7 ms·

And get rich quick scams. And fraud.

by apercu 2y ago

smallmancontrov 2y ago
And drugs. And delivery of bribes to the sitting US president (these are not the same as illegal transactions because when the president does it it is not illegal).
- hinkley 2y ago
  Amongst our weaponry are such elements as graft, narcotics, money laundering, fraud… I’ll come in again.
- eftychis 2y ago
  Oh, it is illegal. It's just that the DOJ is turning a blind eye because someone at some point wrote a "memo"[0,1], which it seems can be the bane of global peace and prosperity as we know it. (Yes, it is ironic that a memo in some countries like the U.S. can affect everyone else.) P.S. I understand the context in your comment here. Just expanding on it for cynicism's sake. [0] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/olc/sitting_president.htm https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/olc/sitting_president.htm [1] https://www.justice.gov/file/146241-0/dl?inline https://www.justice.gov/file/146241-0/dl?inline [Note it has been updated since 2000.]
  - xp84 2y ago
    (i'm not GP but...) You've cited policy which blocks prosecution of sitting Presidents -- but that didn't necessarily enjoin eventual justice from being served after his term(s) end. However the outcome of Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024) appears to not just block prosecution but grant immunity, meaning what would normally be a crime ceases to even be a crime. That ruling appears to draw a nearly complete shield of immunity around Presidents for any crimes done as 'official acts,' and nearly everything can be claimed to be an 'official act' especially given how vaguely-scoped much Presidential power has become. I consider it pretty unlikely that we'll ever see a former President even be charged with a crime if Congress doesn't explicitly repudiate this ruling with an actual law. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States#:~:text=On%20July%201%2C%202024%2C%20the,no%20immunity%20for%20unofficial%20acts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States#:~:text...
    - eftychis 2y ago
      Thank you. I tried to keep my comment short, but your expansion was necessary on second thought. For better or for worse, I expect this to be relitigated. (Unless all outgoing presidents start the tradition of pardoning themselves from now on.) The reason is that what constitutes an official act is up in the air, and let us be honest, the incumbent president is not known for staying inside the Executive branch's lane. But the sheer unwillingness of the DOJ to prosecute, creates a catch-22: you need indictments to change or clarify Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593, and right now there are two options: Somehow revive the private right to criminal prosecution (and of the president at that)(See Linda R.S. v. Richard D., (1973) 410 U.S. 614 (citations omitted)) or a Federal Court to appoint counsel to investigate a former or incumbent president. (Young v. U.S. ex re. Vuitton et Fils, (1987) 481 U.S. 787.) And I am not sure which one is less likely to happen. (Or for Congress to take that role beyond impeachment, which is even less likely.)
      - btilly 2y ago
        The case where the precedent was set suggests that it is within the outer perimeter of what the President does to give a speech designed to whip up a crowd before they head them off to the Capitol to attempt a coup. While Trump may go farther than that, it is hard to imagine any other President in our history who would have considered doing anything more deserving of criminal prosecution in a US court. Given how polarized our country has become and the requirement for a 2/3 majority in the Senate, it is also difficult to see how we could ever again wind up in a situation where the threat of impeachment is a significant concern to a sitting President. Given the current state of the Republican party, I'm not even sure whether an attempted military coup by Trump would get that result.
        xp84 2y ago
        I agree completely. He doesn’t need to do a coup now that he has absolute power for four more years given the vacuum of leadership that is the legislative branch, but he absolutely would get away with it if he chooses to someday.
    - 2y ago
- thinkingtoilet 2y ago
  I posted the original comment everyone is replying to so it's clear I'm not fan of crypto. To be fair, literally everyone I've ever known, including myself, has only ever used cash to buy drugs. I can't put that on crypto.
  - dhosek 2y ago
    For online sales of drugs it’s through crypto. Also, it’s the preferred way of paying ransom these days.
    - smcin 2y ago
      You only mean ransom of data or platforms, not people?
      - Lionga 2y ago
        Both. All kind of ransom is just better with crypto. Talk about disputing an industry.
  - waspleg 2y ago
    The only person I knew who had BTC in like 2008 used it to buy drugs from the Silk Road. They're dead now so it doesn't matter.
    - apercu 2y ago
      On a whim in say 2011 I bought 2 bitcoin. 3 weeks later they had tripled in price (not like what happened much later) and I immediately sold them as I was uncomfortable using a USB drive s a wallet for currency. It was dumb to sell at that stage but I have always been somewhat risk averse with my finances. (making money has always felt like _work_ to me ;)
  - sfn42 2y ago
    There's a pretty big market for drugs and other illegal things on onion websites. You send an encrypted order, transfer crypto to an escrow wallet, then they send the product in the mail.
- anonym29 2y ago
  Some of the first early adopters of pagers and cell phones were drug dealers and prostitutes. The economic conditions that push vulnerable people to committing crimes enhanced by technology are not a condemnation of the technology itself.

And get rich quick scams. And fraud.

by apercu 2y ago

And get rich quick scams. And fraud.

And drugs. And delivery of bribes to the sitting US president (these are not the same as illegal transactions because when the president does it it is not illegal).

hinkley 2y ago
Amongst our weaponry are such elements as graft, narcotics, money laundering, fraud… I’ll come in again.
eftychis 2y ago
Oh, it is illegal. It's just that the DOJ is turning a blind eye because someone at some point wrote a "memo"[0,1], which it seems can be the bane of global peace and prosperity as we know it. (Yes, it is ironic that a memo in some countries like the U.S. can affect everyone else.) P.S. I understand the context in your comment here. Just expanding on it for cynicism's sake. [0] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/olc/sitting_president.htm https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/olc/sitting_president.htm [1] https://www.justice.gov/file/146241-0/dl?inline https://www.justice.gov/file/146241-0/dl?inline [Note it has been updated since 2000.]
- xp84 2y ago
  (i'm not GP but...) You've cited policy which blocks prosecution of sitting Presidents -- but that didn't necessarily enjoin eventual justice from being served after his term(s) end. However the outcome of Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024) appears to not just block prosecution but grant immunity, meaning what would normally be a crime ceases to even be a crime. That ruling appears to draw a nearly complete shield of immunity around Presidents for any crimes done as 'official acts,' and nearly everything can be claimed to be an 'official act' especially given how vaguely-scoped much Presidential power has become. I consider it pretty unlikely that we'll ever see a former President even be charged with a crime if Congress doesn't explicitly repudiate this ruling with an actual law. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States#:~:text=On%20July%201%2C%202024%2C%20the,no%20immunity%20for%20unofficial%20acts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States#:~:text...
  - eftychis 2y ago
    Thank you. I tried to keep my comment short, but your expansion was necessary on second thought. For better or for worse, I expect this to be relitigated. (Unless all outgoing presidents start the tradition of pardoning themselves from now on.) The reason is that what constitutes an official act is up in the air, and let us be honest, the incumbent president is not known for staying inside the Executive branch's lane. But the sheer unwillingness of the DOJ to prosecute, creates a catch-22: you need indictments to change or clarify Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593, and right now there are two options: Somehow revive the private right to criminal prosecution (and of the president at that)(See Linda R.S. v. Richard D., (1973) 410 U.S. 614 (citations omitted)) or a Federal Court to appoint counsel to investigate a former or incumbent president. (Young v. U.S. ex re. Vuitton et Fils, (1987) 481 U.S. 787.) And I am not sure which one is less likely to happen. (Or for Congress to take that role beyond impeachment, which is even less likely.)
    - btilly 2y ago
      The case where the precedent was set suggests that it is within the outer perimeter of what the President does to give a speech designed to whip up a crowd before they head them off to the Capitol to attempt a coup. While Trump may go farther than that, it is hard to imagine any other President in our history who would have considered doing anything more deserving of criminal prosecution in a US court. Given how polarized our country has become and the requirement for a 2/3 majority in the Senate, it is also difficult to see how we could ever again wind up in a situation where the threat of impeachment is a significant concern to a sitting President. Given the current state of the Republican party, I'm not even sure whether an attempted military coup by Trump would get that result.
      - xp84 2y ago
        I agree completely. He doesn’t need to do a coup now that he has absolute power for four more years given the vacuum of leadership that is the legislative branch, but he absolutely would get away with it if he chooses to someday.
  - 2y ago
thinkingtoilet 2y ago
I posted the original comment everyone is replying to so it's clear I'm not fan of crypto. To be fair, literally everyone I've ever known, including myself, has only ever used cash to buy drugs. I can't put that on crypto.
- dhosek 2y ago
  For online sales of drugs it’s through crypto. Also, it’s the preferred way of paying ransom these days.
  - smcin 2y ago
    You only mean ransom of data or platforms, not people?
    - Lionga 2y ago
      Both. All kind of ransom is just better with crypto. Talk about disputing an industry.
- waspleg 2y ago
  The only person I knew who had BTC in like 2008 used it to buy drugs from the Silk Road. They're dead now so it doesn't matter.
  - apercu 2y ago
    On a whim in say 2011 I bought 2 bitcoin. 3 weeks later they had tripled in price (not like what happened much later) and I immediately sold them as I was uncomfortable using a USB drive s a wallet for currency. It was dumb to sell at that stage but I have always been somewhat risk averse with my finances. (making money has always felt like _work_ to me ;)
- sfn42 2y ago
  There's a pretty big market for drugs and other illegal things on onion websites. You send an encrypted order, transfer crypto to an escrow wallet, then they send the product in the mail.
anonym29 2y ago
Some of the first early adopters of pagers and cell phones were drug dealers and prostitutes. The economic conditions that push vulnerable people to committing crimes enhanced by technology are not a condemnation of the technology itself.