
| a surprise to anyone is a testament to how poorly our mainstream
| and social media outlets have informed the citizenry.
| bongodongobob wrote:
| It's been obvious since the 70s. That's what baffles me so
| much. He's been the face of the rich person asshole fraudster
| for 50 years. I cannot wrap my head around it.
| shawn_w wrote:
| Whoever it was that hired him for The Apprentice has a lot to
| answer for.
| phonon wrote:
| https://apnews.com/article/trump-apprentice-producer-
| burnett...
| Zigurd wrote:
| I know people, some of them educated, who are absolutely
| addicted to Burnett's reality TV shows. Those shows are
| uniformly routinely cruel to their participants. I find
| it creepy that some people are attracted to that kind of
| entertainment. There's something deep inside them that I
| don't want to see.
| Fairburn wrote:
| It's because the folks in the back-end of things like what he
| represents in terms of wealth consolidation and fewer lookie-
| loos to peek inside to see what's truly going on. "Trump" is
| a symptom of much broader things that can only be fixed by
| fire. And even then, just like the cockroach, he'll scurry
| away under the baseboards to hide until his next meal.
| mindslight wrote:
| Over the decades Trump has popped in and out of my attention
| like "oh, I guess that guy is still around". Yet from what I
| gather there have been people following him the whole time
| like he's someone important or worthwhile.
|
| I think what it comes down to is that the average person in
| our society is just an aggressive basic shithead who isn't
| burdened by an abundance of thinking, and so to them Trump
| appears as a successful businessman rather than a hollow
| snake oil salesman.
| bruce511 wrote:
| He gives people permission to be their worst selves.
|
| When the president gets away with all sorts of crime. When he
| openly mocks people. When he indulges in racism. When he
| complains about being treated unfairly. When he lies. When he
| defrauds, or grifts, or flip-flops. When he's misogynitic.
| What's he saying is "you too can do these things and get away
| with it".
|
| People like that. People like that there's no accountability
| for bad behavior.
|
| Sure, we can talk about policy, or economy, or whatever
| (how's that working out?) But deep down the democrats ask us
| to be the best version of ourselves (or else) and Republicans
| delight in us being the worst.
|
| Human nature being what it is, we end up here. Just remember
| folks, we voted for this.
| brokensegue wrote:
| I think the media has made it plenty clear he's a fraud. The
| citizenry is to blame (or I guess maybe the education system or
| lead)
| timewizard wrote:
| Billions of dollars spent on elections by people with insane
| net worths and you're going to blame the citizens who largely
| struggle to get from paycheck to paycheck? Hacker News
| attracts a real "social bully" element for reasons I can't
| rightly determine.
| sleepyguy wrote:
| Those same citizens voted for Trump so they could put
| screws in iPhones and their children would have a bright
| future working in coal mines and factories.
| Imustaskforhelp wrote:
| It's both, we know citizens have power (Wisconsin), we know
| money has power(Elon Musk)
|
| But Wisconsin was wondering because people hate Elon Musk.
|
| My worry is that billionaires would fund anonymously both
| political media and they also own their own social media
| and so citizens would kind of less vote ... Or billionaire
| power would overcome that of citizen.
|
| I think we need citizens to be aware of this but I also
| understand politics is a shitshow and i have so many
| hassles, why take another one.
|
| And to that, I have no answer. i myself am stuck on this
| dilemma. I am really going to stop reading news because I
| don't think I personally can do anything. I have better
| things to do like studying or building software which can
| do better impact.
|
| Though it also doesn't sucks to know about politics except
| I have seen people are really set in stone of politics,
| myself included.
| dylan604 wrote:
| It's easy to assume everyone thinks the same way. It's hard
| to comprehend just how different other lifestyles might be,
| so it's just easier hand wave it all away. It might not
| even be intentional or consciously being done.
| keybored wrote:
| Most politics chatter is in-group therapy sessions. For SC
| libs under a Republican administration the analysis
| becomes: did the majority push the Republican button? And
| the analysis ends there.
|
| For this therapeutic session there is no room for looking
| beyond the absolute surface of the issue, like you did.
|
| But unfortunately these narratives don't just get trotted
| out among apolitical libs. The political scientist Rachel
| Bitecofer had a social media meltdown when Trump won. And
| again the analysis was "who pushed the Republican button".
| sleepyguy wrote:
| 54% of all Americans read and comprehend at a Grade 6 lvl.
| This probably includes the President and his closest
| advisors.....
| cameldrv wrote:
| It's partially an educational problem. I'm old enough to have
| been taught an idealized version of U.S. history in school.
| We learned things like how George Washington chopped down his
| father's cherry tree, but when his father asked him if he had
| done it, he "could not tell a lie." There was Honest Abe,
| who, as a child, walked 5 miles to return 2 cents that had
| been given to him as change in error.
|
| Now, maybe this stuff wasn't all historically true, but in a
| sense it was better than true. It set an expectation for an
| ideal President. Serious dishonesty was taught as being
| disqualifying for the office of President, and honesty was
| taught as the deepest American value. Even if, in reality,
| prior Presidents hadn't always been honest, it created a
| tendency for voters to strongly prefer honest appearing
| candidates. Nixon's resignation was maybe the strongest
| affirmation of this principle that ever happened. I think it
| was with Clinton that this broke, and people started not to
| care too much about honesty and exclusively focus on their
| own perceived interests. Certainly the media environment,
| economic conditions, and the decline of mainline
| Protestantism had something to do with it too.
| sitkack wrote:
| You are right about everything except it goes back to
| Nixon.
| radley wrote:
| > I think it was with Clinton that this broke, and people
| started not to care too much about honesty and exclusively
| focus on their own perceived interests.
|
| Or, more likely, when Fox News was launched (1996) during
| his tenure.
| cameldrv wrote:
| Well yes, it's complicated. That's part of what I meant
| by the "media environment." In the post-war period,
| broadcast media was mostly dominant, but it was both
| regulated and subject to the fairness doctrine, but also
| limited. There were only a few channels per metro area.
| News was only on an hour or two per day, and it wasn't
| that popular, so it lost money, but it was required by
| law as public interest programming in order to retain the
| FCC broadcast license.
|
| The lower production costs, higher reach, and nonexistent
| regulation of wide bandwidth cable TV created the space
| for Fox, and then also to a lesser extent, MSNBC.
|
| In my opinion, the distorted information propagated by
| these outlets had a synergistic effect with the changes
| in the emphasis of the educational system in the late
| 80s-early 90s to deemphasize honesty as a core American
| value.
| smrtinsert wrote:
| Anecdotally, most of the people I know who support his
| policies do so in hopes that their financial choices will
| work out. They are educated and financially well off
| individuals. Do they check all the boxes (international dev,
| economics, science, etc)? No, but they can be considered
| educated over the general US pop.
|
| Not a great comparison obviously, but education was great in
| the Weimar republic as well, with a diverse and thriving
| press and near 100% literacy. The United States can't match
| those numbers.
|
| It seems its always about something else besides educational
| level.
| esafak wrote:
| Germans were grappling with losing WWI. Americans are
| grappling with being overtaken by China.
| nineplay wrote:
| I think the media continues to sane-wash him. The AP news
| headline of his recent meeting with Mark Rutte was
|
| "NATO secretary-general tells Trump he's motivating alliance
| members to spend more on defense"
|
| It doesn't say anything about Greenland. It should have
| because Trump continued to push it:
|
| ""We've been dealing with Denmark, we've been dealing with
| Greenland, and we have to do it. We really need it for
| national security. I think that's why NATO might have to get
| involved in a way, because we really need Greenland for
| national security. It's very important," Trump said."
|
| From Reuters, which seems to be doing a moderately better
| job.
|
| "Trump wants to control Greenland" along with "Trump
| threatens to annex Canada" should be at the top of every
| headline because its complete insanity. No one voted for
| this, no one wants this, if Biden had said it or Obama had
| said it or any president had said it at any time every they
| would have become a laughing stock and every politician and
| voter would have risen up against them.
|
| But it gets swept under the rug, in the same way all his
| insanity gets swept under the rug. Where were the headlines
| when he openly admired Arnold Palmer's penis? Nowhere,
| instead we got "Trump attacks Harris on immigration".
|
| I've got my explanations but they all make me sound like a
| raving conspiracy theorist. Nevertheless, its my only
| explanation. This is what happens when its us vs. the
| billionaires. They can always outspend, and everyone really
| only cares about the bottom line.
| timewizard wrote:
| > is a testament to how poorly our mainstream and social media
| outlets have informed the citizenry.
|
| You're assuming people _want_ to be "informed." You could build
| the best news apparatus in the world, the most accurate
| reporting, with full scale third party auditing of your
| results.
|
| It likely would not change very much. Humans are not designed
| to lock into large scale groups and then make coordinated long
| term decisions together. In my opinion we should avoid doing
| this as much as is possible.
| csoups14 wrote:
| Agreed. People want to be entertained, not informed.
| scrubs wrote:
| Great point. I made much the same before in a different
| way.
|
| We're all clear Disney, Star Wars, TV is entertainment.
| People are not clear that Rush Limbaugh, opinion makers on
| podcasts, Fox, CNN, Tick-tock is also entertainment.
|
| The straightest venue for news proper has got to be CSPAN.
| They're clearly there to inform not to push a point, piss
| you off at the other side, or any other shadow-boxing
| goals.
|
| Getting people pissed off to own the liberals, the neo-
| cons, to own the Trump supporters is ... entertainment and
| it doesn't hurt (I write this cynically) it helps drives up
| ad-revenue.
| keybored wrote:
| Are you people?
| spacecadet wrote:
| "Are you not entertained?!"
| matwood wrote:
| This plus pausing enforcement of foreign bribery plus having is
| own meme coin, is anyone still questioning if Trump is
| absolutely being bribed by foreign agents?
|
| https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/paus...
|
| https://www.reuters.com/markets/currencies/trumps-meme-coin-...
| nimbius wrote:
| If for some reason you did not understand cryptocurrency
| outside of its use in countries like North Korea, and wanted to
| crush its consumer confidence, you would in fact turn it into a
| lawless madhouse in favour of your fiat (which is rapidly
| losing value)
|
| Trump forgets the US, and most other major nations have a
| cryptocoin. a loss of confidence in an emerging currency market
| is a great way to torpedo your nations hegemony.
| christina97 wrote:
| Fox News is by far the most watched TV news channel in the US.
|
| I think it is clear that they are not out there to inform the
| citizenry in any meaningful capacity. (Side note: I suggest
| watching the channel every now and then just to get an idea of
| what the largest "news" channel is feeding Americans.)
| lazyeye wrote:
| Obviously fox news is politically biased in its coverage. I
| just dont understand how any objective observer could
| perceive the others (cnn, msnbc etc) as any different?
| thrance wrote:
| Literally all that's on Fox News is lies upon lies in
| service of the GOP. I do not hold the other channels in my
| heart, but there are degrees of misleadingness and
| partisanship.
| etchalon wrote:
| The difference is what the bias tends towards. Jon Stewart
| made this point a decade ago, and I don't think anything
| has changed. Fox New is biased in partisan way -
| specifically protecting and advocating towards the goals of
| a political party.
|
| NYT, CNN, etc are biased towards other things first
| (conflict, spectacle, consensus) and while the majority of
| their staff likely have a liberal bias, they are not
| actively partisan.
|
| [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYbtUztVctI
| lazyeye wrote:
| "they are not actively partisan"....again, no objective
| observer believes this. And quoting Jon Stewart would be
| like me quoting Tucker Carlson.
| lovich wrote:
| Oh? I hadn't heard that Stewart got his company a 780+
| million dollar settlement in large part because he had
| texts stating he knew he was lying to the public.
|
| Someone should do something about that Stewart fellow if
| he keeps getting away with the stuff
| nielsbot wrote:
| I can find this (easily). Link?
| lovich wrote:
| I was being sarcastic. Tucker is a proven in court liar
| and propagandist and the person I was replying to was
| stating that John Stewart's biases are equivalent in
| magnitude
| lazyeye wrote:
| Stewart is obviously a died-in-the-wool leftist and if
| you can't see that then you lack basic comprehension
| skills.
| 7thaccount wrote:
| I think there is a very big difference between Stewart
| and Tucker.
|
| You might not agree with Stewart's principles, but he has
| them and will fight his own party over it. Tucker flew
| over to Russia to kiss Putin's behind and even Putin made
| fun of how bad it was. He then tried to show how awesome
| it was in Russia and made it obvious that he hasn't been
| in a grocery store in ages.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Carlson, in contrast to Stewart, is probably one of the
| better examples of the strength of freedom of the press
| in the United States.
|
| Where Stewart has and does continue to work successfully
| with several mainstream media channels, Carlson is so
| dislikable he can only be heard because he founded his
| own podcast. Truly, it is a great country that has the
| laws protecting that man's right to keep being heard.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| Jon Stewart has never presented the news
| hkpack wrote:
| The problem is not political bias, but disinformation.
|
| Clumping everyone in one group is actually one of the goals
| of this: to get people tired of trying to figure out
| reality and to give up.
|
| As obvious as it is - when you think everyone lies, liars
| will be the only ones who win. When you think that everyone
| is the same - the worst ones will win every time.
| lazyeye wrote:
| I'm not completely sure what point you are trying to make
| but I can assure you we get all kinds of distortions,
| half-truths, lies and cherry-picked narratives from
| channels other than Fox news too.
| plusmax1 wrote:
| Fox News is less a news outlet and more a performance art
| piece in which actors, costumed as journalists, deliver
| carefully scripted outrage to an audience so thoroughly
| conditioned they believe they're watching journalism--
| when in reality, it's more akin to a soap opera written
| by a political strategist and directed by the ghost of
| Joseph McCarthy.
| dralley wrote:
| It's awfully hard to find any content on CNN or MSNBC that
| approaches the total shamelessness which Fox displays on a
| regular basis.
|
| https://x.com/Acyn/status/1895597181945725304
|
| https://x.com/Acyn/status/1905778768511406175
|
| https://x.com/Acyn/status/1909744238621020262
|
| https://x.com/Acyn/status/1909717088241172661
| lazyeye wrote:
| They are all opinion shows but Im sure its not that hard
| to find examples in the opposite vein on other channels
| where America is described as racist, white supremacist
| etc (all the left-wing tropes).
| jvossy wrote:
| Then go find them and report back.
| lazyeye wrote:
| The examples of opinion shows on msnbc/cnn attacking
| republicans and covering for democrats are endless and
| just as relentless as fox news. Rachel Maddow for
| example, ran the Russia collusion hoax lie for years.
| inahga wrote:
| Something about first two links gives me Breencast vibes.
|
| e.g. https://youtu.be/1gKcGrxZbFA
|
| https://combineoverwiki.net/wiki/Breencast
| Braxton1980 wrote:
| Because it's not boolean
| mmooss wrote:
| Everything and everybody is politically biased. It means
| nothing to say that. Everyone is a liar, but it means
| nothing about honesty to point that out.
|
| What is meaningful is the degree to which they are, and
| what else they are. I don't think we need a pedantic debate
| about Fox News.
| tartoran wrote:
| Fox News is entertainment masquerading as news.
| intrasight wrote:
| Not even masquerading. They came out and stated publicly
| that they're an entertainment company.
| nielsbot wrote:
| To avoid having to be truthful
| thoughtpalette wrote:
| I don't know why you're being downvoted. It was stated in a
| court case from them that they're entertainment.
| neogodless wrote:
| Brain washing masquerading as entertainment masquerading as
| news.
| AStonesThrow wrote:
| If you think about it, television has never been designed to
| inform or edify anyone.
|
| Television is meant to sell ads and blanket the nations with
| a haze of opiates in order to keep us pacified and distracted
| and far too stupid to make waves.
|
| And people blame religion for this stuff ...
| lenerdenator wrote:
| If you're screwed enough you eventually just want to burn the
| whole thing down, whether it's rational or not, and there are
| definitely some people who voted that way.
|
| That, or he's just a recognition of reality: resources and
| being a dick get you everywhere, whether it be business,
| politics, international relations, or the courts. Being
| authoritarian didn't stop China from becoming a near-parity
| superpower. Europeans were more than happy to start working on
| Nordstream 2 and attend both the World Cup and Winter Olympics
| in Russia long after it became apparent that Putin and his ilk
| were going to return to being imperialistic autocrats. Why does
| it matter if the US does the same if you're willing to fall in
| line?
| Zigurd wrote:
| Most of Europe and European leaders have admitted they were
| wrong about Russia. Some, but not enough, Republicans know
| the vatniks among them are wrong.
| lenerdenator wrote:
| They were, but they've shown that they'll gladly ignore
| human rights abuses and autocracy so long as the price is
| right. Trump's used to doing business that way,
| unfortunately.
|
| Really, if Putin hadn't invaded Ukraine, I don't think
| Europeans would particularly _care_ about those problems in
| Russia. It only really became problematic when the order of
| the continent was threatened, and even then it took some
| serious arm-twisting to get certain members of NATO and the
| EU to commit to measures to do something.
| ASalazarMX wrote:
| IMO what is becoming painfully obvious is that the checks and
| balances don't work, and need a serious overhauling. It should
| be impossible for a single person, or even a whole party, to
| blatantly break the law, or risk national security with
| reckless decisions, and face no consequences.
| cryptonector wrote:
| According to a sibling top-comment this is not a decision to
| not pursue cryptocurrency fraud altogether, just to leave some
| such crimes to other agencies in the federal government. That
| is, if the SEC wants charges filed against some person, then
| presumably the DOJ will prosecute, but the DOJ will not
| prosecute w/o the SEC (or other regulator) requesting it.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43636390
| xrd wrote:
| [flagged]
| bongodongobob wrote:
| Biff's whole schtick in Back to the Future 2 was literally
| based on Trump.
| stronglikedan wrote:
| Except it wasn't. The character was nothing like Trump ever
| was. If you remember correctly, Trump was America's darling
| up until the second he announced he was running as a
| Republican. This was the most obvious smear campaign in
| history, and no one could have survived it like him had the
| actually been guilty of any of it.
| seanp2k2 wrote:
| He's been a pariah since the 80s at least. See eg Muppets
| Episode 2399 about Grump Tower
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FeyDm4vrFo or
| https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/1988-the-
| yea... for a more detailed history on some of his
| decisions. From the article regarding his 1987 first book:
| Reviewers trashed Donald Trump's first book. They dismissed
| The Art of the Deal as self-promotional pap. They
| called the author a huckster. "The man's lack of
| taste is as vast as his lack of shame," said the Washington
| Post. Fortune noted his "shallowness" and
| "pomposity" and his need for "more money," more
| "toys" and "more attention." The book, said The New
| Republic, "is a weapon in the continuing public
| relations war that is Donald Trump's way of doing
| business."
| jajuuka wrote:
| This reads like campaign copy.
| jjulius wrote:
| >Except it wasn't.
|
| [cough]
|
| >Screenwriter Bob Gale confirms long-standing fan theory
| that Marty's nemesis in the trilogy was modelled on the
| Republican presidential candidate
|
| >"We thought about it when we made the movie! Are you
| kidding?" Gale said to the Daily Beast. "You watch Part II
| again and there's a scene where Marty confronts Biff in his
| office and there's a huge portrait of Biff on the wall
| behind Biff, and there's one moment where Biff kind of
| stands up and he takes exactly the same pose as the
| portrait? Yeah."
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/oct/23/back-to-the-
| fut...
| knowaveragejoe wrote:
| Trump was always the butt of businessman jokes. He was
| never "america's darling". He always wanted to be in the
| club, to be seen as an example of business excellence, but
| the actual examples are generally pretty quiet and keep to
| themselves.
| NickC25 wrote:
| I grew up in a town slightly north of Manhattan often
| known for being the bastion of the Hedge Fund industry.
| IYKYK.
|
| Donald Trump once owned a home in that town. He didn't
| hold on to it for very long, as Donald Trump was the butt
| of every joke those same financiers and their kids told
| growing up in the 90s and early 2000s. He realized that
| in the world of UHNW people, wealth is quiet and wealth
| also knows who's for real, and who isn't.
|
| Turns out, a loudmouth who wears makeup and bankrupted 2
| casinos isn't really wealth. Donald Trump was ran out of
| town because it was clear quickly that he was nothing
| more than a cartoon character.
| xrd wrote:
| I learned it first on HN a few weeks ago, but someone
| else said it was 4 casinos.
| stronglikedan wrote:
| Lol, Idiocracy 2 already happened. First showing was a little
| over four years ago.
| fragmede wrote:
| this is good for Bitcoin
| tombert wrote:
| It might be good for Bitcoin, it's bad for pretty much
| everything else.
|
| We depend on our institutions to investigate cases of fraud. If
| all a fraudster has to do in order to legally commit fraud is
| to launder it through a cryptocurrency then of course every
| fraudster is going to do that.
|
| It's getting fucking exhausting seeing how blatant this orange
| president is being without even trying to pretend he's not
| corrupt. He launched two cryptocurrencies on the day he took
| office, and he's in charge of a publicly traded company.
|
| Frankly I am kind of just sick of this cryptocurrency shit in
| general. I am embarrassed that I ever fell for it, and frankly
| if anyone still believes in it as a concept at this point then
| I really don't understand why.
| fragmede wrote:
| it's fucking terrible! I'm shitposting while having breakfast
| https://amp.knowyourmeme.com/memes/this-is-good-for-bitcoin
| tombert wrote:
| Ah, whooshed over my head! I'm a bit out of the loop with
| this stuff I guess.
| ttw44 wrote:
| I try to view things like this from the other perspective and
| wonder just why so many people still view this person like he's
| the common man's savior. I think I'm cognitively dissonance-ing
| myself from possibly all the cognitive dissonance I'm surrounded
| with.
| paulgb wrote:
| I'm not a fan of Trump but my steelman argument for this is:
| policing public markets is a public good because efficient
| capital markets are the bedrock of a capitalist society.
|
| It's hard to make the same case for crypto, which (despite the
| insistences of its participants) more or less exists in
| isolation from the rest of the market. The industry feels it is
| over-regulated. Makes sense that a more lassiez-faire leader
| would take a more hands-off approach to it.
| nielsbot wrote:
| But what's to reason to not prosecute lawbreakers/fraud?
| paulgb wrote:
| My read is that they will still prosecute fraud once it
| happens, they just won't proactively regulate the industry.
| bamboozled wrote:
| Why police any gambling where people can get addicted and
| lose their home and worse m? There's a lot of reasons.
| paulgb wrote:
| I worry that having the SEC regulate crypto can actually be
| worse for those people, because it sends the message that
| it's a legit government-approved investment instead of a
| wild west zero-sum craps table.
| bamboozled wrote:
| The reality is that it exists and that people take crypto
| risks. Just like illegal gambling.
|
| There is a reason exchanges were investigated in the
| first place and it wasn't for fun.
| 0x5f3759df-i wrote:
| The average person spends less than 5 minutes a month consuming
| news content and assumes important information will just fall
| into their lap. People in general are just not paying all that
| much attention.
|
| Trump's secret sauce is exploiting this from every angle.
| an0malous wrote:
| "And in their desperation, they turned to a man they didn't
| fully understand."
|
| -- Alfred describing why the mob hired the Joker
|
| It's clear that both political parties in the US are captured
| by the investor class, the democrats didn't even have an
| election to choose Kamala she was selected by their donors who
| preferred someone they could control over someone with the best
| chance of winning.
|
| If the lesson people take away from this is that Republicans
| are just uneducated and naive, they're missing the point.
| People were desperate for something different, they thought
| Trump was someone from outside of the system but they didn't
| realize that the system is money and no one is outside of it.
| ttw44 wrote:
| Interesting take. I believe this is a theme that everyone in
| the US is familiar with, but the idea that "big money is the
| enemy" and the reality of it has somehow not permeated
| through the general public enough. It seems that the Trump-
| voting public sees the Democrats as compromised rather than
| the Republicans, but even with this one action by Trump you
| can argue strongly that they are as well.
| CoastalCoder wrote:
| Could someone explain why the parent comment would
| (currently) be downvoted?
|
| It has an interesting conjecture, and sounds like it was
| written in good faith.
| aftbit wrote:
| Likely because it enraged some Democrats with the reference
| to Kamala being unelected. It's back above 0 for me now, so
| it looks like the broader consensus is that this is in fact
| a good comment.
| jimbob45 wrote:
| Harris was the only option for the DNC unless major
| election laws would have been changed very late in the
| cycle (moving funds raised to another candidate - highly
| improbable). There's a strong argument that the DNC was at
| fault for not preparing a suitable backup candidate in case
| of emergencies. There's even an argument that such a thing
| was done deliberately so that voters would be stuck with
| Harris. Nevertheless, once Biden dropped out, she was the
| only practical option.
|
| Two important notes: the RNC would have been just as
| screwed if the DNC had succeeded in putting a bullet in
| Trump's brain. Also, Harris performed unusually badly
| during her presidential primary, stoking angers that she
| was not only unelected, but that she wouldn't have been
| elected given the chance.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| The Democrats chose Biden in the election. If a party's
| candidate cannot serve, there is a process to choose a new
| candidate, which is _not_ a general party election.
| (https://www.vox.com/2016/9/12/12887632/if-presidential-
| nomin...).
|
| There's a very good reason for this: those general elections
| cost _states_ money. Money they have not budgeted to re-run a
| primary. In addition, in most states, the primary is framed
| in a legal process that does not allow for an "out-of-band"
| second election. It would, generally, have been illegal to
| re-run an election (at least using the physical voting
| apparatus of the myriad states) to choose an alternate when
| Biden dropped, which is why the party chooses via their own
| process.
|
| And as far as I'm aware, that process was followed following
| Biden's announcement. I wouldn't accuse Republicans of being
| uneducated and naive if people didn't vote for Harris because
| "she never won a primary..." I'd accuse traditional Democrat
| voters of not knowing very much about the party they
| (nominally) tend to support. It'd be nice if civics weren't
| just something people's parents and grandparents did.
|
| As for being an outsider... In 2024, I fail to see how voters
| would think a former President could be considered outside
| the system.
| aftbit wrote:
| Biden should have simply refused to run again in 2024.
| There was already signalling to this effect in 2019, though
| it was never explicitly promised.[1][2] If he had just kept
| to that, there would have been plenty of time to run a
| primary and an actually strong candidate could have been
| selected.
|
| 1: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/12/joe-biden-
| one-te...
|
| 2: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/06/biden-
| president-...
| arrosenberg wrote:
| > And as far as I'm aware, that process was followed
| following Biden's announcement.
|
| This is exactly the problem. The Democratic Party excuse is
| always "we're following the process". The results suck and
| then they wring their hands wondering how they lost the
| election. The goal should be to get power, and getting
| power requires nominating someone popular. Anyone who has
| paid attention to US politics for the last decade could
| have explained just how unpopular Kamala Harris would be.
| kelipso wrote:
| Do the post-hoc rationalizations matter? Kamala wasn't
| elected in a primary and so the perception by many is that
| she was an illegitimate candidate. That perception
| translates directly to votes, the justifications for Kamala
| being the candidate do not.
| ElevenLathe wrote:
| Not to rehash this for the 1000th time, but I really don't
| understand this point of view. Why assume that everything
| before the Biden drop-out was unchangeable and ordained by
| God?
|
| It is very clear that, long before the primary, Biden was
| not fit to run again, probably not even fit to stay in
| office. A functioning party would have gotten their senile
| standard-bearer to at least not run again, ideally even
| step down and let his VP take office and build a
| relationship with voters. Either way, they could have run a
| real primary and therefore chosen somebody that Democratic
| voters might actually have been excited about voting for in
| the general election. This may even have been Harris, but a
| version of Harris with a much better shot at winning
| because she'd spent an additional year or so campaigning.
|
| Why is this an impossible set of events? If it isn't, why
| not lay the blame for this colossally bad fuckup at the
| feet of the Democratic leadership?
| shadowgovt wrote:
| I wouldn't, personally, have had any issue with such a
| scenario. My comment was in response to the pervasive and
| wrong idea that the Democrats could have "just" re-run
| the primary when Biden dropped after being elected in
| that primary.
|
| I think people believe elections are internet-fast or
| internet-convenient, which is where this skewed idea
| comes from. They aren't, for reasons that should be
| obvious with some consideration about how elections are
| secured.
| easyThrowaway wrote:
| Let me give you a simpler, Occam's-razorish explanation:
| People who voted for Trump aren't stupid, or naive, or
| anything. They simply were unable or unwilling to accept the
| world changing around them regarding race, sexuality,
| welfare, climate, economy, foreign and domestic policies.
| They elected someone who told them "we'll go back to the old
| times one way or another, consequences be damned".
|
| This is exactly what they voted for, what they were hoping
| for. They knew leopards would've eaten the face of a few of
| them, but it was somewhat expected, a calculated risk.
| There's a few casualties even when you win the war.
|
| They saw something they could cling to, to avoid changes for
| the remaining of their lives, even if this meant destroying
| their country, the rest of the world or the future for the
| matter. And they replied with "Yes, we're fine with that".
| antonvs wrote:
| > ... but it was somewhat expected, a calculated risk.
|
| The way many of them think of it is that illness and death
| due to disease, starvation, lack of medication, problem
| pregnancies, etc. are acts of god and a part of life. They
| don't want relief from that, if it comes with a government
| that has the power to change things they don't want to
| change.
| ASalazarMX wrote:
| Welcome to demagogy 101. In this session, we'll talk about
| "guiding" public opinion by buying a small but loud support
| team that looks bigger in the media.
|
| Thank you for enrolling at Banana Democracy Uni! We look
| forward to train the new generation of wannabe dictators.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| i mean the other perspective is that this headline is a lie.
| i'm no supporter of trump, but it is a simply false headline
| thm wrote:
| WaPo Gift Link: https://wapo.st/4cpZiWJ
| neonate wrote:
| Article: https://archive.ph/A9CD5
|
| The memo: https://archive.ph/Td0Fn (via
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43636327)
| theLiminator wrote:
| lol anyone know if this might mean that americans will get access
| to Binance (specifically not Binance US)?
| aaronbrethorst wrote:
| Turns out the real rug pull was on November 5.
| skizm wrote:
| Do we think FTX would have been prosecuted if Trump were in
| office? Note that if FTX were able to hide its fraud for a few
| more months, they would have been able to bounce back and then
| some. Not saying that makes it better or worse, but a few months
| of questionably legal delay tactics would probably go over fine
| these days (is my 2 cents).
| NickC25 wrote:
| Yes, absolutely.
|
| Why? Because Sam donated to Democrats in addition to the GOP.
| Paying both sides, or playing both sides, doesn't matter. Sam
| donated money to the GOP's mortal enemy. That's a sin.
|
| Trump would have thrown the fucking book at him and then some.
| whatever1 wrote:
| [flagged]
| sitkack wrote:
| There is no mandate, Trump received under 50% of the votes
| nzeid wrote:
| A few comments here have hinted at this: we don't need to have a
| debate about penalizing platforms for the fraud of the users,
| everyone agrees that's problematic. The reason this directive
| confuses me is because very often the fraudsters are the platform
| runners themselves.
| nielsbot wrote:
| If your goal is to shield them from government enforcement it's
| not confusing at all.
|
| Trump serves only to serve himself consummately.
| thelastgallon wrote:
| Can SBF be out now?
| tim333 wrote:
| "DOJ will no longer prosecute cryptocurrency fraud" is clickbait
| and not what the Todd Blanche memo says.
|
| They will still go after the Sam Bankman-Frieds:
|
| >Prosecutors shall prioritize cases that hold accountable
| individuals who (a) cause financial harm to digital asset
| investors and consumers; and/or (b) use digital assets in
| furtherance of other criminal conduct...
|
| But seem to be intending to deal with whether it is ok to do
| things like issue trump token by setting regulations rather than
| prosecuting companies after the event. Which is not wholly a bad
| idea.
|
| Memo text here: https://archive.ph/Td0Fn
| smrtinsert wrote:
| Many reasons why this wouldn't be sufficient. Having a fall guy
| is a good example, doesn't allow for action against
| organization level willful fraud would be another. It basically
| slows down any sort of justice.
|
| Just another good reason to stay out of crypto unless you're
| already rich and have money to gamble.
| dang wrote:
| (This was originally posted as a reply to
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43634582, but it's a
| substantive comment so I've merged it along with the others.)
| bbatha wrote:
| > ok to do things like issue trump token by setting regulations
|
| That would make sense if the Trump admin were actually
| regulating crypto but they're tearing that up as well.[1] Why
| would Trump regulate his own scam coins? Finally regulation
| isn't a magic wand that stops behavior, it stops it with the
| threat of punishment after the event. So no this doesn't make
| sense.
|
| 1: https://thehill.com/policy/technology/5170036-trump-sec-
| cryp...
| DennisP wrote:
| Yes, but typically there are clear guidelines on what will be
| punished and what is allowed. That was not the case under
| Gensler. Crypto companies begged for clear regulations and
| the SEC steadfastly refused to publish any. Instead they just
| filed enforcement actions and people had to find out their
| view of things in court.
|
| And as your link says:
|
| > "We in the crypto space felt it was very deceptive the way
| they [the Biden administration] went about dealing with
| crypto firms. They told crypto firms to come in and register,
| to come in and engage with them," said Nic Carter, a founding
| partner at crypto investment firm Castle Island Ventures.
| "There was no meaningful way to do that."
| stefan_ wrote:
| Yeah, and the day they find an application for crypto that
| isn't "literal unregulated security" (the basis of all the
| enforcement "lacking guidelines" you are complaining
| about!) will be the day I dig deep to find some compassion.
| Until then, the guidelines are clear if you want to market
| and sell securities. You just didn't like what they say.
| DennisP wrote:
| If they are securities, then there should be a way to
| register them with the SEC and follow the law. As your
| link said, that's not the case.
|
| But BTC and ETH at least are not considered securities at
| this point, and in general, the SEC has not done all that
| well when companies took it to court.
| 1oooqooq wrote:
| does that mean musk will finally pay for the dogecoin
| manipulation?
| nikolay wrote:
| And how is this a good thing?! This goes massively against crypto
| to a massive level - now less people will want to touch it even
| with a 10-foot pole!
| briankelly wrote:
| The minnows all think they are sharks.
| efitz wrote:
| The title of the article on the website is misleading and
| actually untrue.
|
| The memo did not say "no longer targeting fraud"- it said that it
| was no longer targeting individuals and exchanges for regulatory
| missteps. The theme of the memo is "we're not going to use
| mountains of regulations written for non-crypto regulation to go
| after crypto exchanges", which is in line with a general
| regulatory themes of the Trump administration to avoid "lawfare"
| type activities and reduce regulatory burdens.
|
| In fact, the memo specifically said (according to the article,
| near the end) that the government would focus their efforts on
| fraud against crypto investors.
|
| Now you might or might not agree with these goals, and you might
| or might not support the Trump administration, and you might or
| might not like Trump, but the article headline was at odds with
| the article content and with the DoJ memo.
| dang wrote:
| (This was originally posted as a reply to
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43634582, but it's a
| substantive comment so I've merged it along with the others.)
| trust_bt_verify wrote:
| Seems like an odd choice to move some but not all comments
| between posts like this. Especially when the only ones moved
| seem to be conservative talking points. This one even
| discusses a title that doesn't exist on this article?
| iJohnDoe wrote:
| Purely about helping Russia and North Korea.
|
| They must be laughing so hard how easily it is to manipulate
| Trump to do their bidding.
| rdtsc wrote:
| > prior Administration used the Justice Department to pursue a
| reckless strategy of regulation by prosecution
|
| What was the idea before? It wasn't necessarily illegal but they
| prosecuted it anyway?
|
| > Executive Order 14178 requires the Justice Department to
| prioritize investigations and prosecutions that involve conduct
| victimizing investors, including embezzlement and
| misappropriation of customers' funds on exchanges, digital asset
| investment scams, fake digital asset development projects such as
| rug pulls, hacking of exchanges and decentralized autonomous
| organizations resulting in the theft of funds, and exploiting
| vulnerabilities in smart contracts. Such enforcement actions are
| important to restoring stolen funds to customers, building
| investor confidence in the security of digital asset markets, and
| the growth of the digital asset industry.
|
| I guess before anyone using these crypto services was a target
| for prosecution and now they are not, just by the virtue of using
| them.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-04-09 23:01 UTC)