Not really my business if you and I pay different levels of attention to the world. In fact, I would expect that as I think we're different people. It's atypical as all hell, and given the ongoing Russian concerns is also surreal as all hell.Not a single mention of national security protocol is mentioned in the article, and it mentions he has also met alone with Macron and Modi.I think you and I have different definitions of plain sight.A dinner chat held in plain sight is the least the worlds concerns.
"Leaders who witnessed the meeting were “bemused, nonplussed, befuddled” by the animated conversation, held in full view — but apparently not within listening distance..."
For once, someone links a text document for you and you still fail elementary English.
I also think it laughable to compare Putin to Macron and Modi. It's all good, though: it just doesn't matter to Trump fans and we get that. Carry on: I'll just be in the background quietly watching the trainwreck.
Oh dear, you've gone full mr_punk now. Apparently it's OK to meet alone with other world leaders, but not Russia.
I feel like Increasingly Nervous Man should realize that the Republicans currently control Congress, and that largely is going to road-block any progress on holding Republicans accountable for anything. I'm sure McCain will furrow his brow once he gets back up to strength, but that's about it until they get forced into actually pretending like anything matters to them. Other than liberal tears, of course. Those are precious.Oh the scandals keep piling up. Drumpf is finished - Increasingly nervous man for the 14th time this year
The results of the Mueller investigation should be faaaaaaaaaascinating.
Would actually be great to see Trump impeached, I've said that before. Then you'll get Pence, and then another Dem President in 2020. Then you'll completely collapse as a nation and I'll be sitting here laughing.
Oh the scandals keep piling up. Drumpf is finished - Increasingly nervous man for the 14th time this year
EDIT: Winner of the fake newz infowars contest
So unlike Starhammer, I hate videos as a medium of information gather. The guy in the video is just a talking head and seems to be making money off of his videos which makes him more of an entertainer than a journalist.
FYI it's "S.1241", not SB 1241 which is in California, Arizona, TX, and other state senates. Very confusing for a moment when SB 1241 in California was talking about extreme fire risk management.
Reading up on it, they're worried about money laundering, e.g. through bit coin:
Bitcoin hates it:
Civil asset forfeitures varies in quality. As long as it's only done after conviction of related crimes, then it works. Most of time, it's been illegally performed after arrest, even before charges were levied.It would allow for civil asset forfeitures of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, and require users to declare cryptocurrency assets exceeding $10,000 whenever they cross the US border.
I have a feeling the declaration of assets at the U.S. border would stand up in courts.
One of the reasons they may want to pass this bill is because it's unclear if bitcoin is legally considered money:
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article91682102.htmlBut Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Teresa Mary Pooler ruled that Bitcoin was not backed by any government or bank, and was not “tangible wealth” and “cannot be hidden under a mattress like cash and gold bars.”
“The court is not an expert in economics; however, it is very clear, even to someone with limited knowledge in the area, the Bitcoin has a long way to go before it the equivalent of money,” Pooler wrote in an eight-page order.
In the EU and US are regularly looking for money laundering through bit coin:
Also panama papers and money launder with bit coins, shows it's not possible for large amounts of money:
Money laundering with Bitcoin can only work for small players
All the flake Bitcoin receives for abetting money laundering aside, is it actually possible to launder such huge amounts of money with Bitcoin?
The general consensus seem to be, no. There are mainly two areas where it seem to fail: scale of Bitcoin, and pseudo-anonymity.
So at the end, it seems bitcoin is currently not a viable funnel for funding terrorism, since only small amounts of money are possible. It may be used in part for terrorism.
It seems with the focus on civil asset forfeiture, it may be used illegally to steal money from poor and therefore legally weak drug dealers, who were arrested but not yet convicted.
However, it some decades, bit coin or something like it may become large enough to handle billions of dollars:Dominik Zynis, founder of a stealth company utilizing blockchain technology, agrees and says that it will probably take Bitcoin another 10-20 years to get to such a scale.