I was replying to an argument on page 2 that if Biden didn't prosecute Trump on something that it was evidence of it not being criminal.

I'm not hysterical, I'm assertive and here to provide witness that not all Aggies are living in Trump-world alternative facts.

94DCAg said:

---

I'm not hysterical, I'm assertive and here to provide witness that not all Aggies are living in Trump-world alternative facts.

---

Witness Him!

94DCAg said:

---

4 years was not enough time to charge Trump for all his illegal activity. His fleecing of the US govt for his properties was obviously less critical that (1) litigating his stealing of nuclear secrets to share with his buddies, and (2) overthrowing the election.

#1 Aileen Cannon's gross distortion of justice, delay, and suppression of evidence may ultimately be impeachable if that court record ever sees the light of day.

#2 Trump should be in jail for what he did and is still promoting to overrule the 2020 election. Garland was slow. Jack Smith ran out of time.

Trump is a criminal. If our democracy holds, history will not look kindly on his enablers. You can cite sketchy stuff like hunter's paintings, but nothing....absolutely nothing compares to the scale and international bribery going on in daylight with Trump.

---

Seek help. Seriously.

Quote:

---

When asked in an interview with CBS News' 60 Minutes why he had pardoned Zhao, who pleaded guilty to enabling money laundering in 2023, the president said, "I don't know who he is."

---

Quote:

---

Though Trump pardon Zhao last month, when CBS's Norah O'Donnell asked him on Sunday why he did so, he said: "OK, are you ready? I don't know who he is. I know he got a four-month sentence or something like that. And I heard it was a Biden witch hunt. And what I wanna do is see crypto, 'cause if we don't do it it's gonna go to China, it's gonna go tothis is no different to me than AI.
"My sons are involved in crypto much more than Ime. I know very little about it, other than one thing. It's a huge industry. And if we're not gonna be the head of it, China, Japan, or someplace else is. So I am behind it 100 percent. This man was, in my opinion, from what I was told, this is, you know, a four-month sentence.
"But this man was treated really badly by the Biden administration. And he was given a jail term. He's highly respected. He's a very successful guy. They sent him to jail and they really set him up. That's my opinion. I was told about it."

---

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/donald-trump-faces-scrutiny-over-pardon-admission/ar-AA1PHR1g?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=6908c3fb47c347b2b3589af8837267ae&ei=25

I think we should look at a constitutional amendment that restricts some of the Presidential pardon powers. Both Biden and Trump seem to be taking it too far.

K

Trump listened to his advisors, including his sons, and made a decision. And he is being open and honest about how much he was and was not involved in the "research" of whether Zhau was deserving of a pardon AFTER completing his jail sentence as the ONLY person sentenced to jail for violations of a 50 year old banking secrecy law when supposedly crypto is not a currency? is a currency? is it a security? are people who trade it banks? exchanges?

With soo many questions Team Biden took it upon themselves to make an example of a guy... an example that most people have no idea is supposed to be,

And isn't one of the whole selling points of crypto is to be anonymous?

"Trump listened to his advisors, including his sons, and made a decision."

His sons who run the Trump Organization and personally benefit from business deals with Binance? Those are his advisors on this? ...Okay.

"And he is being open and honest about how much he was and was not involved in the 'research'..."

I'll entertain this. Trump's response to being asked about why he pardoned CZ was "I don't know, he was recommended by a lot of people." Let's assume he somehow has no idea this is the man whose company made his family billions, and this is his open and honest disclosure of his reasoning beyond the pardon. Even in that best-case scenario, isn't this incompetence?

Are you saying it's fine for a president to issue pardons without knowing why beyond "a lot of people recommended it?" Why should we be holding our president to such a low standard?

"...AFTER completing his jail sentence as the ONLY person sentenced to jail for violations of a 50 year old banking secrecy law..."

Again, pardons do not just mean you get to get out of prison. It's not just symbolic. Also: $900 million in sanctions violations. Transactions with Hamas, al-Qaeda, ISIS, and Iran. Instructions to employees to help customers evade U.S. law.

"...when supposedly crypto is not a currency? is a currency? is it a security? are people who trade it banks? exchanges?"

The Bank Secrecy Act applies to money transmitters. FinCEN clarified in 2013 that crypto exchanges fall under this. Coinbase, Kraken, and Gemini all figured out how to comply. CZ just chose not to because it was more profitable for him.

"And isn't one of the whole selling points of crypto is to be anonymous?"

You can have privacy-focused technology without processing transactions for Hamas and al-Qaeda and deliberately helping criminals evade law enforcement. CZ wasn't prosecuted for offering privacy.

Privacy is in the eye of the beholder.

So Al Qaeda doesn't get privacy? Or you mean they don't when someone in the government tells them they don't. Yesterdays Hamas and Al Qaeda will be tomorrows TPUSA if Dems ever sniff power again.

Leavitt clarified today. Trump saying he doesn't know the guy was concerning whether they have a direct personal relationship, not whether he was familiar with the reasons and facts of the recommended and awarded pardon.

"Privacy is in the eye of the beholder. So Al Qaeda doesn't get privacy?"
You are arguing that crypto exchanges should be allowed to facilitate transactions for designated terrorist organizations because Al-Qaeda deserves privacy. It may be time to pump the brakes a little bit.
Al-Qaeda, Hamas, and ISIS are under U.S. sanctions. It's a federal crime to process financial transactions for them. This is about not helping terrorists move money, not about privacy. CZ's company purposefully facilitated these transactions while knowing they were illegal.

"Yesterdays Hamas and Al Qaeda will be tomorrows TPUSA if Dems ever sniff power again."
We're not talking about the government arbitrarily labeling political opponents as terrorists; we're talking about organizations that have committed mass terrorist attacks and are under international sanctions. If you can't distinguish between Al-Qaeda and Turning Point USA, that's concerning.
Also - even if you distrust the government's designation power, the solution isn't "let crypto exchanges ignore all sanctions," which is apparently what you're defending.

"Leavitt clarified today. Trump saying he doesn't know the guy was concerning whether they have a direct personal relationship..."
Trump was asked "Why did you pardon Zhao?" and his response was "I don't know, he was recommended by a lot of people." That's a question about his reasoning for the pardon, not about whether they're personal friends.
The Leavitt "clarification" you're referring to is trying to spin Trump's statement into "he just means they're not friends." Again, nobody asked if they were friends, they asked why he pardoned him. It's damage control.

"…not whether he was familiar with the reasons and facts of the recommended and awarded pardon."
Ah, so you're saying Trump did know the facts. We can follow that logic: in the same Leavitt explanation you're referring to, she states that there's a "very thorough review process" with "qualified lawyers" and the president is the "ultimate final decision maker." This makes it worse, not better, because you're communicating that Trump's thorough review told him Binance paid $450k for lobbying that included "executive relief," his family gained $5 billion through business with Binance, Binance did $2 billion in business with his stablecoin, and CZ pleaded guilty to facilitating $900 million in sanctions violations including Hamas, al-Qaeda, and ISIS, and he pardoned him anyway.
By saying he knew about all the conflicts of interest and the terror financing and still issued the pardon, you're no longer defending Trump from corruption and are instead admitting it.

Got him!

Will look forward to impeachment hearings.

This is your third or fourth time disengaging from a conversation with me, yet you seemingly can't stay off the thread. If you can't defend your position on the substance, just say so, but don't waste the time of people looking to have a serious conversation.

Also, ending with "Al-Qaeda deserves privacy" before your attempted mic drop moment is genuinely unhinged.

Your posting style and repeating lies and misinformation shows me a sign of being disingenuous in actual discussion. When all responses are tired talking points about Trump and his family doing this for financial gain.

You dismiss clarification as damage control. Fine, or you could take it as a normal person and realize his comment needed clarification and it was provided.

You want to quip about my comment on Al-Qaeda as if I support them. But you want to pierce the privacy of people without transparency and due process. Which is especially rich given the revelations about Arctic Frost.

If you need to feel like you have "won" some discussion, then again, congrats you got him, looking for impeachment.

If you want to have a rational, fact-based discussion without the unproven, unbased accusations that a pardon was purchased to allow a Trump crony to funnel billions back to Trump thereby evidencing his abuse of office, well again, I think most would agree we will just wait on impeachment. Perhaps Adam Schiff will come with facts this time. But given the information provided by the left on this thread, I doubt that happens.

Other people can decide if this is a waste of their time.

"Your posting style and repeating lies and misinformation shows me a sign of being disingenuous…"
What lies? I have given you facts from federal plea agreements, SEC filings, congressional oversight reports, Trump's own statements, etc. and you have provided assertions, deflections, and an argument that Al-Qaeda deserves privacy.
If I'm constantly spreading lies and misinformation, it should be easy for you to engage with me and disprove what I'm saying. Instead, it looks like you can't actually refute the documented evidence so you're calling it "lies" and running away.

"You dismiss clarification as damage control."
I explained why it's damage control: Trump was asked "Why did you pardon him?" and said "I don't know." Leavitt tried to spin that into "he just doesn't know him personally." That's simply reframing an embarrassing answer and nowhere near clarification.
If you think that does qualify as clarification, why would Trump say "I don't know" when asked about his reasoning for a pardon if he actually knew the reasons? Because that's just not how language works.

"You want to quip about my comment on Al-Qaeda as if I support them."
You argued that crypto exchanges should be able to facilitate transactions for them because "privacy is in the eye of the beholder," implying crypto exchanges should be free to facilitate any transaction, even for groups like Al-Qaeda. Those are your words. If you didn't mean to defend processing transactions for designated terrorist organizations, you should clarify what you actually meant.

"But you want to pierce the privacy of people without transparency and due process."
Al-Qaeda, Hamas, and ISIS are under U.S. sanctions with full due process. They're designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations. This isn't "piercing privacy without due process," it's enforcing sanctions against groups that committed 9/11 and October 7th.

"Which is especially rich given the revelations about Arctic Frost."
Al-Qaeda, Hamas, and ISIS are designated terrorist organizations under law with full due process. Arctic Frost was an FBI investigation into potential crimes (January 6/election certification obstruction) with court-approved subpoenas. Those aren't comparable. If you think the investigation was improper, that's a debate about investigative overreach, but not an argument for letting Binance process money for terrorist groups.
If you're arguing that crypto privacy should have prevented the discovery of terrorist financing, that's exactly the problem. Binance deliberately facilitated $900 million in sanctions violations including transactions with Hamas, Al-Qaeda, and ISIS. They weren't caught through some invasive privacy breach; instead, they were caught because Binance failed to implement required anti-money laundering protocols that every other legitimate exchange follows.
Again, Coinbase, Kraken, and Gemini all maintain user privacy while still complying with the Bank Secrecy Act and preventing terror financing. Privacy and compliance are not mutually exclusive.

"If you want to have a rational, fact-based discussion without the unproven, unbased accusations..."
Name one of the facts I've provided that you dispute. I am doing exactly what you're asking of me but you are not engaging. Point to a specific fact I've gotten wrong and provide evidence or admit you can't defend the pardon on substance.


Your repeated attempts to paint this as Democrat vs. Republican aren't going to work, unfortunately. You'll have to engage with the facts.