By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Donald Trump’s pardon of cryptocurrency firm Binance founder Changpeng Zhao, who had pleaded guilty to money-laundering, has sparked controversy due to Zhao’s financial ties to the Trump family’s crypto venture, World Liberty Financial. The pardon occurred months after Binance partnered with World Liberty Financial in a $2 billion deal, prompting former U.S. Pardon Attorney Elizabeth Oyer to call the pardon “corruption” on 60 Minutes, citing unprecedented influence of money. Experts like Harvard’s Lawrence Lessig suggest the currency selection was intended to benefit Trump, noting Zhao’s potential control over World Liberty Financial’s success, while the White House defends the pardon as an exercise of Trump’s constitutional authority.
Read the original article here
‘60 Minutes’ Exposes Trump’s Controversial Crypto Pardon.
The recent ‘60 Minutes’ segment on Donald Trump’s pardon of individuals connected to the cryptocurrency industry, and specifically, the controversial pardon related to Binance founder Zhao, has brought to light some troubling questions regarding the use of presidential power. It’s truly disheartening to witness what appears to be a blatant abuse of the pardon power, a maneuver that feels like the selling off of justice to the highest bidder. The implication of financial gain, whether through dollars, crypto, or political favors, is deeply concerning. The swamp, it seems, hasn’t been drained, but rather stirred, and this situation, in many ways, feels like it has been forced upon us.
The speed with which Trump has apparently amassed billions of dollars is staggering, and this raises serious questions about ethical conduct and potential conflicts of interest. The sheer volume of pardons issued during his tenure – reportedly over 1600 since January 20th – seems designed to create a fog of complexity, making it difficult for the average citizen to keep track of the implications. This strategy of overwhelming the public with numerous actions to obscure the most egregious ones is a tactic that warrants intense scrutiny. The normalization of these actions is a dangerous trend, one that could set a precedent for future administrations.
This situation presents a clear need to reinforce the Emoluments Clause, and the enforcement of ethical guidelines beyond merely primarying those in positions of power. The fact that Trump could potentially enrich himself while in office with his own coin is not just a scandal; it could be the biggest scandal, ever. The segment on 60 Minutes, and the coverage it deserves, shines a light on these issues and compels us to ask how we can ensure a more just system moving forward.
The issue of pardons, especially those that appear to be politically motivated or financially incentivized, should be addressed through legislative action. The suggestion of requiring congressional approval for pardons, or at least a review by an independent body, could help mitigate the potential for abuse. The core issue lies in the perception of fairness and the erosion of public trust when these actions seem to benefit specific individuals or groups. The idea that someone would use the power of the office to troll is utterly deplorable. Executive power, when wielded in such a manner, undermines the very foundation of the presidency.
The pardons issued to those involved in the January 6th insurrection, for example, sends a clear message. They signal support for those who commit violence on his behalf, offering protection from consequences. It’s a reminder of who he stands with, and a warning to those who might consider dissenting. Such actions create an environment of impunity and embolden those who might otherwise be held accountable.
The issue extends to the wider world of potential conflicts of interest that have become a pervasive issue in the political sphere. The focus on insider trading by elected officials underscores the need for transparency and accountability. The lack of strict regulations allowing members of congress to trade stocks while privy to non-public information is a serious issue. The fact that these actions may not technically be illegal doesn’t make them any less unethical or damaging to public trust. The ability to profit from inside information and then report it many months later needs to be addressed. It’s about protecting the interests of the public and ensuring that elected officials are serving the people, not their own financial interests.
Finally, we must consider the broader role of the media in covering these issues. The way some of the bosses in certain sectors contribute to the problem and contribute as gaslighted donors to his pockets. Ultimately, the question remains: are we, as a nation, okay with the current state of affairs? The ability to vote for freedom is paramount. We can’t let a few bad actors lead us into despair.