This shows the actual value of Substack's like Popular Information. My knowledge of "legalese" (like most Americans) is/was pretty close to zero. Having it restated in regular speak is vital. I only wish this type of interpretation was a regular feature of legislation moving forward - as a method to ensure transparency.
Only in America 2026 where the governing philosophy is corruption would this even be on the agenda. NO Americans put crypto at the top of their agendas, and yet Washington is consumed by this. I wonder why. If this passes with Dem votes, it just goes to show that the opposition party as currently constructed is useless and worthy of the low approval ratings the public gives it.
OK, but I”m not sure why “if” and “Dems” are your take away from the article which says regarding Dems and votes to pass it:
“Concerns about Trump using the legislation to further enrich himself have been the principal obstacle to the Clarity Act’s passage in the Senate. The bill needs at least 60 votes, requiring a minimum of seven Democrats, to clear the Senate. Democrats and Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) have said they will oppose the bill unless it curbs Trump’s profiteering. A key procedural vote is expected to occur Tuesday.”
Today is Tuesday & the votes are in. NPR headline:
A Trump-backed crypto bill just suffered a bruising defeat in the Senate. Here's why
“The Clarity Act — officially called the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act — has been at the top of the crypto sector's wish list for years. But on Tuesday, the bill failed to clear a key procedural hurdle following entrenched Democratic opposition.”
Trump self enrichment, emoluments violations & institutionalization of kleptocracy is endless. How much grifting & fraud is too much?
In the meantime, be very afraid of imaginary, nonexistent voter fraud, "violent" reflecting pool vandals & the most dangerous enemies within...Dems & other critics.
635 pages does not equal clarity, especially on something as difficult and opaque as cryptocurrency. Crypto is outlaw, let them stay that way. If people want to invest in risks, let them do so BUT do not back those ventures with U.S. Treasury money which is what, I assume, this act does. It does not protect consumers, it protects the finance bros.
This is about having weak enforcement over the “industry” (and exempt certain people) while giving the appearance of respectability, safety & the government’s stamp oflegitimacy.
“… the Clarity Act assigns most regulatory responsibility to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), a small agency with a permissive approach to industry oversight, instead of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which has a much more rigorous approach to regulation and enforcement.”
Everyone has a meltdown over Congress members trading stocks. Especially Drumpf. Meanwhile, according to Bloomberg: The total for members of the House + Senate in a 17 month period: roughly 22,200 transactions. (535 members). Drumpf or his wealth managers made nearly 28,700 trades during that 17 months.
GOPers have a solution, the Stop Insider Trading Act. Naturally there’s a catch. The restrictions in the bill would not apply to the president OR executive branch leadership.
If you look in the article for any mention of Dems you’ll see their opposition & Tillis are the obstacles to it getting to the floor. The procedural vote happened today and they couldn’t get the votes: NPR - “ 50 senators voted "no," including all Democrats and four Republicans: Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, Josh Hawley of Missouri, Jerry Moran of Kansas and Thom Tillis of North Carolina”
It may come up again because Tillis passed a motion making allowing it to come up again. Even if it passed somehow, the Senate changed the House Bill so it wouldn’t have to go back to the House.
My own senator, in addition to one other i know of, is a big crypto supporter/ beneficiary of their billions and at one point was in support of this bill. You can bet he heard from me and thousands of my fellow Arizonans. Can't prove it helped him change his tune but he did ultimately vote no.
Yes, it does pay to keep our eyes on our legislators & make sure they get our feedback. Not that it matters much with my 2 senators — Mitch (for now) and Rand Paul. RP quit responding to me when I sent an email excoriating his actions re: the ‘show trial’ hearing & Dr. Fauci. LOL. He’s another one who believes in rules for me & not for thee - from medical certifications to reporting his stock trades.
Schumer tried to get Dems in the Senate to unite last year on not passing regulatory legislation (crypto specifically) bills that exempted the president. Mixed success. This year, I suspect, data centers ignited something big enough to make many of them fear for their own survival without a lot of encouragement.
Again, Congress does not need, by voting for this bill, to prove how corrupt they are. The very fact that they are willing to vote for this is enough. And they will vote for this. Maybe not after the midterms when some might find their withered testicles in the drawer where they left them but nah, they are stinky with corruption already.
Thank you for reading the 635 opaque pages so that I can continue to frivolously read my mystery novels...it's a mystery to me why we continue to allow these dodgy schemes to get official imprimatur. My gratitude for your services to truth and transparency.
Thank you for bringing actual clarity to the Clarity Act.
This shows the actual value of Substack's like Popular Information. My knowledge of "legalese" (like most Americans) is/was pretty close to zero. Having it restated in regular speak is vital. I only wish this type of interpretation was a regular feature of legislation moving forward - as a method to ensure transparency.
Indeed, with this post alone you've justified my upcoming annual subscription renewal. Thank you for your good work!
Only in America 2026 where the governing philosophy is corruption would this even be on the agenda. NO Americans put crypto at the top of their agendas, and yet Washington is consumed by this. I wonder why. If this passes with Dem votes, it just goes to show that the opposition party as currently constructed is useless and worthy of the low approval ratings the public gives it.
Congress does not need to pass this bill to deserve the disgust we the people feel for them. Our animus is current, real and deep.
OK, but I”m not sure why “if” and “Dems” are your take away from the article which says regarding Dems and votes to pass it:
“Concerns about Trump using the legislation to further enrich himself have been the principal obstacle to the Clarity Act’s passage in the Senate. The bill needs at least 60 votes, requiring a minimum of seven Democrats, to clear the Senate. Democrats and Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) have said they will oppose the bill unless it curbs Trump’s profiteering. A key procedural vote is expected to occur Tuesday.”
Today is Tuesday & the votes are in. NPR headline:
A Trump-backed crypto bill just suffered a bruising defeat in the Senate. Here's why
“The Clarity Act — officially called the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act — has been at the top of the crypto sector's wish list for years. But on Tuesday, the bill failed to clear a key procedural hurdle following entrenched Democratic opposition.”
Money is power.
Those in power have money.
That’s the feedback loop.
Trump self enrichment, emoluments violations & institutionalization of kleptocracy is endless. How much grifting & fraud is too much?
In the meantime, be very afraid of imaginary, nonexistent voter fraud, "violent" reflecting pool vandals & the most dangerous enemies within...Dems & other critics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egwWHOCAuBE
Free gas? https://bsky.app/profile/jefftrnka.bsky.social/post/3mvcwljm4m22v
Kimmel Talarico https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLDE9LrGpNk
Please bring on a Blue Tsunami. #VoteBlue!
635 pages does not equal clarity, especially on something as difficult and opaque as cryptocurrency. Crypto is outlaw, let them stay that way. If people want to invest in risks, let them do so BUT do not back those ventures with U.S. Treasury money which is what, I assume, this act does. It does not protect consumers, it protects the finance bros.
This is about having weak enforcement over the “industry” (and exempt certain people) while giving the appearance of respectability, safety & the government’s stamp oflegitimacy.
“… the Clarity Act assigns most regulatory responsibility to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), a small agency with a permissive approach to industry oversight, instead of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which has a much more rigorous approach to regulation and enforcement.”
Everyone has a meltdown over Congress members trading stocks. Especially Drumpf. Meanwhile, according to Bloomberg: The total for members of the House + Senate in a 17 month period: roughly 22,200 transactions. (535 members). Drumpf or his wealth managers made nearly 28,700 trades during that 17 months.
GOPers have a solution, the Stop Insider Trading Act. Naturally there’s a catch. The restrictions in the bill would not apply to the president OR executive branch leadership.
Thanks as always… focused, pointed at the continued self serving rot of Repugs and Potus.
Money, money, money. That is all tRump thinks about, aside from power.
Has anyone called out this Cynthia Loomis for her boldfaced lies?!
Thanks for this reporting. I was in the dark on this.
Once again this is critical reporting that goes deeper than traditional outlets and paints the full picture
Every Democratic Senator needs to hear from us, loudly and daily. We need to make sure we help them stiffen their jelly spines.
Thank you, Judd, for keeping on top of this! 💙
If you look in the article for any mention of Dems you’ll see their opposition & Tillis are the obstacles to it getting to the floor. The procedural vote happened today and they couldn’t get the votes: NPR - “ 50 senators voted "no," including all Democrats and four Republicans: Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, Josh Hawley of Missouri, Jerry Moran of Kansas and Thom Tillis of North Carolina”
It may come up again because Tillis passed a motion making allowing it to come up again. Even if it passed somehow, the Senate changed the House Bill so it wouldn’t have to go back to the House.
My own senator, in addition to one other i know of, is a big crypto supporter/ beneficiary of their billions and at one point was in support of this bill. You can bet he heard from me and thousands of my fellow Arizonans. Can't prove it helped him change his tune but he did ultimately vote no.
You're welcome.
Yes, it does pay to keep our eyes on our legislators & make sure they get our feedback. Not that it matters much with my 2 senators — Mitch (for now) and Rand Paul. RP quit responding to me when I sent an email excoriating his actions re: the ‘show trial’ hearing & Dr. Fauci. LOL. He’s another one who believes in rules for me & not for thee - from medical certifications to reporting his stock trades.
Schumer tried to get Dems in the Senate to unite last year on not passing regulatory legislation (crypto specifically) bills that exempted the president. Mixed success. This year, I suspect, data centers ignited something big enough to make many of them fear for their own survival without a lot of encouragement.
The grifter just keeps on grifting.
This is SO corrupt and everyone in congress who votes for this should lose their jobs!!!
Again, Congress does not need, by voting for this bill, to prove how corrupt they are. The very fact that they are willing to vote for this is enough. And they will vote for this. Maybe not after the midterms when some might find their withered testicles in the drawer where they left them but nah, they are stinky with corruption already.
Asking trump to be ethical is ridiculous. He'll say 'okay', and that will be the end of any ethical behavior on his part.
Judd, Echoing what Joseph Mangano has written…We Thank You !
Thank you for reading the 635 opaque pages so that I can continue to frivolously read my mystery novels...it's a mystery to me why we continue to allow these dodgy schemes to get official imprimatur. My gratitude for your services to truth and transparency.