abigail95

Time to figure out how to use Gemini

Your position is that none of your banking information was linked to this investigation?

This is worse than the SBF denial, do better, post a full on substack about how they didn't link you to a bitcoin address.

Do we really only catch the laziest hackers? The opsec is shocking.

A pump and dump has to be false, misleading or deceptive. This is not the case here.

Edit: I have now read some of the complaint. This is just sec fraud, which is consistent with what the article is claiming. "The opposite of insider trading" ie trading in the direction of the advice you're giving.

Gov says the statements were material, false, with intent. If they can't prove false to the level of being a material statement they will lose.

Edit2: This comes right up to the line, whether it's material to have false/non-statements about your intentions. There's another case that will come up if you research this about whether intentions are material.

Where are you people getting your information that the USA somehow has idle heavy oil processing despite record production levels?

How much of that do you think is idle?

Are you from South America? Do you think the neighboring countries are happy about all the Venezuelan refugees? What about Guyana - do you think they would join sanctions in support of Venezuela?

Military intervention? Some farmers with sticks?

Do you even know what the Rio Treaty is?

The Constitution isn't that long - state the violations here plainly for all of us to see and critique.

Name the things

If you have the view that all military action is bad - you will remain as confused as you are right now.

A more mainstream view has a different opinion.

How did you measure that? Are you just making this stuff up? Where did you read or experience it? Are you Russian?

Man, the guy probably broke a ton of Venezuelan and American laws. Maduro is responsible for the break down in diplomacy - what did he think was going to happen if he kept breaking the law?

There's no extradition treaty - how else does the USA bring him to trial?

Go to the courthouse when he gets convicted and yell about how clearly illegal it all is. You'll look like a nutcase. I'll just celebrate that he's going to die in prison.

What law are they breaking by forcefully extracting a criminal? Why does he get away with it because he's a president? He's not even the president of Venezuela, it's disputed - chiefly by Venezuelan's themselves.

Now we get to hold him to account in an open court. This is just good ass news. You don't get to declare the whole thing illegal and unjustified.

He will get returned in 20 years and probably tried for murder by the people he repressed.

Finally - he's a really cool thing about the US legal system, if his rendition was illegal, as you say, he can claim that in court. It won't work because it wasn't.

Put your bet here re: oil inflows from Venezuela to the USA.

Put a number on it. Stop talking shit.

You don't know what the ICC is for. It absolutely cannot stop the USA from trying him for breaking domestic USA law. That is a foundational principle of what it is.

Doesn't move the needle at all. FX to be determined by what bond markets think about the supply/demand of treasury bonds.

They don't have an extradition treaty so they took him. What Maduro was doing was illegal in Venezuela too.

If you can give me an argument about why it's illegal or improper to try Maduro in a USA court for crimes he committed against the USA, like drug trafficking, I would love to hear it.

If you think the extraction itself was illegal - under what law? What do you think a military is for? If you have a military to defend your country and capture a criminal who you then try for laws that he broke - this seems like a good reason to have a military.

Under normal circumstances - diplomatic relations can solve this, but the consequences of breaking diplomacy is that the only way to get criminals into court is military/CIA. It's not diplomacy or nothing, that's not the world I want to live in, that's Neville Chamberlain theory.

You need to understand marginal economics and why China will have to pay slightly more for oil as a result of this. Resulting in China having less money to spend on other things.

Plenty of things are fungible, that doesn't eliminate scarcity.

Is your opinion that we're going to get less oil and less democracy? It seems likely the opposite would be true.

Venezuela GDP is all upside - it's practically a free lunch if they stop punching themselves in the face.

Australians are hoping he continues being stupid with our trade agreement so we can get a better one.

The Australians made China blink - I don't have any worries about them.

What international law is being broken here? And why does that law take precedence over the laws of Venezuela and USA?

China survives and thrives because someone as dumb as you isn't the one running it. What the actual fuck are you saying?

China loses an ally and influence so they decide to flip the table? OK Buddy.

He has delegated authority, from congress, to do this. Rephrase please. This is not abdication. Are you a Chevron deference die hard too? Yes the executive and legislature didn't turn out exactly as the framers intended - deal with it in healthier ways than calling him a dictator.

You misunderstand unitary executive theory. It's not completely settled law but most of it is and requires your own interpretation of Vesting - but that has nothing to do with what happened in Venezuela so I'm not sure why you bring this up.

Unitary executive is about executive power. Go read some opinions about it, even the 5-4 opinions don't have much daylight between them. If you can cite AUMF you can read judicial review of the executive. It is so annoying to have taken the time to read these things and then come across some nitwit saying unitary executive is a softer way of saying dictator. Go say that in a law school.

Wtf kind of dumbass answer is this. It's not even out of character for the USA to do this.

The brain-rot seeping from this comment.

The guy committed crimes in Venezuela and USA. Now he's going to be tried for him. They could have just killed him - they didn't. He will be tried and spend the rest of his life in prison.

And for cleanly executing that we have people talking about an emperor and disbanded congress.

They extradited a guy for crimes also illegal in Venezuela. What would the point of sanctioning actions like this be?

This is about the cleanest extraterritorial action you can take. A guy probably did some seriously illegal stuff in your country and his, who was probably illegally elected, who probably had people killed.

Why not do this? Why not say to Venezuela, hand him over or we'll take him ourselves?

He's not going to gitmo, he'll have the same due process that every other American gets. Rights Maduro denied to millions. If you asked me to describe "justice" - I have to give this as a good example. He's going to die in prison like Noriega, after a fair trial.

how can you possibly make such a call so early on

tell me the direction the bond market moves then, and show me your positions. this is the dumbest thing i've read in this thread.

show positions or go away; skin in the game

If they have evidence he violated US law smuggling weapons and drugs into the domestic USA, he should be tried under such law. It's neither ironic, funny, strange, or anything else. What law should he be tried under if he did these alleged things?

They extradited him by force because Venezuela wouldn't. They don't have an extradition treaty. If Venezuela doesn't want this to happen again - negotiate a treaty.

The USA doesn't "accept" the ICC because it's not a party to the agreement. There are not-insignificant constitutional problems with the USA being a party. It's because they have such strong civil protections that those issues come up.

The ICC is also complementary - you misunderstand what it is for. If the USA is able to prosecute this guy themselves, you don't need an ICC, because it doesn't apply in this case.

In my country my number is legally mine for I think 60 days after I stop paying for it or something happens like a faulty transfer. I don't have that issue either.