My reaction when someone toes the government line without providing hard evidence.
Receipts are required for this sort of claim to be believed, and no an hour long YouTube video of someone else's opinion is not receipts. What document specifically are you referring to and what is its source? If this is as clear cut as you claim it shouldn't take an hour to explain.
Diagreee on the last point - its a years-long and complicated story and probably can't be explained in just an hour but sent the video cause I thought it pieces them together chronologically in a fairly neutral way. You clearly didn't watch it and that's totally fine π€£ I am just saying I don't get the praise for the guy, I think he is a bad dude who ordered hits on people who competed with his ability to make more money and tainted the reputation bitcoin. Dyor if you want. I could prob read more about it myself. I mean if you think they were all faked or something, I'd certainly listen to your theory π€·π»ββοΈ
I might watch when I get time, but I do have to wonder β if he were guilty of ordering hits, why was that not one of his numerous convictions?
I don't really know... they dropped the charges at some point, I think cause the agents that helped get him were corrupt and they prob didn't want that to come out in court. I should read more about it, it's a complicated case
so guilty untill proven not guilty, in your opinion?
Not at all haha. But guilty of ordering hits based on everything I've read? I am honestly wondering if everyone knows something I don't. I'm genuinely confused by the public opinion
well.. wouldnt be the first time the agencies have set someone up for something, so, to me, it's not that hard to give him the benefit of the doubt.. especially since he couldn't be convicted for the alleged hits he ordered
what if they couldn't convict him for the hits exactly bc of the reason you stated earlier - that the agencies involved were corrupt? perhaps that's why they hid further info that would clear up this confusion for all of us.. to safe face
Also you're going to have to explain to me why, if the state had him dead to rights on at least accessory to murder, he was convicted of no such crime.
For the record, convictions were:
- Engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise
- Distributing narcotics
- Distributing narcotics by means of the Internet
- Conspiring to distribute narcotics
- Conspiring to commit money laundering
- Conspiring to traffic in false identity documents
- Conspiring to commit computer hacking
None of these are violent crimes, meaning that the state itself did not believe it had the evidence to convict him of any such thing, and they were throwing the book at this guy so they'd have tried it if they thought they could get away with it. Even with that, the only one that can reasonably argued to possibly be a real crime is computer hacking and the ultimate determination would depend entirely upon who the target of the hacking was and what specifically was being hacked.
