CZ’s Pardon: Not Just a Phone Call?! 🤔

by

Right. So, apparently Changpeng “CZ” Zhao’s pardon from Donald Trump wasn’t just a casual “Hey, you seem like a nice guy” over the phone. Honestly, you’d think in this day and age it might be, wouldn’t you? 🙄

Teresa Goody Guillén – and honestly, a name like that has to be good – has insisted the whole thing was terribly… proper. Multi-step review, involving the Justice Department and White House lawyers. Apparently, there’s paperwork. Who knew? 🤷‍♀️

The CZ Pardon: A Government Process (Apparently)

She was chatting on Anthony Pompliano’s podcast (sounds terribly exclusive, doesn’t it?), explaining how there was a formal application. Can you imagine? Like applying for a library card, but with potentially billions at stake.

“You have to write up the justification, and then a variety of people look through it,” she said. Honestly, it sounds exhausting. My justification for needing another glass of wine is rarely scrutinized to that extent.

The Justice Department’s pardon attorney, a dedicated pardon office (do they have a waiting room?), and the White House Counsel’s Office all had a look. Apparently, everything has to be “reviewed”. It’s quite a lot of effort, isn’t it?

“All of that review has to take place before it can be granted,” she added, stressing that the president then gives final approval. Because, you know, bureaucracy. 🤦‍♀️

Goody positioned the whole thing as a “regulatory matter”, which is PR-speak for “not actually a crime, just a bit of a mess”. Like accidentally leaving the milk out overnight.

“He was charged with Binance’s failure to implement and maintain anti-money laundering and compliance programs,” she said. “There’s no money laundering involved. It’s a compliance issue.” Oh, well, that’s alright then. Just a compliance issue.

Apparently, CZ was pardoned “because he never should have been prosecuted in the first place.” The audacity! It’s like being fined for wearing socks with sandals.

She then suggested that prosecuting CZ was wildly unfair. He’s the only executive ever punished for this type of thing. All the other big banks? They just get away with it. It’s simply not fair.

“Name your big financial institution,” she said, noting that banks have faced similar or worse violations. “We don’t see any of their CEOs being prosecuted. That never happens,” she argued. Double standards, obviously. The world is unfair. I need chocolate.

Goody then helpfully linked the whole sorry saga to a “war on crypto” following the FTX debacle. Regulators apparently needed a scapegoat, and Binance and CZ were “unfortunately” the chosen ones. Poor them. 🥺

Pay-to-Play? As If!

Then came the sticky bit: the rumors of dodgy deals. People have been hinting that connections between Binance and Trump-linked ventures might have influenced the pardon. The implication being it wasn’t down to pure, unadulterated justice, but rather, a bit of a… arrangement.

Goody, naturally, dismissed all this as “a pile up of false statements, misstatements and assumptions.” Which, you know, is what lawyers do. 😇

She denied that World Liberty Financial was “Trump’s company”, claiming she’d only seen some “emeritus references.” Which, I suspect, is lawyer-speak for “I don’t want to talk about it.”

And on the whole USD1 business? Apparently, it’s not a special relationship, just that the stablecoin happens to run on the same “public chain” as Binance. Like saying you and your ex share the same bus route. Doesn’t mean you’re getting back together. 💔

“Just because a stablecoin runs on a public chain does not mean there is a special relationship with its former CEO,” she said in substance. Very substantive.

She compared it to paying for things in a foreign currency, which, frankly, is a bit of a stretch, but alright.

Finally, there was the claim that some money had flowed back to Trump via MGX’s payment in USD1. Goody said it showed “a fundamental lack of understanding” of stablecoins. Apparently, they’re complicated, and people just don’t get them.

She maintained that if anything untoward had actually happened, the blockchain would have revealed it. Transparency! It’s a comfort, isn’t it?

“If that were the case, we would be seeing it tracked and reported in a verifiable way,” she said. Because blockchains are always infallible, aren’t they?

Apparently, CZ isn’t planning to return to Binance. Which is probably a good thing, given the whole looming regulatory mess. Binance remains under a Treasury-monitored compliance regime, even without US customers. Honestly, it all sounds dreadfully complicated. I need a nap.😴

Read More

2025-11-16 16:13