Trump pardons convicted Binance founder

[flagged]

> The French approach of just rebooting and reinstalling the entire thing seems like a good idea at this point.

Do you mean the French Revolution? If you actually read the history on that (even basic stuff beyond the "Reign of Terror") I don't think any person would want to experience that for their country. It had tons of indiscriminate violence and took a decade of chaos before they sorted out into a real government, which then resulted in Napolean's coup

From fiction, we have Clancy's sudden loss of the majority of federal elected officials which allowed for a fresh start. However, that's subject to having governors submitting senators while having elections for congress. Starting from a clean slate would be the only fix. As it is now, it's who is willing to kowtow to the biggest backers to get them over the line and stay in office. On top of the gerrymandering that all but ensures the party in control stays in control, I see no change to the status quo in my life time without an uprising.

Gerrymandering is at the heart of the rot.

> If we can't figure out how to get a Congress that most people believe in then I worry that is the beginning of the end for this government.

We know, from comparative study of existing representative democracies, how to do that better (have an electoral system for the legislative branch that provides results that are substnantially more proportional than under the current system); what we don’t have is a practical way to get from where we are to where we need to be given the construction of the electoral systems in the states and nationally and the politicians and interests that has entrenched and the Constitutional amendment process.

Approval ratings for Congress, barring a post-9/11 spike, have been under 30% for most of my life. By this standard I'd say we're in the middle of the end.

How hard can it be to specify that pardons can be given by a committee of 25 randomly selected individuals with an Ivy league education when at least 2/3 is in favor with no existing financial ties and no information regarding the identity of whoever's fate is at stake?

Right, not hard at all, but apparently whoever wrote the Constitution was a fucking moron.

While it’s true that the Department of Justice sits within the executive branch, the assertion that it is simply “subordinate” to the President - functioning as his personal legal arm - is an oversimplification that misses both the design and evolution of constitutional governance. The President does not have unlimited authority over the DOJ. The DOJ’s powers are exercised pursuant to laws enacted by Congress, and its officials - especially the Attorney General and U.S. Attorneys - swear oaths to uphold the Constitution, not to serve as personal agents of the President’s will.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that while the President may remove executive officers, he cannot lawfully direct them to commit acts that are unconstitutional, obstruct justice, or violate statutory mandates. The constitutional structure also relies on normative independence - a separation within the executive branch that maintains rule of law. This is not a “convention of restraint” but an operational necessity derived from the Take Care Clause (“he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”). That clause doesn’t mean “whatever the President says is law”; it means the President must ensure that the law itself is enforced faithfully, even when doing so constrains his own interests.

Finally, while the pardon power is broad, it’s not the linchpin of executive authority over the DOJ. Removing or limiting that power wouldn’t change the fact that the DOJ’s prosecutorial discretion must still be exercised consistent with law, ethics, and constitutional constraints - not simply the President’s personal preferences. Our system is not designed for a monarch with “absolute control” over prosecutions. It’s designed for a chief executive bound by law and accountable through oversight, impeachment, and ultimately, the electorate.

> The problem seems to be that we have unjust laws and punishments. We should have some way to apply mercy in that case.

The solution is to fix that and make it retroactive. Remove the unjust law and release anyone who was convicted for violating it.

A pardon is just a bad, unfair bandaid fix.

[dead]

Doesn't necessarily have to be left up to the whims of one person though.

Trump essentially defines all convictions that he doesn't agree with as political charges though.

2m in outstanding volume on Kalshi: https://kalshi.com/markets/kxtrumppardon/trump-pardons/kxtru...

I imagine at least one guy that could create the market for you and then get the profit.

If your definition of “making money” is turning bitcoins into USD at bitcoins low point, and then paying that back to them in 2 years, alright.

You can have whatever opinion you want about the bankruptcy process, but FTX was most certainly insolvent, due to fraud, and at that point whatever happened after the recovery to make people as whole as possible (which for many was not even close) really shouldn’t get credited to SBF.

So he intended to get caught and have his investments seized and go up in value while seized. Noble.

Does SBF have any ability to pay a bribe at this point?

I suppose one might assume he has some funds stashed offshore somewhere.

Is it called a bribe at this point, or is it tribute?

I watched this documentary:

https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2023-ruin-ftx-documentary...

The way CZ managed to tie up FTX in a knot was a masterclass. (about 59min in).

I would add that SBF was at one point the 2nd largest donor to Democrats.

What are the odds Shkreli gets a pardon so he can be an officer of a publicly traded company again?

Regarding your first point - how about George Santos? I suspect Santos was more well known than any of the crypto-scammers, was clearly guilty, was derided by both ends if the political spectrum - yet Trump commuted him.

> massive PR backslash

Personally I do not believe there can be PR backslash for convicted criminal voted in as president.

SBF was/is left (and I suppose mostly signaled rich in that camp), Ulbricht libertarian, but they were caught and therefore had to serve time in jail regardless. That is how our system works. SBF specialized in large scale grifting (like Madoff), Ulbricht in providing an anonymous platform for trafficking. They're competitors of Trump, but given their experience, intelligence, and disadvantage (jail time) if bend loyal they're an asset.

It isn't about any of these people though. Trump is about only one thing: himself (a trade he shares with someone like KJU of North Korea). Specifically, as a narcissist, Trump is all about his image: business and might makes right, no matter the rules. Trump therefore hates the left, truth, honesty, ethics, empowering the weak and minorities, et cetera. Most importantly, he is signaling here: 'if you do business with me, we do the criminal path, and you get caught then I have the power to pardon your sentence.'

Whether Trump is currently a criminal or not, he was and is a convicted felon.

The above is also why I very much suspect Ghislaine Maxwell has dirt on Trump.