Ross Ulbricht granted a full pardon
560 comments
·January 22, 2025wolfgang42
syspec
Sorry, it went over my head a bit, you read about his arrest while he was being arrested?
wolfgang42
He was being arrested in the article, not IRL. When I say “Ulbricht walked into the public library and sat down at the table directly in front of me” I mean that I read
> He went... past the periodicals and reference desk, beyond the romance novels, and settled in at a circular table near science fiction, on the second floor... in a corner, with a view out the window and his back toward the wall.
and realized that I was in the Glen Park public library, at a circular table near science fiction on the second floor, in a corner with my back to the window, and facing directly towards where the article had just said he had sat.
coliveira
The responses to this comment show that people's ability to read and comprehend text has decreased dramatically in the last few years. Frightening...
internet2000
If every reply is pointing out how confusing it is, maybe the original comment is just poorly written.
inopinatus
I was afraid of this too but it turned out to be presbyopia
remram
> When the FBI agents stopped to have a drink I thought
You mean "when I read the part where the FBI agents stopped to have a drink I thought"?
This part makes your comment super confusing. Where you there then or later?
inopinatus
I believe they are suggesting an experience of imaginatively visualising the events of the arrest linearly as they were narrated in their read-through of the article, aided by being physically present at the same location, and are referencing the article's narration partially in the present tense to similarly place us in medias res as we follow their remark.
Alternatively, they are themselves Ross Ulbricht, describing an out-of-body fever dream or post-traumatic flashback. This seems ... somewhat less likely.
anonnon
Wolfgang stopped for a drink before going to the library, where he then read the Wired article about Albrecht, only to discover that 1) the place he'd just gotten his drink from was the same place the FBI agents stopped at on the day of the arrest, and 2) the table at which Albrecht was arrested was the one in front the table he was sitting at as he read the article.
beejiu
I assume you mean "I could look up and see exactly the chair he had been in" figuratively?
wolfgang42
I mean, it’s possible that the library had rearranged their chairs in the intervening years and that exact one was now at a different table, but it was certainly a chair in the same location.
inopinatus
this is Neurath's library¹.
paulsutter
Wait, you were reading about his arrest while he was being arrested? That article was written after his conviction?
j-bos
He first read the article while sitting where Ulbricht was when Ulbricht was arrested.
null
rappatic
I think his original sentence was absolutely deserved—even though the charge of hiring a contract killer to assassinate his business competition may have been dropped, I think it's clear he did many things in the same vein. Even if you support his original pursuit of a free and open online marketplace, I think most people would agree he took it a bridge too far in the end.
That said, I do think he absolutely deserved to be released, not because he didn't deserve to be locked up in the first place, but because he's clearly been rehabilitated and has done great work during his time in prison. All that considered, ten years seems like a not unreasonable prison sentence for what he did. I hope he'll continue to do good when he's released.
bko
Ross Ulbricht was not sentenced for murder-for-hire charges.
Those allegations were used to deny him bail and influenced public perception, they were not part of his formal conviction or sentencing.
He was convicted on non-violent charges related to operating the Silk Road website, including drug distribution, computer hacking, and money laundering.
Does this change your opinion of sentencing being well-deserved?
nuclearnice3
This opinion [1] from the judge in his case indicates that the murder-for-hire evidence was admitted during his trial. The document outlines the evidence for all 6 murder for hire allegations and explains why, although not charged, the evidence is relevant to his case.
[1] https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1391...
simonsarris
This opinion (after appeal) also details how they taken into consideration with sentencing. See pages 130-131
https://pbwt2.gjassets.com/content/uploads/2017/05/15-1815_o...
cmdli
He was found during sentencing to be guilty of hiring a hit on a competitor using a preponderance of evidence (lower then presumption of innocence). While this is a lower standard than a conviction, it is still a higher standard than most apply in public discourse.
roenxi
That isn't fair, the point of the trial is to test whether something is to be acted on. To act on something that wasn't directly part of the trial is a bit off. I'm sure the judge is acting in the clear legally, but if someone is going to be sentenced for attempted murder then that should be after a trial that formally accuses them of the crime.
karlgkk
It does not change my opinion that the sentence was well deserved in the eyes of the law. Those are all things, that independently, can lead to serious jail time. The scale of his operation was also substantial.
aml702
[dead]
ekianjo
There are murderers who hardly do more than a few years in prison. He was jailed for much longer than what violent criminals get.
lmm
I don't see how that should change anyone's opinion on whether the sentence was deserved. Whether it was legally/procedurally correct, sure. Whether he didn't get the day in court he should have had, sure. But given that no-one seems to seriously dispute that he did try to pay to have the guy killed, what he deserves is a long prison sentence, and whether that's imposed by a court doing things properly, a court doing things improperly, or a vigilante kidnapper isn't really here or there on that point.
(The rule of law is important, and we may let off people who deserve harsh sentences for the sake of preserving it, but it doesn't mean they deserve those sentences any less)
lotharcable
> The rule of law is important,
The rule of law says innocent until proven guilty.
The reason they didn't go after him for murder for hire allegations isn't because they felt bad for him or that they didn't want to waste tax payer's money.
The reason they didn't go after him for 'murder for hire' was that they knew there was no merit in it.
This is self evident.
mvdtnz
You say the rule of law is important, but also we should impose extra-legal long sentences even if the rule of law doesn't allow us to? How do you reconcile this perspective?
rappatic
Did you read my comment? I said:
> even though the charge of hiring a contract killer to assassinate his business competition may have been dropped
Just because the charge was dropped doesn't mean he's innocent of it. In fact, reading the chat logs makes his guilt pretty clear. Of course, because the whole operation was a scam, there's little he could have been convicted of. Yet just because the murder was never carried out doesn't mean he didn't intend to have someone assassinated. In my book, paying someone money to kill another person is definitely grounds for imprisonment.
tptacek
The case for this was dropped because he was sentenced for it in the other case.
bko
So you think people should be sentenced based on charges that were not proven in court?
ekianjo
> Just because the charge was dropped doesn't mean he's innocent of it.
If you had a trial and they can't prove that, then yes it means you are innocent of this charge in the eyes of the law
scarab92
> Just because the charge was dropped doesn't mean he's innocent of it
That’s exactly what it means under the presumption of innocence.
Advocating for the continued imprisonment of someone for something they are legally considered innocent of, is quite literally vigilantism.
duxup
The other user directly addressed that in his comment.
nadermx
What has always sat odd with me regarding this, is we don't truly know the extent of the fbi's corruption in this. They stole, so it's not hard to imagine they planted evidence too.
potato3732842
I assume that the feds corruption is as bad as it is in every other high profile case case involving fed informants and politically charged topics. Randy Weaver, all the muslims they radicalized and then goaded into doing terrorist things post 9/11, the Michigan Fednapping. It seems like every time these people have a chance to entrap someone they do, but they do it in a "haha, jokes on you we run the system so while this probably would be entrapment if some beat cops did it the court won't find it that way" sort of way. They just can't touch anything without getting it dirty this way and the fact that that is a 30yr pattern at this point depending on how you count speaks volumes IMO. While I'm sure they can solve an interstate murder or interstate fraud or whatever just fine I just don't trust them to handle these sorts of cases.
It seems like all of these people they wind up charging probably are questionable people who wanted to do the thing and probably did some other lesser things but they probably would have given up on the big thing if there wasn't a federal agency running around doing all the "the informant says the guy is lamenting not having explosives, quick someone get him some explosives" things in the background.
lettergram
As part of the FBI conviction they were accused of tampering user logs and taking over accounts. So… literally none of it can be used as evidence imo.
mplewis
What evidence would you have even needed to plant? He ran the largest internet drug market and openly tried to assassinate a competitor.
TheAmazingRace
Agreed. He willingly engaged with the alleged hitman (which ended up being the FBI contact). He didn't need to do anything or not have the thought to murder others cross his mind.
nadermx
He never admitted to the attempted murder. So it's not a leap to assume that might of been tainted
trhway
>we don't truly know the extent of the fbi's corruption in this
the corruption what we do know about already tainted the case to the point that it should have been thrown out.
I don't care about Ulbricht, and whether he is guilty of all or some of the charges or innocent. What bothers me in this case is that the government can get away and in particular can get its way in court even with such severe criminal behavior by the government.
Rare case when i agree with Trump:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz7e0jve875o
"The scum that worked to convict him were some of the same lunatics who were involved in the modern day weaponization of government against me," Trump said in his post online on Tuesday evening."
Trump even personally called Ulbricht mother. I start to wonder whether i have been all that time in blind denial about Trump.
VWWHFSfQ
Ross Ulbricht was not a good person. Full stop.
He organized and operated a global criminal drug ring and conspired to have people killed. The only difference between DPR and Pabla Escobar is that DPR was running his drug business in the 2010s instead of the 1980s.
mrandish
> The only difference between DPR and Pabla Escobar is that DPR was running his drug business in the 2010s instead of the 1980s.
Asserting moral equivalence between someone who ordered dozens of innocent women and children not just killed but dismembered - solely as a lesson for others. Orders which were actually carried out multiple times and DPR who was never charged, tried or convicted of conspiring with a supposed online hitman to kill a competitor (who both were actually FBI informants - clearly making it entrapment). Yeah, that's quite a reach.
Sure, DPR was no saint but why push for the absolute maximally extreme interpretation? Even asserting he "organized and operated a global criminal drug ring" is a stretch. My understanding is he ran an online marketplace which drug rings used to sell to their customers. I'm not aware that Ross ever bought or sold drugs as a business or hired others to do so. There is some nuance between buying, selling and delivering drugs and being an accessory enabling people who actually handle and deliver drugs. They are both crimes but not of the same severity.
vunderba
I don't think anyone in here is making the case that Ulbricht is a "good person", but comparing Escobar to Ulbricht is next-level delusional.
One of these people attempted to place hits on 3-4 individuals, the other one planted a bomb on a passenger plane that resulted in the deaths of over a hundred people.
Get some perspective and/or learn your history.
ekianjo
> The only difference between DPR and Pabla Escobar
The only difference?
dogmatism
wait what? Escobar was responsible for conservatively 4,000 people killed, some at his own hand
DPR conspired but didn't actually directly kill anyone
Not saying DPR was a good person, but a little perspective is in order
rajamaka
Was he ever convicted on conspiracy to murder?
Because in my opinion the ethics of operating a drug ring is not as black as white as you state.
The existence of drug rings is an inevitable outcome from the war on drugs and I would argue the blame lands on the politicians who maintain the status quo that incentivises the creation of the black market for drugs.
77pt77
> has done great work during his time in prison
What work?
LarsDu88
People have served more time for selling less drugs and attempting to murder fewer people than Ross Ulbricht did.
Just because he was decent with computers does not mean he should be busted out of jail.
rappatic
What makes you think I support those people being locked up either? Also, afaik Ulbricht didn't sell drugs himself, he simply provided an unmoderated marketplace.
arcticbull
Because attempted murder is bad. I didn't think that would be contentious.
scarab92
The attempted murder charge was dropped.
Under our system that means he should be considered innocent of it.
This conversation is messy mostly because people are refusing to do that, which is akin to vigilantism.
A good faith discussion should only involve the charge he was convicted of and pardoned for, which is the narcotics charge.
muddi900
The prosecution dropped the charges. That does not make anyone innocent.
ALittleLight
He should be considered innocent by the courts - and he was (innocent of the murder for hire charges, I mean). In the public we aren't obligated to follow the same standards of evidence as the courts. I think he almost certainly did pay to have those people killed, and that can shape my opinion of him.
eviks
People also served no time for selling more drugs and actually murdering more people.
daveguy
According to Reuters he was found guilty of "charges including distributing drugs through the Internet and conspiring to commit computer hacking and money laundering." In addition to running an illegal market bazaar for 4 years.
beezle
What a travesty. Maybe life was too long a sentence but this was far too short.
slt2021
- sackler family engineered opioid crisis and went unscathed - hacking is a bogus charge applied to everything touching PCs - money laundering is another victimless crime that very few actual money launderers gets charged with, for some reason
daveguy
Yeah, the Sacklers should be in jail too.
And you didn't bother to address that he ran a market for illegal goods and services, for some reason.
arcticbull
So that means Sackler should be charged, not that Ross should get off lol.
foogazi
[flagged]
olalonde
I wonder if the decision to drop the "murder for hire" charges was originally influenced by his existing life sentence, and whether the pardon now alters that reasoning. Is it still possible for him to be prosecuted on those charges?
nostromo
I think the attacks on some of these black and gray markets has increased crime in the real life. I wish the federal government would stop shutting them down and instead use them to build cases against people breaking the law.
For example, for a while most prostitution and sex work seemed to be online, on places like Craigslist right next to ads for used furniture and jobs. And it seemed to be really effective in getting prostitutes off the streets.
Now that those markets were shut down, I'm seeing here in Seattle we're having pimp shootouts on Aurora and the prostitutes are more brazen than ever. Going after Craigslist has had a negative effect on our cities and has increased crime, and I suspect going after SilkRoad has had a similar impact.
loeg
Any non-twitter reporting on this?
Edit: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-pardons-silk-road-fou...
bdhcuidbebe
Will he get his possesions back then?
50,676 bitcoins, today valued at 5,3 billion USD.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/us-attorney-announces-h...
arcticbull
No, generally a pardon does not eliminate any civil liability or entitle you to refunds once the assets have been transferred to Treasury. He would still have to answer Yes to having been convicted of a felony and he would still not be entitled to vote in states that do not permit felons to vote.
> Where a person has paid a monetary penalty or forfeited property, the consequences of a pardon depend in part on when it was issued. If a monetary fine or contraband cash has been transferred to the Treasury, a pardon conveys no right to a refund, nor does the person pardoned have a right to reacquire property or the equivalent in cash from a legitimate purchaser of his seized assets or from an informant who was rewarded with cash taken from the pardoned person before he was pardoned.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/presidential-pardons-sett...
joering2
This is obviously incorrect. Actually pardon means the charges filed has been voided, hence anything happening afterwards has had no merits and court decisions made are now rendered moot. For example, Roger Stone was charged and found guilty of multiple crimes and Trump pardoned him; he still brandish guns and was "proudly voting Trump" in 2024 in state of Florida. Getting pardon is literally like it never happened in the first place.
arcticbull
The pardon can restore certain rights in some cases, I'm not entirely familiar with the Stone shenanigans, but knowing the parties involved I can't assume that Stone was legally entitled to do what he did after the pardon, and maybe he was.
That said, the recovery of assets after transfer to Treasury is settled law. [1]
> More broadly, the Court ruled in several cases during this period that pardons entitled their recipients to recover property forfeited or seized on the basis of the underlying offenses, so long as vested third-party rights would not be affected and money had not already been paid into the Treasury (except as authorized by statute).
Was covered in Osborne v. United States, Knote v. United States, In re: Armstrong's Foundry, Cent. R.R. v. Bosworth and Jenkins v. Collard
Subsequent cases make it clear that the offense is not in fact "gone."
> ... the Court in Burdick stated that a pardon “carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it."
> ... then, in Carlesi v. New York, the Court determined that a pardoned offense could still be considered “as a circumstance of aggravation” under a state habitual-offender law, reflecting that although a pardon may obviate the punishment for a federal crime, it does not erase the facts associated with the crime or preclude all collateral effects arising from those facts.
The court holds that it is not in fact as if it never happened.
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/sec...
duxup
Your example doesn't seem to involve restoring property / funds due to a pardon that were already confiscated / already paid.
Is there some example of someone getting such money back?
null
mech422
Part of getting pardoned is admitting guilt - ask joe arpaio ...
null
bb88
If they were from the commission of a crime, then no.
cies
[flagged]
idlewords
It's a full pardon; there is no crime.
qingcharles
That's not how it works. The money can still be guilty of a crime outside of the Defendant's acquittal in civil cases like this.
source: hundreds of hours in forfeiture court
TeaBrain
A pardon results in the relief from the consequences of a crime. There being a pardon doesn't necessarily mean there was no crime.
Spooky23
Pardons are forgiveness. They don’t roll back the clock, although the Supreme Court ruled in 2021 that acceptance of a pardon is not an assumption of guilt.
TrackerFF
That would arguably create some of the worst perverse incentives, as far as financial crimes go.
Any two-bit governor could team up with some criminal, and make enough money to be set up for life against a pardon. Even worse if it's a president, as they could likely get off scot-free.
Trump could literally scam everyone and everyone, step down, receive a pardon from the VP, and happy days.
bb88
Hard to agree here. A jury of his peers convicted him of the crime.
georgeplusplus
I don’t believe that’s true. A pardon does not excuse a crime.
ktallett
I am not sure of the legality around his possessions but they are long gone. Even the ones stolen by FBI officers during the course of the investigation.
mmooss
I think that requires convincing evidence. Also, how is it relevant to the question?
1123581321
It is easy to look up the cases against the agents. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-federal-agents-charged...
Both served time.
ktallett
Well the American Government auctioned the bitcoin, and the two FBI agents were tried and sentenced for theft. I don't need evidence.
I am curious how the American government can reimburse those pardoned.
throwaway657656
Until now I oddly never questioned how any government could seize someone's bitcoin and how a government keeps the private keys of their crypto wallets secure.
yieldcrv
a lot of known best practices were not followed in 2013.
Every advancement in crypto was done after the government made a move. And all subsequent moves netted the government less.
Now it takes more agencies to seize darknet markets, and most merchants and consumers get their money back because it was a multisignature transaction and the server stored nothing. Even domains have been seized back from the government.
The crypto space calls it "antifragility", as in the idea - and now history - that the asset class and infrastructure improves under pressure.
misiti3780
Hey may have other wallets...
konfusinomicon
with a name like DPR id have to assume its buried treasure
Scoundreller
Was that profits or users’ deposits?
yapyap
obviously not.
yuppiepuppie
Wasn’t he in jail for hiring a contract killer?
I’m all for the freeing him of his crimes when it comes to his crypto anarchic philosophy. But I find it hard to pardon someone for contract killing essentially. Also I’m not an apologist for the FBIs handling of this case either.
hypeatei
No, that charge was dropped. IIRC, it was on shaky ground and they were just trying to throw the book at him.
tzs
The charge was dropped, but the court did hold a hearing on it when deciding on sentencing. They heard the evidence for and against and ruled by a preponderance of the evidence that he did in fact do it.
UncleOxidant
Then why would they drop the charge if they thought the evidence pointed to the fact he did it.
beezle
Wonder if he can be charged with that now? Was there anything in the pardon related to this? AFAIK there is no time limit on bringing charges related to murder?
adrianmonk
According to Wikipedia[1], he was convicted of charges related to hacking, narcotics, money laundering, and more.
But during the trial, evidence was presented that he made murder-for-hire payments, the court found that he did by a preponderance of evidence, and the court took this into account when sentencing him.
So, he wasn't convicted of it, but it is part of the reason he was sent to jail for a very long time.
---
UberFly
Some info from a previous thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33045520
l0ng1nu5
I haven't reviewed the info for a while but it was pretty clearly entrapment as I recall.
mmooss
Didn't Ulbricht actually run the Silk Road? Did someone from the FBI persuade Ulbricht to do it?
jxi
I think they're talking about just the murder-for-hire. It may have just been undercover agents the whole time and no murders actually occurred.
macinjosh
Yes the FBI had root or admin access to the Silk Road system and could have very easily changed or otherwise affected logs/record IDs that the technical case rested on. Two of the FBI agents on the case were later punished for corruption on the case.
mannerheim
He was in jail for running a darknet drug marketplace. Hiring a contract killer was a crime he was neither charged with nor convicted of.
meowface
The judge factored it into the sentencing, though. He likely did actually try to hire a contract killer - twice. In both cases he sincerely believed the murders were successfully committed, and he sent a lot of money to the assassins after being sent (doctored) "proof" of their killings.
I think it's fair to say judges shouldn't factor non-charged allegations into sentencing, but I think he's at least morally culpable, here, and should at the very least be expected to now show public contrition for repeatedly trying to murder people drug kingpin-style.
I doubt he will ever admit it, but now that he's free I still would like it. I don't care about people enabling drug sales but I do care about people with a God complex who feel entitled to end the lives of those they oppose (in one case because he thought someone stole from him, and another because he thought they would dox him).
busymom0
A judge and system who would give him 2 life sentences for this should not be trusted when he also factored in things which he wasn't charged and convicted of.
Aloisius
Ulbricht was indicted in federal court in Maryland on a single murder-for-hire charge.
The case was dropped after NY conviction since he was sentencing to life, so there was little point in continuing.
Clearly that was a mistake if a lack of an attempted murder conviction helped him get a pardon.
lupire
What would give you a hint that attempted murder conviction would prevent his pardon? Trump pardoned over a thousand attempted murdered already this week.
insane_dreamer
So does this mean the war on drugs is finally over and we're going to stop mass incarceration for non-violent drug offenses? If so, that _would_ be good news.
mmaunder
I wonder if Assange will get the pardon he’s campaigning for:
steve_avery
Well, I think that justice has been served. The feds' prosecution of Ulbricht was the epitome of throwing the book at someone to make an example, when the government's case was pretty flawed, in my opinion. 10 years is enough time to pay the debt of running the silk road.
I am glad that Ulbricht has been pardoned and I feel like a small iota of justice has been returned to the world with this action.
fsckboy
wasn't there evidence of hiring a hitman to commit a murder in furtherance of the Silk Road? that's not part of "the debt of running the silk road"
BurningFrog
Keep in mind that he spent 11 years locked up.
He's not getting off lightly!
tdb7893
I'm just shocked it was a full pardon instead of a commutation or something. I don't think the US is gaining a ton from keeping him locked up but he still did run an organization he knew was used for selling drugs and other illegal things and a full pardon for that seems weird. I feel like I mainly heard people talking about commuting his sentence
timewizard
Is there some reason he should not be allowed to vote, own a firearm, or receive federal benefits?
lokar
Why should he be treated differently then people who committed similar crimes?
nateglims
He was convicted and the party of law and order typically views these punitive post release measures to be part of the punishment.
sophacles
Yes. He was convicted of several crimes.
mplewis
What do you mean "lightly?" He ran an illegal drug market and tried to assassinate a competitor. We gave him the punishment that society has determined one should receive for this. Revoking his punishment is "light."
TheAmazingRace
Hence why, if DPR was going to get off somehow, a sentence commutation would have been better rather than an unconditional pardon. The latter implies he did absolutely nothing wrong, which hilariously runs counter to Trump's supposed tough on drugs and crime shtick he has.
timewizard
The judge issued the punishment at their sole discretion. The legislature sets the laws often without any input from the constituency.
Meanwhile a sizable campaign has materialized around this case and many people do feel he has done enough time and should be free without any restrictions
bb88
It's still not enough.
bb88
Genuine question: Of all the people to pardon, why him?
beeflet
because it was a promise he made to the libertarian camp
duxup
The only underlying constant with Trump that I can tell is that he personally has to profit from whatever he commits to. Anything else that sounds like a selfless principle from Trump sort of just comes and goes with Trump and you never hear about it again. Presumably Ross & Friends made the appropriate promise.
bb88
Why now, and not 4 years from now when Trump is about to leave office?
How do republicans in Idaho (who don't even have medical marijuana on the books), defend Trump pardoning someone convicted of drug trafficking?
mmooss
That argument isn't contrary to the GP comment: It's very possible Trump is offered a benefit now that he wasn't offered in 2020.
You could ask the same of any deal: Why not instead of years ago? Because the deal wasn't available years ago.
blindriver
He promised the Libertarians he would and he's holding true to his word. Say what you will but at least he's fulfilling his campaign promises.
duxup
Why not now?
Trump isn't up for re-election. It's his act alone.
He promised in the election to pardon other criminals and it didn't hurt him.
ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7
The Trump admin was already selling pardons at the end of their last term, why wouldn't they continue doing so?
timewizard
You believe there are "selfless politicians" operating in America right now?
duxup
I believe there's a wide range of choices and behaviors and any poor choice is not equivalent to all poor choices.
GasVeteran
[dead]
hilux
According to Trump, he is doing this to get libertarian support.
macinjosh
Trump promised to do this at the Libertarian Party convention. This case is very important to the libertarian crowd. He is a martyr for many of their ideals. After Trump was so well received at the convention the LP, recently taken over by the right faction of the party, put forth a candidate specifically chosen to not get votes so that members would vote for Trump. Trump seems to be a man of his word.
bb88
Voters wanted a better economy first, not pardons for drug traffickers and violent offenders.
This could have waited until after the midterms.
mattpope
It seems like the voters that were being referred to value restoring rights. How can something immediately achievable be balanced with "the economy", a thing so broad and deeply systemic?
duxup
>This could have waited until after the midterms.
He promised to pardon the rioters during the election and it didn't hurt him. I think he decided it wouldn't hurt him (and Trump cares bout that first) and if he thought about the midterms ... maybe won't hurt then either.
Congress isn't directly involved in any of this anyway.
foogazi
Eh, lowering the price of eggs is not as easy so
macinjosh
It was one signature? Doesn't seem like a big time sink. Many of these early actions were prepared prior to inauguration.
jdjdjfhfkeksnc
This is 100% true. I am posting from an anon account (obviously), but I was heavily involved in this. I worked with members of the party to push part of their strategy - mainly the coalition with trump and an effort to get vivek and elon involved. We spoke about this in 2023. I didn't care about Ross, had my own motivations, but I wrote some of their playback with AI and it worked. I didn't know about certain things (like the losing candidate for example). I wrote strategy that seems to have made its way all the way to Trump's team.
batch12
Without proof this is just a bedtime story.
jdjdjfhfkeksnc
[dead]
insane_dreamer
> Trump seems to be a man of his word.
when there's political gain, sure
blindriver
You may not like Trump but I remember he fulfilled or attempted to fulfill a lot of his campaign promises back in 2016 as well. Biden, the career politician, talked a lot about many things before election and then forgot about them after he was elected. For example, universal health care. Obama promised to enshrine a woman's right to abortion as law, and then when he had the House and Senate after he was elected, he said "it's not a priority for me." Then we lost Roe V Wade.
Dalewyn
>Trump seems to be a man of his word.
One of the big reasons I voted for him. He actually keeps the promises he made as far reality will allow.
What's really stupid is that keeping promises made isn't the norm for politicians, of all kinds.
IncreasePosts
Presumably musk pushed for it. Not sure who else in/near the administration would even have him on their radar
silisili
Whether or not he was the sole or even primary reason, he knew about it beforehand as seen by his tweet last night saying it was coming soon. Love him or hate him, it's a bit concerning that he has that level of access IMO.
The tweet:
tomhoward
It’s been a campaign of Mike Cernovich’s for a long time.
arrowsmith
And Trump cares what Mike Cernovich thinks because.... ?
Havoc
Musk is definitely a fan recreationally chemistry
xigency
The clips of him rolling his eyes and head around in boredom at the inauguration definitely looked like he was suffering from some kind of withdrawal symptoms.
freddi333
Trump promised it when he attended the libertarian convention
ty6853
What do you mean? Trump just pardoned or commuted pretty much all of the J6 crowd. One guy convicted of crimes that don't require proving violence beyond a reasonable doubt is pretty tame in comparison. He is one of thousands.
null
insane_dreamer
Trump know the Jan 6 rioters and supported them. Pardoning is important to justify his claim that nobody did anything wrong as that the election was "stolen by the Dems".
I can't imagine he would have known Ross Ulbricht's case.
Tangentially related: I had the disconcerting experience of reading a Wired article about his arrest[1] while unknowingly sitting about six feet from the spot where he was apprehended. When the FBI agents stopped to have a drink at Bello Coffee I thought, huh, interesting coincidence, I just had a coffee there.
Then Ulbricht walked into the public library and sat down at the table directly in front of me, and suddenly as I was reading I could look up and see exactly the chair he had been in, where the plainclothes police had positioned themselves, how they had arranged a distraction.
Having this tableau unexpectedly unfold right in front of my eyes was a fascinating experience, and it certainly made the article suddenly get a lot more immersive!
[1] https://www.wired.com/2015/05/silk-road-2/
EDIT: to be clear, I was not present for the arrest. I was reading the magazine, some years after the arrest, but in the same place as the arrest. (I didn’t qualify the events with “I read that...” since I thought the narrative ellipsis would be obvious from context; evidently not.)