Schiff's Crypto Hypocrisy: Millions Against Porter, Now a Presidential Ban?

Adam Schiff, a champion of ethics? Let's pump the brakes on that narrative. His latest crusade to ban presidents from dabbling in crypto certainly sounds well-meaning on the surface. It stinks of hypocrisy as thick as a San Francisco pea soup fog. Are we honestly to accept that this is all in the name of good governance, or is there something more insidious brewing under the surface?

$10 Million Silenced Crypto Regulation?

Let's not forget the elephant in the room: the reported $10 million spent against Katie Porter during the California primary. Porter, who has been critical of crypto and publicly called for more stringent regulation, soon found herself in the middle of an unexpected financial barrage. The answer? Deep-pocketed interests from the crypto world, apparently intent on preventing a regulatory hawk from taking over.

To cut him off from such financial freedoms, Schiff now introduces the COIN Act, aiming to stop President Trump from tweeting himself to crypto riches. Read beneath the surface, and it’s really about stifling any dissent or disagreement. You’ve got to ask yourself, is this new-found concern about crypto’s influence sincere, or just a politically expedient scapegoat? Was the $4 million that got spent to defeat Porter’s effort to bring some regulation to crypto really enough to turn Schiff’s current position? I’m not arguing it did, but it’s the question that has to be asked. That’s a fair question to ask – particularly given that the Stand with Crypto Alliance scores Schiff as strongly supportive of the industry.

Think about it like this: It's like a tobacco company funding anti-smoking campaigns after decades of denying the health risks of cigarettes. The timing is very convenient, and the motives should be questioned.

COIN Act Targets Trump Specifically?

Let's be real, the COIN Act has one name written all over it: Trump. Schiff went on the record multiple times to warn against Trump using the power of the presidency to enrich himself with cryptocurrency profits. And though preventing presidential profiteering is certainly a laudable aspiration, the immensely Trump-focused nature of this effort gives pause.

Why now? Why this specific bill? Might this be a perfectly-planned move to kneecap a political rival cloaked in the noble appearance of ethics reform? This isn’t even a discussion about protecting the American people from systemic corruption, this is not even disguised as an attack like that.

The "heightened threat environment" warnings following Trump's actions against Iran, the ongoing debate around the 2017 Trump tax cuts, even Elon Musk’s criticisms of Trump's proposed tax bill – it all feeds into the narrative of a politically charged environment. Schiff’s bill, despite possibly well-intentioned intentions, falls victim to this broader crossfire.

Trump's potential foray into crypto could be seen as a disruptive force, challenging the established financial order. Is Schiff’s bill, therefore, unintentionally shielding that same system from accountability?

Where Was Schiff on GENIUS Act?

The Senate just passed the GENIUS Act, a bill aimed at regulating stablecoins and integrating digital assets into the U.S. financial system. Schiff even attempted to add his cryptocurrency prohibition amendment, but it was defeated.

So, where was Schiff’s outrage on this issue until Trump’s possible involvement turned it into a media-friendly controversy. Was he really pushing for broad reforms to address the fundamental dangers of crypto? Or was he just content to let the industry police itself until a political windfall fell in his lap?

And then there’s Fiserv, the payment giant, rolling out its own stablecoin, FIUSD. One of the world’s largest financial institutions is on a new crypto adventure, and it’s worth a surprise. This good news appears to be overshadowed as all eyes are diverted to the Trump-centric drama. Is this not another example of the shiny object (Trump) distracting from the more important long-term goal?

Look, I'm not against ethical governance. We need it. But when a politician's actions seem to contradict their past behavior and financial backing, it's our duty to ask tough questions. Is Schiff really concerned for the integrity of the presidency? Or is he simply playing crypto like a pawn in his political playground chess game? You decide.

Look, I'm not against ethical governance. We need it. But when a politician's actions seem to contradict their past behavior and financial backing, it's our duty to ask tough questions. Is Schiff truly concerned about the integrity of the presidency, or is he playing a political game with crypto as the pawn? You decide.