Is there more to the Sam Bankman-Fried story than we have learned about from court records?

A couple days ago, Elon Musk pointed out that 30 Silicon Valley barons had been abruptly 'debanked' without warning, their access to the entire banking system blocked, leaving them reduced to just cash-based transactions. Many were involved in cryptocurrency. They hadn't committed any crime, and they had no recourse to appeal.

That's interesting, because I searched around and found no evidence that former crypto bigshot Sam Bankman-Fried was ever debanked.

Would that be the same Sam Bankman-Fried who was the Democrat party's biggest donor, a donor so big his donations topped those of the House of Soros?

According to Reuters, citing the prosecutors who get him convicted of fraud, he donated $100 million to political campaigns in 2022, nearly all to Democrats, stealing the cash from his depositors for the purpose.

Did that guy ever get debanked? His rivals did. As far as I could tell, he didn't.

Funny how the topic didn't come up during the trial.

Musk's tweet was derived from an interview that Silicon Valley venture capitalist Marc Andreessen, a longtime Democrat donor who went for President Trump this time, gave to Joe Rogan. A summary of the three-hour interview is here at Fortune magazine and below on this tweet string:

Among those 11 things, the Biden administration had been discouraging the creation of artificial intelligence companies, because the government had plans for just three to survive, the better to control them as they had with social media.

What's more, AI will serve as the baseline for an emerging social credit system -- determining what you can buy, whether you can get a loan, what schools your kids get into, whether a door opens or not. China has nothing on these big plans.

The government, using the secret "politically exposed persons" label, requires banks to debank if they throw that word at them. One guy in Andreessen's firm got debanked for having 'crypto' in his job title. All access to the banking system was shut off to that unlucky group without any recourse to appeal, leaving him to deal in just cash-only transactions. Too bad if he wanted to rent a car at the airport.

The government also does it dirty work -- censorship, debanking, deplatforming -- through "public-private partnerships," meaning, NGOs on government contract. They serve as hitmen for the big guy behind the scenes (meaning, the government) for censorship, deplatforming, debanking, because they can't be seen with dirty hands.

Debanking arguably began with the IRS's assault on the Tea Party activists for their politics -- they were denied permits for tax-exempt status which swung the 2012 election to Barack Obama. Not one IRS deep-stater was punished for this naked partisanship and the profoundly partisan official at the head of this effort, Lois Lerner, was permitted to retire to her mansion in the Virginia horse country with full pension.

After that, much cruder debanking started popping up, first to gun dealers, and then pot shop owners -- large numbers of whom got debanked. A group called 'Gays against Groomers' had its PayPal account shut down, too. These weren't popular groups with those in the establishment, so the debankings drew little attention and nobody got punished for these anticonstitutional acts. That they got away with it only made them grow more ravenous.

They went to cryptocurrency next, hitting Silicon Valley at one of its investment hotspots. Bankman-Fried was right there with them when it started.

I'm no fan of cryptocurrency, which like pot, isn't a particularly good thing, given that it's just a ledger currency, but so long as it's legal, they have no business harassing it.

The debankings turned half of Silicon Valley against Democrats and toward Trump, Andreessen said.

Obviously, something very bad has been going on, like a Frankenstein's monster let loose and growing bigger.

Yet the truly worst figure in the crypto world, Bankman-Fried, apparently never had any problem accessing his bank account.

I searched, and didn't find any debanking under his name. Why was that?

Maybe the fact that he donated to Democrats at a level unlike any of the others?

If Congress were to call this miscreant in to start asking questions, some enlightening things could probably be uncovered.

Such as:

Does he know why he was never debanked?

Did someone in government tell him he'd be 'protected' from debanking if he paid off Democrats in big, big dollar amounts for their campaigns?

Did he start stealing from customer accounts to make those payments?

Is paying Democrats the only way one avoids shutdown by a government that is determined to have just two or three companies in every field, the better to control them?

Funny how all the campaign finance violations charges were dropped against him at the last minute, wasn't it?

It sounds like the stuff of conspiracy theories, yet Andreessen is a credible source who didn't get as rich as he is by trafficking conspiracy theories. If even half this is true, we have a monster on our hands that only President Trump can stop. January 20 can't come soon enough.

This is one of the most revolting stories of the deep state's abuse of power I've ever heard.

Image: Twitter / X screen shot