11–20 of 100 posts
Bitcoin seems to make everyone crazy. I guess if you're prone to theft and dishonesty, it must be tough to look at a folder on some confiscated PC with files worth tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars and not take them. Seems like everyday police corruption, like how drug dealers busted with thousands of dollars suddenly have a evidence locker inventory with zero cash. I'm glad the system is working, at least to…
SO they skimmed a tad off top instead of handing it all over to uncle fucking sam, who cares. Greedy ass gov. Like they would have put that money to good used anyways, right.
It's been said before... you can do a lot to harm the gov't, but never, never piss off the IRS. Uncle Sam doesn't take kindly to messing with his cash.
I wonder if the government buried this until after the Ulbricht trial was over. The fact that two of the investigators were corrupt and stealing funds could have derailed the case.
What difference would it have made?
I wonder if the government buried this until after the Ulbricht trial was over. The fact that two of the investigators were corrupt and stealing funds could have derailed the case.
I wonder if the government buried this until after the Ulbricht trial was over. The fact that two of the investigators were corrupt and stealing funds could have derailed the case.
What difference would it have made?
There was so much evidence against Ulbricht that it probably wouldn't have changed the outcome, but the fact that this is only now being brought to light is very suspicious.
I wonder if the government buried this until after the Ulbricht trial was over. The fact that two of the investigators were corrupt and stealing funds could have derailed the case.
What difference would it have made?
I wonder if the government buried this until after the Ulbricht trial was over. The fact that two of the investigators were corrupt and stealing funds could have derailed the case.
That hadn't even occurred to me. Is that something that prosecutors can even do? It seems legally and ethically suspect, but prosecutors seem to be unaccountable when it comes to that sort of tactic. I can imagine the prosecutors pretending it's not material because it's an "ongoing investigation" (that's purposely paused until the trial finishes), but it would be very interesting to know the complete timeline and se…
I wonder if the government buried this until after the Ulbricht trial was over. The fact that two of the investigators were corrupt and stealing funds could have derailed the case.
> The charges stem from the agents’ role in one of the federal investigations into Silk Road; a separate Manhattan-based investigation ultimately led to the filing of charges against the website’s founder, Ross W. Ulbricht, who was convicted last month on numerous counts. The website was also shut down by the authorities.
> The Baltimore investigation resulted in an indictment of Mr. Ulbricht on a charge of murder for hire, but that case has remained pending and the evidence in support of it was kept out of the New York trial, apparently because of the investigation into the agents.
However, I'm pretty sure the "murder for hire" trial is going to die quietly because of these agents.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That hadn't even occurred to me. Is that something that prosecutors can even do? It seems legally and ethically suspect, but prosecutors seem to be unaccountable when it comes to that sort of tactic. I can imagine the prosecutors pretending it's not material because it's an "ongoing investigation" (that's purposely paused until the trial finishes), but it would be very interesting to know the complete timeline and se…
If the agents are convicted, you'd think Ulbricht's lawyer could appeal to have his conviction overturned...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What difference would it have made?
IANAL, so hopefully someone more knowledgeable will chime in, but if you can show in court that a witness has comitted a crime you can show that they are not trustworthy and essentially impeach their testimony. There was so much evidence against Ulbricht that it probably wouldn't have changed the outcome, but the fact that this is only now being brought to light is very suspicious.
They were part of a separate case against Ulbricht. The one he was convicted on wasn't based on their evidence and/or testimony.