A Deputy Attorney General's Crypto Conundrum: A Conflict of Interest?
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche has been accused by six senators of having a glaring conflict of interest in shutting down investigations into cryptocurrency companies and eliminating an enforcement team dedicated to tackling crypto-related fraud and money-laundering schemes. The controversy began when it was revealed that Blanche, who oversees the Justice Department's cryptocurrency efforts, owned at least $159,000 worth of crypto-related assets.
Blanche's decision to scale back the department's cryptocurrency enforcement efforts was previously questioned by Democratic Senators Elizabeth Warren, Dick Durbin, and Mazie Hirono. In a letter dated this week, they claimed that Blanche's actions appeared to violate federal conflict-of-interest laws. The senators pointed to ProPublica investigations that showed Blanche held substantial amounts of cryptocurrency at the time he made his decision.
Blanche had signed an ethics agreement in February promising to divest himself of his cryptocurrency holdings within 90 days of confirmation. However, before doing so, he issued a memo halting investigations and disbanded the National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team. The senators argue that this decision created a conflict of interest, given Blanche's significant crypto holdings.
The six Democratic senators have now issued a series of questions demanding details about how and when Blanche's actions were cleared and by whom. They are also asking Blanche to provide any written determination he received about the legality of his crypto enforcement action and all communications with ethics and Justice Department officials about the issue.
Blanche, who was Trump's lead attorney in several high-profile cases, has been accused of having a history of self-serving behavior. His actions have raised concerns that his interests are being prioritized over those of the public. The investigation into Blanche's actions is ongoing, with the Campaign Legal Center and other watchdog groups pushing for greater transparency.
As the controversy surrounding Blanche continues to unfold, one thing is clear: the line between personal interest and public duty can be thin indeed in high-stakes government roles.
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche has been accused by six senators of having a glaring conflict of interest in shutting down investigations into cryptocurrency companies and eliminating an enforcement team dedicated to tackling crypto-related fraud and money-laundering schemes. The controversy began when it was revealed that Blanche, who oversees the Justice Department's cryptocurrency efforts, owned at least $159,000 worth of crypto-related assets.
Blanche's decision to scale back the department's cryptocurrency enforcement efforts was previously questioned by Democratic Senators Elizabeth Warren, Dick Durbin, and Mazie Hirono. In a letter dated this week, they claimed that Blanche's actions appeared to violate federal conflict-of-interest laws. The senators pointed to ProPublica investigations that showed Blanche held substantial amounts of cryptocurrency at the time he made his decision.
Blanche had signed an ethics agreement in February promising to divest himself of his cryptocurrency holdings within 90 days of confirmation. However, before doing so, he issued a memo halting investigations and disbanded the National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team. The senators argue that this decision created a conflict of interest, given Blanche's significant crypto holdings.
The six Democratic senators have now issued a series of questions demanding details about how and when Blanche's actions were cleared and by whom. They are also asking Blanche to provide any written determination he received about the legality of his crypto enforcement action and all communications with ethics and Justice Department officials about the issue.
Blanche, who was Trump's lead attorney in several high-profile cases, has been accused of having a history of self-serving behavior. His actions have raised concerns that his interests are being prioritized over those of the public. The investigation into Blanche's actions is ongoing, with the Campaign Legal Center and other watchdog groups pushing for greater transparency.
As the controversy surrounding Blanche continues to unfold, one thing is clear: the line between personal interest and public duty can be thin indeed in high-stakes government roles.
I'm low-key surprised this isn't a bigger deal yet. Like, if someone in our family or friends had done something similar, we'd all be like "WHAT DID HE DO?!?!" But for some dude in a suit to have that kinda money in crypto and then basically shut down an entire team is just... 
. And what's with the 90-day timeline? That sounds like a pretty convenient window of opportunity to make some moves. Not saying he definitely broke any laws, but it does smell like he might've been trying to curry favor for himself. 
i mean think about it if someone was making decisions that could affect millions of dollars worth of crypto companies and they were also holding like $159,000 worth of those same assets...that's a huge conflict of interest 
shouldn't they be, like, totally transparent about it? the fact that there are only 90 days to divest themselves after confirmation and still ended up making this big decision is just...weird 
and what's with all these questions from the senators? aren't they supposed to hold people in power accountable? 
the thing is, people are getting all worked up about this but we don't even know all the details yet 
what's with the ethics agreement too? did he just forget to follow his own rules or was it just a PR stunt? 
Anyway, more transparency would be good, in my humble opinion 
It's like, who decides what's okay and what's not in these situations? And where do we draw the line between public duty and personal ambition? It's all so... murky 
. As a parent, I'd want my child's interests prioritized over any personal gain - it's just basic fairness, you know? 
Todd Blanche's decision to scale back crypto enforcement efforts seems like a huge conflict of interest. It's like he's putting his own money on the line (literally) and putting the public's trust at risk 
. I'd want my kid to learn about the importance of ethics and transparency in their career, not how to play politics with their personal interests 
. newsflash: gov officials arent saints! 
. i mean, cant we just chill? 
. It's a slippery slope, man. One minute he's shuttin' down investigations, next thing you know, the whole department's got its hands in crypto 
This whole thing could be an opportunity for some real change 
. Maybe it'll spark some much-needed reforms or at least get people talkin' about crypto regulations 
. So, in a weird way, I guess I'm kinda glad this whole mess happened 
.
. The fact that he made a memo halting investigations and disbanded the team before selling his holdings within 90 days is straight-up sketchy 
.
. And now, with these senators asking for transparency, it's clear that someone needs to get their act together 
. I'm all for good governance and accountability 
!
. Like, have you ever tried making homemade pasta from scratch? It's so fun! You get to play with all the different shapes and sizes of noodles 
. I swear, it's like a little therapy session in there. My favorite part is when I'm trying out new flavors, like adding truffle oil or pesto... mmmmyum! Anyway, back to this crypto thingy... I don't really get why the senators are so upset, but I guess it's like, who gets to decide what's good for us? 
i mean, can u imagine having a role where u have personal interests conflicted w/ public duty? it's like, what even is the point of doin' this job if ur gonna put ur own $$$ first