Hillary Clinton’s Destruction of Emails Was a Federal Crime

Hosted on March 10, 2016 by Eric Zuesse.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/03/hillary-clintons-destruction-emails-federal-crime.html

However, our laws have been written so as to protect government officials, and corporate executives, if and when they are prosecuted for it. This leaves considerable discretion for prosecutors and judges to let them off the hook; and, as a consequence of this rampant discretion, there are numerous similar cases that receive starkly different procedural and judicial outcomes; so that, in this, as in so many other aspects of government in the United States, our country is far more a government by persons, than it is a government by laws.

This means that the legal outcome of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s attempt to destroy the evidence on the email server that she had had installed in her basement, will depend not so much on what the laws are (which are intentionally vague), but on who is investigating, reporting, and making decisions about that case.

For an elementary example showing how arbitrary our system is about such matters, consider that this case ended with no prosecution of the police officers. A former Secretary of State who is also the leading candidate for President of the United States, may be presumed to be at least as likely, as they, to avoid even weak penalties for her evidence-tampering, regardless of how heavy the legal penalties might be for what she did if the perpetrator were only a regular powerless citizen doing essentially the same thing (and this is true regardless of whether or not there were top-secret documents on that unsecure server — the feature of the case which is the almost exclusive focus of media-coverage and federal investigation about the event).

For example: if the only reason why she destroyed that evidence was in order to prevent voters from knowing her private connections to persons and organizations that her Department was doing business with, and the ‘top-secret’ matter were’t involved at all in the case, then what she was doing by deleting the records might not have been technically “criminal” at all, yet its outcome if she becomes President might be far more harmful to the nation than any lapse of state-security from unsecured private possession of top-secret information would be, or might have been.

So: on the face of it, what Secretary Clinton did was evidence-tampering and thus a federal crime, but to expect it to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, or even at all, would seem to be unlikely.

See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoliation_of_evidence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampering_with_evidence

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1519:

18 U.S. Code § 1519 – Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy

Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

    US Code

prev | next

Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

(Added Pub. L. 107–204, title VIII, § 802(a), July 30, 2002, 116 Stat. 800.)

http://www.insidecounsel.com/2013/07/18/litigation-sanctions-for-spoliation-of-evidence

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1218&context=dlj:

[p. 1254, or p. 40 of the 122-page pdf discussing in this passage the Sarbanes-Oxley law’s changes to the criminal laws that had existed before Arthur Anderson & Co. accountants had evidence-tampered Enron’s audit-reports:] What if the documents are destroyed to guard against whatever suit might arise, without having specific litigation in mind? For example, how would the provision apply to the ongoing destruction of safety test records by a manufacturer when there is no specific plaintiff — perhaps not even a specific buyer for the product? Arguably, such upstream behavior would still fall outside the bounds of new section 1512(c).152 At the very least, Sarbanes-Oxley does little to resolve the issue. … If Andersen had been destroying audit-related documents as it went along, rather than after it learned of the SEC inquiry in October 2001, would it have been criminally liable under new section 1512(c)? Arguably not.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

How The U.S. Government And HSBC Teamed Up To Hide The Truth From A Pennsylvania Couple

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 03/02/2016 23:30 -0500
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-02/how-us-government-and-hsbc-teamed-hide-truth-pennsylvania-couple
Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,
The reason both the Democratic and Republican establishments are in full on panic mode about the rise of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders is a deep seated fear that the plebs have finally woken up.
Democrats rail against big corporations, while Republicans rail against big government. This scheme has been used to successfully divide and conquer the public for decades while big government and big business successfully schemed to divert all wealth and power to an ever smaller minuscule segment of the population — themselves.
It took awhile, but the people are finally starting getting it and they are royally pissed off. One of the primary mechanisms for this historic elite theft has been the creation of a two-tiered justice system in which the rich, powerful and connected are never prosecuted for their criminality. Instead, the government actively protects them by pretending corporate entities commit crimes as opposed to individuals. Of course, this is impossible, but yet it’s how the government handles white collar crime. The Orwellian named “Justice Department” casually utilizes deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs), in which companies pay a little fine and the criminals themselves walk away with not just their freedom, but ill gotten monetary gains as well.

Nowhere is this most apparent than when it comes to the big banks. The individuals who work at these criminal cartels can literally do anything they want with total impunity. One of the most egregious examples of this was the $1.9 billion settlement arranged with HSBC for laundering Mexican drug cartel money and dealing with sanctioned countries. If you or I did this we’d be sitting in a concrete box eating porridge through a straw for the rest of our lives, but when “masters of the world” at big banks do it, the parent company just pays a slap on the wrist fine and life goes on. That’s how oligarch justice works.

Although the Department of Justice and HSBC thought the money laundering case was settled ancient history, a determined chemist from Pennsylvania is throwing a wrench into their plans and it could have major implications.
The Wall Street Journal reports:

WEST CHESTER, Pa.—When Dean Moore ran into roadblocks with a request for mortgage relief, he did what many people do: He sat down at his kitchen table to bang out an angry letter.

The letter has thrust Mr. Moore, a chemist, and his wife, Ann Marie Fletcher-Moore, a part-time bookstore manager, into a high-stakes battle over whether HSBC Holdings PLC must release a secret report on its compliance with a $1.9 billion money-laundering settlement.

A “secret” report. You’ve got to be kidding me.

The disclosure would be the first ever for this type of case and would shine a light on an increasingly common practice for banks accused of breaking the law. Instead of being prosecuted, banks typically enter into settlements under which they often agree to be overseen by monitors whose detailed judgments are kept secret. Judge Gleeson’s order has the potential to dial back that confidentiality, opening a new channel of information that prosecutors say could threaten the viability of such settlements in future cases.

If you don’t get by now that America is a banana republic, there’s little hope for you.

HSBC and Justice Department prosecutors have opposed the release, saying it wouldn’t do much to help Mr. Moore with his mortgage predicament. Judge Gleeson, in his order to unseal the report, said that was irrelevant.

Big banks and the U.S. government are simply 100% in bed together. Constantly scheming to prevent citizens from learning the truth.

The bank is appealing the ruling, but already it may be having an impact. HSBC disclosed last week that the January report by independent monitor Michael Cherkasky found instances of potential financial crime and had “significant concerns” about the bank’s pace of progress in complying with the money-laundering settlement.

A legitimate government that cared about the people would want the public to know this, but not the U.S. government.

The Moores say the experience has been surreal. The couple lives in this Philadelphia suburb with their four children, two dogs and a 15-year-old rabbit and had never spent much time in court other than for jury duty. They have nevertheless held their own against a phalanx of lawyers from the British bank and the Justice Department. A recent hearing in a Brooklyn federal court “was like ‘Law and Order,’” said Mrs. Fletcher-Moore, who is 50 years old.

HSBC admitted in its 2012 settlement that it failed to catch at least $881 million in drug-trafficking proceeds laundered through its U.S. bank and that its staff stripped data from transactions with Iran, Libya and Sudan to evade U.S. sanctions.

The mortgage was administered by HSBC, and the Moores say they wrote to the bank starting in 2008 asking it to temporarily lower the 7% interest rate. They said the lender appeared receptive, only for its representatives to misplace documents needed to complete their application for a loan modification several times.

Frustrated, the Moores researched the bank online last year and stumbled upon news of the money-laundering settlement and the monitor’s secret report. The Moores say they believe the report details faulty internal controls like those they encountered when trying to modify their loan.

If his ruling stands, it would be “the first time we get to see what happens after a bank settles a prosecution,” said Brandon Garrett, a professor at University of Virginia’s law school who has studied the monitor system.

Which is exactly what the U.S. government doesn’t want people to see.

HSBC and the Justice Department are still fighting to keep the report private and have appealed Judge Gleeson’s ruling to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. An appeals court ruling could be months away. “I feel like a very small boat in a very large ocean,” Mr. Moore wrote at one point, in a letter responding to some of their arguments.

For more on the corrupt U.S. justice system, see:
How the Department of Justice is Actively Trying to Prevent Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform
Is the Justice Department Finally Ready to Jail Corporate Criminals?
Florida Man Sentenced to 2.5 Years in Jail for Having Sex on the Beach
Some Leaks Are More Equal Than Others – Hypocritical D.C. Insiders Line up to Defend General Petraeus from Prosecution
Some Money Launderers are “More Equal” than Others
Some Money Launderers are More Equal than Others Part 2 – CEO of BitInstant is Arrested
Just another day in the…

Denver Police Arrest "Jury Nullification" Activist For Passing Out Informational Pamphlets

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 08/25/2015 22:50 -0400
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-25/denver-police-arrest-jury-nullification-activist-passing-out-informational-pamphlets
Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

Most of you will be familiar with the concept of jury nullification. Unfortunately, the vast majority of Americans are not. This is precisely why Mark Iannicelli set up a “Jury Info” booth outside the Lindsay-Flanigan Courthouse in Denver. In a nutshell, jury nullification is the idea that jurors can “can ignore the law and follow their conscience when they believe the law would dictate a miscarriage of justice.” In other words, jurors have the right to judge the law as well as the facts. As you will see in the video at the end, this concept has centuries of precedence in these United States behind it.
When you recognize the vast power that such a concept holds, you recognize why it would be so hated by statists and authoritarians across the land. That is precisely why Mr. Iannicelli was arrested and charged with handing out information.
For a little background, read the following from the Denver Post:

Denver prosecutors have charged a man with seven counts of jury tampering after they say he tried to influence jurors by passing out literature on jury nullification on Monday.
Mark Iannicelli, 56, set up a small booth with a sign that said “Juror Info” in front of the city’s Lindsay-Flanigan Courthouse courthouse, prosecutors say. 

The Denver District Attorney’s Office says Iannicelli provided jury nullification flyers to jury pool members.
Jury nullification is when jurors believe a defendant is guilty of the charges but reject the law and return a not guilty verdict.

In response to what appears to be a clear attack on freedom of speech, the Denver Post editorial board published an admirable defense of Mr. Iannicelli several weeks after his arrest. Here are a few excerpts:

It is astonishing that Denver police would arrest someone for handing out political literature outside a courthouse.

It’s even more astonishing that prosecutors would charge that person with seven felony counts of jury tampering.

Now, fortunately,  civil rights attorney David Lane has filed a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of other jury nullification activists. They want an injunction to stop the city from violating their First Amendment rights should they too wish to pass out literature.

They deserve to get one.

Jury nullification is understandably controversial — and is especially resented by courts and prosecutors. It is the notion that jurors can ignore the law and follow their conscience when they believe the law would dictate a miscarriage of justice. But it is hardly a new concept.

In the 19th century, Northern juries refused to convict abolitionists for harboring runaway slaves. In the 20th century, juries often balked at enforcing Prohibition and later, on occasion, at what they considered overly harsh drug laws or laws governing sexual behavior.

Jury nullification had a darker strain, too, as Southern juries would sometimes refuse to convict white defendants guilty of racial violence.

The point is that jury nullification is not some crank theory concocted out of the blue.

As First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh has written, “It’s clear that it’s not a crime for jurors to refuse to convict even when the jury instructions seem to call for a guilty verdict.”

Those who believe the public needs to know about this possibility should have every right to publicize their views — even outside a courthouse.

Their jury nullification literature, as it happens, merely offered general statements, such as, “Juror nullification is your right to refuse to enforce bad laws and bad prosecutions.”

Four years ago, prosecutors in New York City charged a retired chemistry professor with jury tampering after he stood outside a federal courthouse handing out information on jury nullification. But Judge Kimba M. Wood of federal district court wouldn’t buy it. She ruled that prosecutors needed to show the protester meant to influence jurors in a specific case, and dismissed all charges.
Denver officials should be held to no less of a standard.

So where do things stand now?
The good news is that Denver’s city attorney has come to the aid of the activists, setting up a fight between him and the district attorney. Once again, from the Denver Post:

Denver’s city attorney has directed the police and sheriff’s department to stop arresting people passing out jury nullification literature in front of the courthouse.

The order was revealed Friday in U.S. District Court during a hearing involving a lawsuit against the city and Denver police chief Robert White.

The lawsuit was filed earlier this month on behalf of activists who want to distribute jury nullification information outside the Lindsey-Flanigan courthouse. They sued after two others who were handing out pamphlets were  charged with seven counts of jury tampering by District Attorney Mitch Morrissey.

The lawsuit argues that the arrests are a violation of free speech rights and asks for a federal injunction against further arrests.

The lawsuit also named Denver Chief Judge Michael Martinez, who on Thursday issued an order barring demonstrations, protests, distributing literature, proselytizing and other activities on the courthouse grounds.

City Attorney Scott Martinez said his staff argued that the Denver judge’s order was overly broad. They also argued against arrests targeting people handing out jury nullification literature.

The city attorney’s office also has taken a position that their actions do not violate state law.

“We agree that the court house steps are a public forum and that people can pass out information, including pamphlets, in accordance with the First Amendment,” the city attorney said.

The city attorney’s position is unusual in that it is siding with the very people who are suing the city. It also pits the city attorney’s office against the district attorney’s office, which filed criminal charges.

Well done Mr. Martinez.
If you want a little more info on jury nullification, check out the following video featuring a much younger Ron Paul:
https://youtu.be/rkea7DwfVb4
Part 2:

*  *  *
For related articles, see:
The War on Free Speech – U.S. Department of Justice Subpoenas Reason.com Over Comment Section
French Authorities Demonstrate Defense of Free Speech by Arresting 54 People for Free Speech
Statists Declare War on Free Speech – College Students Banned from Handing Out Constitutions in Hawaii

The IRS scandal just got even worse

By Post Editorial Board

July 7, 2015

http://nypost.com/2015/07/07/the-irs-scandal-just-got-even-worse/

Former IRS official Lois Lerner Photo: AP

So the Obama IRS wasn’t just persecuting right-leaning nonprofits — it was out to prosecute them, too. And with the help of the Obama Department of Justice and FBI.
Via Freedom of Information Act lawsuits, the watchdog group Judicial Watch just got evidence of the plot. A “DOJ Recap” on an Oct. 8, 2010 meeting tells how officials from the three agencies discussed “several possible theories to bring criminal charges under FEC law” against groups “posing” as tax-exempt nonprofits.
As part of the project, the IRS handed the FBI 21 computer disks with 1.23 million pages of confidential IRS returns from 113,000 nonprofit 501(c)(4) groups — nearly every 501(c)(4). This, though federal law generally bans the IRS from sharing such data.
The evidence shows “that the Obama IRS scandal is also an Obama DOJ and FBI scandal,” noted Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The FBI and Justice Department worked with Lois Lerner and the IRS to concoct some reason to put President Obama’s opponents in jail before his re-election. And this abuse resulted in the FBI’s illegally obtaining confidential taxpayer information.”
The IRS scandal surfaced years ago — and for all the administration talk of a full investigation, this huge news is only surfacing now, and only thanks to Judicial Watch.
The news of FBI and Justice involvement in the IRS scandal makes the need for some special prosecutor to probe this mess even more obvious.
After all, as Judicial Watch’s Fitton asks: “How can the Justice Department and the FBI investigate the very scandal in which they are implicated?”

3 Hours and 47 Minutes After Obama Says He’ll Sign Law BANNING Bulk Collection, DOJ Asks Secret Court to CONTINUE Bulk Collection

Posted on June 9, 2015 by WashingtonsBlog

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/ 

Spencer Ackerman reports in the Guardian:

The Obama administration has asked a secret surveillance court to ignore a federal court that found bulk surveillance illegal and to once again grant the National Security Agency the power to collect the phone records of millions of Americans for six months.
The legal request, filed nearly four hours after Barack Obama vowed to sign a new law banning precisely the bulk collection he asks the secret court to approve, also suggests that the administration may not necessarily comply with any potential court order demanding that the collection stop.

Ackerman details the timeline in a tweet:
Marcy Wheeler notes with frustration:

DOJ, however, doesn’t much give a shit about what USA [Freedom Act] actually amends.
***
The government will pretend it doesn’t matter.

The bottom line is that the NSA is a rogue agency … engaged in clearly illegal conduct.
But the White House and Congress are both enabling the worst in mass surveillance.

7 Days Before Holder's "90 Day Ultimatum" Expires, DOJ Declines To Prosecute Citigroup

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 05/11/2015 10:18 -0400
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-11/7-days-holders-90-day-ultimatum-expires-doj-declines-prosecute-citigroup-over-libor-
Almost exactly three months ago, with much pomp and circumstance, US attorney general Eric Holder, whose department of "justice" made headlines two years ago for refusing to bring criminal cases against big banks due to fears of systemic consequences if any TBTF bank is brought to justice thus spawning the term Too Big To Prosecute, gave his lackeys involved in residential mortgage-backed securities exactly 90 days in which to "develop cases against individuals" for their roles in the financial crisis.
What happened since then is that in a completely unrelated action, the CFTC ferreted out a basement trader and put the entire blame of the Flash Crash on his shoulders just before the 5 year statute of limitations of the May 2010 flash crash expired and... nothing else.
Actually, correction.
This:

• CITIGROUP SAYS DOJ DECLINED TO PROSECUTE ON LIBOR RIGGING

So for all those wondering if the modus operandi at the Department of Justice has changed, and if Eric Holder, for all his recent bluster is willing to prosecute Wall Street criminals, we have the one word answer.
No.
As for "Honorable" Holder's 90 day deadline, it expires in precisely one week. Expect that to fade away into the collective lack of memory as the May 18 deadline comes and passes with no action revealed by the Department of "Justice."

DOJ Finally Going After The Criminal Materminds With Arrest Of 24 Year-Old Bitcoin Exchange Founder

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 01/27/2014 12:48 -0500

nShare

 

The US crackdown on Bitcoin has been long in coming, with ebbs and flows of enforcement as regulators have been unsure exactly how to proceed with dismantling the digital fiat alternative. This morning the ebb became a rising tide, after U.S. prosecutors announced charges against two men operating Bitcoin exchange businesses for attempting to sell $1 million worth of Bitcoin to users of the underground black market website Silk Road, which was shut down by authorities in September.
Reuters reports that the U.S. Attorney's office in Manhattan said in a statement that authorities arrested Charlie Schrem, chief executive officer of the exchange BitInstant.com, on Sunday and Robert Faiella, who ran an underground Bitcoin exchange called BTCKing, on Monday. The two were charged with conspiring to commit money laundering and operating an unlicensed money transmitting business. Schrem is also vice president of the main Bitcoin-focused trade group, the Bitcoin Foundation, according to the foundation's website and Schrem's LinkedIn profile.
Some details from the charge against the defendants:

Federal prosecutors charged Faiella, 52, and Shrem, 24, with engaging in a scheme to sell more than $1 million of Bitcoins to users of Silk Road. Each defendant was charged with conspiring to commit money laundering, which carries a maximum prison sentence of 20 years. They are additionally charged with operating an unlicensed money transmitting business, which has a max sentence of five years in prison.

The U.S. also charged Shrem with violating the Bank Secrecy Act by “willfully failing” to file suspicious activity reports on Faiella’s questionable transactions. This charge carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison.

In addition to the Manhattan U.S. Attorney, the charges were announced by the Drug Enforcement Agency and the criminal investigation division of the Internal Revenue Service.

“Hiding behind their computers, both defendants are charged with knowingly contributing to and facilitating anonymous drug sales, earning substantial profits along the way,” said DEA acting special-agent-in-charge James Hunt.

Schrem was apprehended by authorities at JFK International Airport in New York on Sunday and is set to appear in federal court in Manhattan later on Monday. Faiella was arrested at his Cape Coral, Fla., home on Monday and is expected to appear in federal court in the Middle District of Florida.

The court documents allege Faiella operated an underground Bitcoin exchange on the Silk Road website between December 2011 and October 2013 that sold the crypto currency to users who wanted to buy illegal drugs on the site. After receiving orders, he filled them through a New York company designed to enable customers to exchange cash for Bitcoins anonymously, the U.S. alleges.

Shrem served as the New York Bitcoin company’s CEO during much of that timeframe and was “fully aware that Silk Road was a drug-trafficking website” and that Faiella was operating an exchange service for Silk Road users, the documents say.

Prosecutors say Shrem still did business with Faiella to maintain a “lucrative source” of revenue. He personally processed Faiella’s orders, gave him discounts on high-volume transactions, failed to file a single suspicious activity report and even helped Faiella “circumvent” the company’s anti-money laundering policies, the documents allege.

Bharara said the investigation remains ongoing.

As a reminder, BitInstant, which at the time "aimed to be the go-to site" to buy and sell bitcoins, received a $1.5 million investment by Winklevoss Capital in May 2013. From the TechCrunch profile of the startup:

BitInstant, which has a full-time staff of 16 led by CEO Charlie Shrem, has emerged as a key player in the nascent Bitcoin market: The company already processes approximately 30 percent of the money going into and out of Bitcoin, and last month alone facilitated 30,000 transactions, the Winklevosses said in a phone call this week. The funding is meant to allow the company to further scale up its staff and product as it angles to become the go-to site for Bitcoin transfers.

The US charge is not a ringing endorsement for the premise behind the Winklevi investment:

The Winklevosses say they were attracted to invest in BitInstant in large part because of its leadership. CEO Shrem is the vice chairman of the Bitcoin Foundation, and CIO Alex Waters previously worked with the core developers on the original Satoshi Bitcoin client. “Charlie has been in the space for a very long time, and he has an impeccable reputation among Bitcoiners. He knows everyone in the space and everyone in the space knows him,” Cameron Winklevoss said. “One of the most exciting things about people who are into Bitcoin is that they’re a really passionate community, and Charlie is a passionate entrepreneur. He would be in that category of someone who lives, breathes, and sleeps Bitcoin.”

Perhaps. However, in retrospect Charlie's biggest crime was not being CEO of JPM or, at worst, HSBC, where money laundering and other criminal activity is not only encouraged but rewarded with soaring bonuses. The good news is that one can once and for all confirm that when it comes to "Justice" in the US, some - those who deal with legacy status quo mandated and enforced ponzi scheme fiat - are far more equal than anyone who dares to think outside the Fed's printer.
Finally, here is a recent profile of 24 year old "criminal mastermind" Schrem via Bitcoin Examiner.

Meet Charlie Shrem. He’s 23 years old and the co-owner of Evr, one of the most famous gastro pubs in Manhatan. The name might sound familiar, since we talked about this pub before, when it became one of the first establishments to receive Bitcoin as a payment for drinks and food in New York City.

But why is Charlie Shrem different from other crypto-millionaires? Because he is now a BitAngel, member of an investment group created to invest in Bitcoin startups. We’ve also talked about this group before here.

Today, whenever someone pays at Evr with digital coin, Shrem gets a little bit richer, but he’s using his money to help others. Everything started in 2011, when Bitcoin became more famous, he bought thousands of Bitcoins for about $20 each. He invested almost everything he had in what could have been a dangerous game. However, since then, the digital coin value has skyrocketed.

At Evr, with his business partner.

After his investment in the bar, he founded the exchange platform Bitinstant. “Infrastructure is what we need. We’ve got to build, build, build–financial software, exchanges, and different payment products”, says Charlie Shrem, who clearly followed his own advice and profited with it.

He might not have the same funds as big Silicon Valley investors, but he has turned into a Bitcoin angel anyway. “The early guys are the ones that run everything. In this space, how long you’ve been around matters”, explains the entrepreneur.

However, we would like to look at him and others and see some kind of Bitcoin ambassadors, the ones that are setting the example and showing how it’s possible to grow once you leave your fear behind and go deep into a new world like cryptocurrency. Because they show what Bitcoin is for real: an opportunity.

* * *

And now, please join us in a moment of solemn silence as we fondly recall the memory of all the HSBC bankers who were thrown in prison for aiding, abetting and profiting from laundering money with known global terrorists...

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-01-27/doj-finally-going-after-criminal-materminds-arrest-24-year-old-bitcoin-exchange-foun