Trump can cement his legacy with two key items:

1. Disincentivize fraud - not security thru obscurity, bitcoin-like disincentivize it

2. Abolish the fed

All eyes on the hardest currency of all time:

All of the countries competing with us, especially China, should be CHEERING the tariffs then, if it will in fact nuke us down to their level.

I think everyone is protesting too much.

Admin talked about your comment “trade will balance itself over time,” which is why they are calling it “cheating “. It has not balanced because of various reasons they are addressing.

Anti-tariff folk need to pick a side. It’s bad for US? (Why are they harming themselves by currently tariffing us?)

Why is Canada upset if we tariff them if US customer pays?

I trust all the biz leaders of this admin over the hyperventilating leftist media.

that should tell you that maybe your opinions aren't shared by them, not that they are obviously wrong, as you seem to think.

>50% on china is what was required, but I had no idea someone would actually do it.

Pain is required, and I'm here for all of it if long term it levels the playing field with China.

Luke Groman says in a crisis the FDIC “can’t let” money over $250k get wiped out.

Uh, that’s the agreement going in. I guess the Overton window now has *everyone* saying bailouts forever and always are the norm.

It’s over

I had to lol at the Australian reference. Wut?

Have you seen the laser video that proves curvature to a person who was trying to prove the earth was flat?

what evidence would prove globe earth, in your opinion?

I will use the US constitution as the standard.

The founding fathers got right:

1A, 2A, 4A, and 10A especially.

We have allowed 10A abuses which cause most of our problems.

They got wrong:

Don’t let congress control HOW MUCH to spend as well as WHERE to spend. There should be a check on that.

Congressional term limits, although this is more libertarian to let everyone run and not restrict anyone, even the octogenarians. So I could see keeping that.

If 10A was brutally enforced (as it should be): There would only be State, Treasury, Commerce and Defense, and there would be much larger state governments which don’t have a money printer so would eventually be held accountable.

And “social security “ if it existed would be at the state level and therefore need to be solvent.

10A is the way.

I’ve always wanted us to invade the commie Canadians.

Trudeau is a punk.

UX should be block POS, and if apple opens their NFC up, then tap to pay using ecash.

So similar to venmo. And the venmo balance isn't FDIC insured, so I guess its not as necessary as I thought.

Randos are not gonna switch to magic internet money that even bitcoiners don't understand. FDIC would help.

Insurance on the mint that is trusted is needed. It would be better if it wasn't the federal government, sure.

Out of nowhere, China kicks Canada while they're down. Bold move.

Politically strange. Are they trying to win points with Trump?

FDIC insurance on my nutsack is what should have been requested yesterday at the summit.

Then repeal the bank secrecy act.

Then the federal reserve act.

I dm’ed you a token to try it out.

Not sure your starting point, but:

Where sats are stored on the blockchain and your keys let you spend (you don’t carry your sats around), ecash tokens are like a physical “check.” It’s an IOU from an ecash mint that probably has a lightning node attached to it.

If the lightning node and mint stay solvent, you will be able to redeem your IOU for sats, or whatever the IOU is for. (Some use USD)

https://x.com/incrypted/status/1898036016373522667/photo/1

Ukraine has 46,351 bitcoin.

Instead of minerals, US should seek repayment using this magic internet money. $175 billy sent, only ~$4 billy to repay.

Its a win-win.

I stand corrected. My apologies.

I support taking bitcoin seized from criminals convicted by the feds thru the process set forth in the constitution and hodling those coins as a reserve. (If SBF actually had any, for instance)

I don’t support the above policy, but there’s been some updates…

From grok:

To determine whether the Department of Justice (DOJ) asset forfeiture policy outlined in Paula Reid's tweet from July 19, 2017, is still valid as of March 7, 2025, we need to consider the policy's history, subsequent changes, and current DOJ practices. Let’s break this down:

### 1. **Context of the 2017 Policy (Post ID: 887697111374024705)**

- Paula Reid's tweet refers to a DOJ policy directive issued on July 19, 2017, under then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions. This directive, as shown in the attached images, expanded the federal asset forfeiture program, allowing federal law enforcement to adopt seizures made by state and local police, even in states where asset forfeiture laws had been restricted or banned.

- The policy emphasized "equitable sharing" between federal and state/local agencies, enabling police to bypass stricter state laws by partnering with federal authorities. It also allowed property to be seized from individuals not charged with a crime, which raised significant concerns about civil liberties and due process.

### 2. **Changes Since 2017**

- **2018 Reversal under Jeff Sessions' Successor**: After Jeff Sessions resigned in November 2018, Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker issued a memo in January 2019 that paused the expansion of the equitable sharing program. This was a temporary measure, but it signaled a shift in policy.

- **2019-2020 under William Barr**: When William Barr became Attorney General, the DOJ reinstated and expanded the asset forfeiture program in 2020. Barr issued a new directive reinforcing the use of civil asset forfeiture as a tool against crime, including resuming the adoption of state and local seizures. However, this policy still faced criticism and legal challenges.

- **Biden Administration (2021-Present)**: Under Attorney General Merrick Garland, the DOJ has taken a more restrained approach to asset forfeiture. In 2021, Garland issued a memo emphasizing the need for "due process" and "proportionality" in forfeiture actions, aiming to address abuses. While the program itself hasn’t been dismantled, there has been a focus on reforming practices to protect innocent property owners and reduce overreach.

- **State-Level Reforms**: Many states have continued to tighten their own asset forfeiture laws since 2017, requiring clearer evidence of criminal activity or prohibiting seizures without convictions. However, the federal "equitable sharing" program can still allow state and local agencies to circumvent these restrictions by partnering with federal authorities.

### 3. **Current Status as of March 7, 2025**

- Based on the available information and trends, the core framework of the 2017 policy—allowing federal adoption of state and local seizures, including from individuals not charged with crimes—remains technically in place. However, its implementation has been modified under different administrations:

- The Biden DOJ has not eliminated the equitable sharing program but has introduced safeguards, such as requiring stronger evidence and prioritizing cases involving serious crimes (e.g., drug trafficking, terrorism, or organized crime).

- The DOJ’s Asset Forfeiture Program, as described in recent web results (e.g., justice.gov, updated in 2023-2024), still emphasizes using forfeiture to disrupt criminal enterprises but stresses protecting property owners’ rights and ensuring proportionality.

- State laws vary widely, and while some states have banned or restricted civil asset forfeiture, the federal government can still step in under certain conditions, particularly through equitable sharing.

- Therefore, the 2017 policy is not "invalid" in a legal sense, but its practical application has evolved. It’s less aggressive than under Sessions or Barr, but the ability for federal authorities to seize property from uncharged individuals, even in states with restrictive laws, still exists, subject to DOJ guidelines and oversight.

### 4. **Key Considerations**

- **Legal Challenges**: Asset forfeiture practices have faced ongoing legal challenges, including Supreme Court rulings (e.g., *Timbs v. Indiana*, 2019) that apply the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment to state forfeiture actions, limiting excessive seizures.

- **Public and Political Pressure**: There’s been bipartisan criticism of civil asset forfeiture, with some lawmakers pushing for reforms to require convictions before seizures or to increase transparency.

- **DOJ’s Current Stance**: As of the latest available data (up to 2023 in the web results), the DOJ continues to support asset forfeiture as a law enforcement tool but with more checks and balances than in 2017.

### 5. **Conclusion**

As of 3:24 PM CST on Friday, March 7, 2025, the 2017 DOJ asset forfeiture policy outlined in Paula Reid’s tweet is still technically valid in its foundational structure, but its implementation has been modified under subsequent administrations, particularly the Biden DOJ. The federal government can still adopt state and local seizures, including from individuals not charged with crimes, but there are now additional safeguards, oversight, and state-specific restrictions that limit its scope. To get a definitive answer, you’d need to check the most recent DOJ policies or legal updates beyond 2023, but based on the trends, the policy exists but is applied more cautiously than in 2017.

If you’re researching this for a specific case or jurisdiction, I recommend consulting current DOJ guidelines (available at justice.gov) or speaking with a legal expert, as state and federal laws can interact in complex ways. Let me know if you’d like help digging deeper into specific aspects!

Nobody is ok with civil asset forfeiture. But that is not being proposed nor will that be implemented under this EO. That’s FUD.

I want creative stacking like Saylor will provide them today.

Now deep staters can’t sell it. And if they can get Lummis to get her bill thru it survives the next Biden.