Obama DOJ initiative became political de-banking scheme, Netscape co-founder Marc Andreessen tells Joe Rogan



Brexiteer Nigel Farage was de-banked last year for political reasons. While acknowledging he was a commercially viable customer, Coutts bank, part of the NatWest Group, dropped the British politician because of his comparison of Black Lives Matter rioters to the Taliban; his criticism of climate alarmism and his suggestion that "net zero is net stupid"; his "endorsements of Donald Trump"; and other expressions thought unpalatable by the powers that be.

Although Britain has done its best in recent months to clamp down on perceived wrong think, including silent prayer, it is hardly exceptional when it comes to the practice of de-banking.

Marc Andreessen, co-founder of Netscape and general partner at the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, recently told Joe Rogan that scores of tech founders have been de-banked under the Biden administration through a coordinated and politically motivated effort he referred to as "Operation Choke Point 2.0," an apparent update on a scandalous Obama Department of Justice initiative. In the days since the interview, numerous crypto entrepreneurs have gone online with their own de-banking tales.

The 'wrong politics'

After explaining that "de-banking is when you, as either a person or your company, are literally kicked out of the banking system," Andreessen told Rogan that it has hit close to home — his business partner's father was de-banked.

When asked why David Horowitz, a critic of Islamic and leftist extremism, would have been de-banked, Andreessen said, "For having the wrong politics. For saying unacceptable things."

"I mean, David Horowitz is, you know — he's pro-Trump," said Andreessen. "I mean, he's said all kinds of things. You know, he's been very anti-Islamic terrorism. He's been very worried about immigration, all these things."

Other individuals and groups who have been de-banked in recent years were similarly on the right, which may explain why the Southern Poverty Law Center has defended the practice.

'There's no constitutional amendment that says the government can't de-bank you.'

In September 2023, Bank of America de-banked John Eastman, founding director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence and one of the attorneys also targeted by the 65 Project for his work with President-elect Donald Trump. Two months later, USAAA Federal Saving Bank similarly de-banked him.

Former Nebraska state Treasurer John Murante (R) noted in an op-ed last year that Chase had de-banked multiple individuals and organizations — including the Arkansas Family Council, Defense of Liberty, and retired general Michael Flynn Jr. — over "mainstream American views."

Months after JPMorgan Chase canceled the checking account for former Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback's faith-based nonprofit National Committee for Religious Freedom, Brownback reportedly received an email from Chase indicating that he was a "politically exposed person."

"Under current banking regulations, after all the reforms of the last 20 years, there's now a category called a 'politically exposed person,' PEP," Andreessen told Rogan. "You are required by financial regulators to kick them off, to kick them out of your bank. You're not allowed to have them."

According to a 2021 Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council document, the "term PEP is commonly used in the financial industry to refer to foreign individuals who are or have been entrusted with a prominent public function, as well as to their immediate family members and close associates." The term has also been applied to domestic individuals similarly entrusted with prominent public functions.

The Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering, an international outfit hosted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, noted in its own definition that due to their position and influence, many PEPs "are in positions that potentially can be abused for the purpose of committing money laundering offences and related predicate offenses, including corruption and bribery, as well as conducting activity related to terrorist financing."

Andreessen suggested that the de-banking of domestic PEPs tends to go only one way, noting, "I have not heard of a single instance of anyone on the left getting de-banked."

A private-public scheme

The tech entrepreneur explained that this politically unidirectional mechanism is wielded by a combination of governmental and private forces.

"There's a constitutional amendment that says the government can't restrict your speech, but there's no constitutional amendment that says the government can't de-bank you," said Andreessen.

The government leans on private banking institutions to do its dirty work, which gives it the benefit of distance, such that "the government gets to say, 'We didn't do it. It was the private company that did it, and of course, JPMorgan can decide who they want to have as customers.'"

Andreessen characterized the political persecution scheme as a "privatized sanctions regime that lets bureaucrats do to American citizens the same thing that we do to Iran: Just kick you out of the financial system."

According to Andreessen, this "regime" has been targeting numerous crypto entrepreneurs since President Joe Biden took office.

'It's just raw administrative power.'

"This has been happening to a lot of the fin-tech entrepreneurs, anybody trying to start any kind of new banking service, because they're trying to protect the big banks," said Andreessen. "This has been happening, by the way, also in legal fields of economic activity that they don't like."

Thanks, Obama

Andreessen suggested that this coordinated effort to crush perceived political adversaries through monetary pressures kicked off in earnest "about 15 years ago with this thing called Operation Choke Point."

Jeremy Tedesco, senior counsel and senior vice president of corporate engagement at the Alliance Defending Freedom, told members of the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government in March:

In the now infamous Operation Choke Point, President Obama's DOJ and FDIC spearheaded a multi-agency initiative to target legal industries like firearms dealers, tobacco sellers, dating services, coin dealers, and payday lenders. After a group of payday lenders sued the FDIC, litigation filings and subsequent federal oversight offered a rare look into the world of financial regulation. The FDIC expanded "reputational risk" to include "any negative publicity involving the third party." It then worked in conjunction with the DOJ and other agencies to pressure financial institutions to deny service to disfavored industries. The DOJ issued over 60 subpoenas; the FDIC and OCC issued related guidance on the reputation risk presented by payment processing for these entities; and the FDIC listed the above businesses as "high-risk businesses," all with the intent to cut off banking access to these industries.

Andreessen suggested that the Biden administration extended the concept to apply to political opponents as well as to crypto and tech entrepreneurs.

"Choke Point 2.0 is primarily against their political enemies and then to their disfavored tech startups," said Andreessen. "And it's hit the tech world hard. We've had like 30 founders de-banked in the last four years."

According to the tech entrepreneur, those he knows who have been de-banked effectively had to reinvent themselves or get creative with where they put their money to "try to get away from the eye of Sauron."

Tyler Winklevoss, co-founder of Gemini, noted after Elon Musk highlighted Andreessen's comments that he was de-banked and suggested that there have likely been far more than 30 individuals de-banked in the burgeoning industry.

"Totally unlawful, evil behavior," said Winklevoss.

Brian Armstrong, co-founder and CEO of Coinbase, responded to Andreessen's claims, noting, "Can confirm this is true. It was one one of the most unethical and un-American things that happened in the Biden administration, and my guess is we'll find Elizabeth Warren's fingerprints all over it (Biden himself was probably unaware). We're still collecting documents via FOIA requests, so hopefully the full story emerges of who was involved and whether they broke any laws."

Konstantin Richter, CEO of Blockdaemon, claimed that Bank of America similarly cut his organization loose.

The nature of de-banking leaves victims with few or no means to seek remedy.

"You can't go sue a regulator to fix this. It's not through any kind of court judgment. It's just raw power. It's just raw administrative power," said Andreessen. "It's the government or politicians just deciding that things are going to be a certain way, and then they just apply pressure until they get it."

To make matters worse, "There are no fingerprints," said Andreessen. Those behind the de-banking are virtually untouchable.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Civil forfeiture turns lives upside down, ruins families — just like mine



In his recent appearance on “The Joe Rogan Experience,” legendary investor Marc Andreessen alleged that the Biden administration had secretly “debanked” — that is, closed the bank accounts of — tech founders, crypto founders, and “just generally political opponents.”

“We can’t live in a world where somebody starts a company that’s a completely legal thing and then they literally get sanctioned,” Andreessen said.

If this is news to you, I have a quite story to tell you. It isn’t just tech founders backed by billionaires running into trouble with the small matter of holding on to their money. Let me introduce you to the practice of “civil forfeiture,” which allows law enforcement to seize your assets without a criminal conviction — or even a criminal charge. Yes, the government can take away all of your things based on the mere suspicion that your assets are tied to criminal activity. And if the government takes your money, the burden is on you to prove it is innocent.

Due process ensures I cannot be imprisoned without a jury of my peers finding me guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Why, then, can my money be taken without the same protections?

In fact, over the past two decades, state and federal governments together have seized over $68.8 billion from Americans. Why haven’t you heard of it? Both anecdotes and statistics tell the story that civil forfeiture is deployed disproportionately against people of color, low-income Americans, and immigrants. The proceeds, in turn, fund law enforcement agencies, providing further incentive to seize more and more.

I can tell you this story because I’ve lived it. Back during the first pandemic summer, I woke one morning to pounding on the glass of my home. I walked to the door with the youngest of my four daughters riding on my hip in a diaper. The unwelcome visitors were wearing their FBI raid jackets. “Open the door!” they shouted. “Warrant!” But the four agents with guns going through my house weren’t my main concern. Two weeks prior, federal prosecutors obtained a different kind of warrant that left us penniless and powerless to defend ourselves from an oncoming legal nightmare.

In 2020, Amazon Web Services accused my husband of a federal crime we’d never heard of: depriving the company of his “honest services” during and after his seven years of employment with the tech titan. Based on Amazon’s allegations, the government then authorized civil forfeiture and seized our family and business bank accounts — including my earnings as the CEO of my startup, the Riveter, and savings from my decade as an attorney.

Fast-forward four years. My husband was never charged with any crime, a federal judge in a related civil case ruled that my husband had complied with the “explicit terms” of Amazon’s employment contract, the Justice Department closed its investigation, and the government returned 85% of the money it took from us — so long as we promised not to sue.

Somehow, this series of events is legal in America.

But the seizure has forever changed our lives. We sold our home, sold our car, and emptied my husband’s retirement account — just to pay our lawyers. Our family of six spent over a year moving between my sister’s basement, my father-in-law’s condo, and my parents’ townhouse, while our girls have attended six different schools and day-care providers in four separate states. When we tried to rent a house for our family, the owner learned of the forfeiture online and required us to pay a year of rent up front. The case’s publicity has obviously devastated my husband’s career but also mine.

For most of American history, civil forfeiture remained a little-known practice. At the time of the nation’s founding, authorities used it primarily to confiscate ships and cargo that violated customs duties. Today, civil forfeiture has gained widespread popularity among law enforcement because, like debanking, it allows the government to seize assets without proving wrongdoing.

Prosecutors gain tremendous leverage by seizing assets. Today, federal prosecutors secure 97% of criminal convictions through guilty pleas rather than trials. Civil forfeiture amplifies this power by leaving defendants unable to afford an attorney to fight back in court — or even provide for their families. Facing such pressure, many defendants fold and accept plea deals, regardless of their innocence. Numerous legal scholars have documented the high rate of guilty pleas among innocent defendants. This dynamic played out in the Justice Department’s investigation of my husband, where prosecutors ultimately vacated multiple guilty pleas from his alleged co-conspirators, saying they were “not in the interest of justice.” Without the threat of forfeiture, would these innocent men have pleaded guilty in the first place?

Bipartisan support for civil forfeiture reform continues to grow. Due process, the only right guaranteed twice by the Constitution, ensures that I cannot be imprisoned without a jury of my peers finding me guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Why, then, can my money be taken without the same protections? How does due process exist when a government official submits secret allegations made by a private company to a judge without giving me the chance to review or contest those claims?

My family’s story adds another twist to the devastating use of civil forfeiture in America: Here, former FBI and Justice Department employees who now work for Amazon leveraged cozy relationships with their former federal offices to lobby the government to pursue criminal charges and a civil forfeiture case. Indeed, the government’s top prosecutor assured Amazon’s counsel — after Amazon asked for a criminal investigation — that she had specifically “selected” two of her “very best prosecutors” for his “client’s important matter.”

We need reform to protect not just tech founders and political opponents, but folks like me who have been victimized by the unjust practice of civil forfeiture. I don’t know what will happen to my family. While the government’s investigation is closed, prosecutors are now fighting to keep key documents related to its seizure forever under seal, and they’ve failed to return hundreds of thousands of dollars they took all those years ago. But I do know that if our Constitution still means anything today, we must end civil forfeiture.

Melania Trump reveals personal de-banking experience: Is your financial freedom at risk?



In a revealing Sunday interview with Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo, former first lady Melania Trump revealed some of the political backlash she has faced as the wife of embattled former President Donald Trump.

First lady Trump revealed that “the bank suddenly informed me they will not be able to do business with me anymore.” She also claimed that an “email distribution service provider just rapidly terminated my agreement.”

As Farage himself pointed out, 'This is serious political persecution at the very highest level of our system. If they can do it to me, they can do it to you, too.'

These instances of disenfranchising people may seem only to affect the individuals, but the practice of de-banking has broader consequences as well.

She also detailed an incident with a university involving a philanthropic effort. She was donating money to help foster students gain access to scholarships. The university initially accepted her donation but, upon learning her identity, refused to accept her contribution. In this incident, Melania said, “They didn’t want to do business with me because of political affiliation, my political beliefs.”

Organizations refusing to associate with individuals over political differences is not a one-off occurrence with the former first lady; rather, this shows how ubiquitous this practice has become in our current political climate.

For example, Alliance Defending Freedom’s Jay Hobbs described a disturbing trend among banks that shut down organizations that differ from them in political or religious belief. He detailed an incident involving Bank of America and Indigenous Advance Ministries, a “charity [that] serves widows and orphans in Uganda, helping to meet basic physical needs while striving to equip and strengthen Christians to share the Gospel with their fellow Ugandans.” Bank of America informed the charity that it no longer wished to associate with Indigenous Advance’s “business type” because it exceeded the “bank’s risk tolerance.” This caused many headaches and inconveniences for the organization, which was preparing for an upcoming trip to help the widows and orphans.

De-banking was brought to more people's attention when, in 2023, Nigel Farage, a figurehead of the U.K. Independence Party, claimed that his banks in the U.K. were closing his accounts. There is a great deal of evidence that his bank, Coutts, did intend to “exit” Farage as a customer, including some inside communications released in a dossier and obtained by Farage. These communications included statements about him, citing “significant reputational risks of being associated with him” and that his opinions were “at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation.”

Apparently, Nigel Farage holds beliefs contrary to those deemed acceptable by the banks with which he freely associated. His bank closed his account simply because it was a “bad look” to continue this association. These incidents have many worrying consequences in our heated political climate. As Farage himself pointed out, “This is serious political persecution at the very highest level of our system. If they can do it to me, they can do it to you, too.”

De-banking is a serious issue that is becoming increasingly widespread. It affects political leaders and actors and trickles down to private citizens associated with political figures, their philanthropic efforts, and legitimate charities. This de-banking effort is a clear weaponization of legitimate banking practice for political and religious purposes, and organizations that engage in this behavior need to be held accountable if real politics are to continue.

If Elected, Kamala Harris Would Be The Most Anti-Gun President In U.S. History

Whether it's a national gun registry or regulations that will put gunmakers out of business, Harris is working to end legal gun ownership.

USAA Scorns Its Trump-Voting Members By Debanking The Lawyer Who Defended Him

[rebelmouse-proxy-image https://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Screenshot-2024-04-24-at-4.46.22 PM-1200x675.png crop_info="%7B%22image%22%3A%20%22https%3A//thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Screenshot-2024-04-24-at-4.46.22%5Cu202fPM-1200x675.png%22%7D" expand=1]USAA was 'founded on military values.' Now it embraces leftist ideas, transgender ideology, and corporate cancel culture.

Substack Payment Processor Backs Off Demand For Bank Data From mRNA Scientist

Famous mRNA scientist Robert Malone doesn't have to turn over all his bank account data to keep his Substack earnings, Stripe says.

Big Tech deplatforms anti-deplatforming conference



Under the glaring Las Vegas sun, a conference called RePlatform took place last Friday at the Horseshoe Casino. The conference showcased companies fighting the trend of giant corporations de-banking and deplatforming dissenting views. In an ironic twist, the conference was deplatformed by a Big Tech company.

Stripe, one of America's major payment processors, has withdrawn its services from the freedom economy conference RePlatform Vegas. Despite this setback, the conference proceeded as planned Friday, March 8, to Sunday, March 10, in Las Vegas. The event aimed to connect companies, investors, and consumers within the parallel economy in response to the deplatforming efforts of corporate America.

During the preparations for RePlatform, the organizers encountered multiple attempts at cancellation. The organizers allege that Stripe withheld tens of thousands of dollars essential for the conference's production, thereby jeopardizing the efforts of this new startup.

David Ragsdale, RePlatform's chief executive officer, spoke with Blaze News to recount the conference’s challenges.

“During our heaviest marketing blitz, Stripe sequestered our funds on the basis of one refund request, forcing us to pause sales to switch to GabPay and changing the entire nature of our conference into a B2B networking event. The fact that most of Stripe’s competitors are at RePlatform is interesting,” Ragsdale explained.

“This is why we need the parallel economy to grow faster, proving the point of RePlatform.”

Fortunately, a featured company at the conference was able to step up and handle payment processing. GabPay is an alternative payment service offering online, real-time transactions; credit card merchant processing; and banking services.

GabPay COO Dan Eddy explained why what happened to RePlatform is emblematic of a larger trend in the financial services sector: Companies and individuals can lose access to financial networks at the arbitrary whim of Big Tech.

“Stripe’s growth and technology offering is nothing short of amazing. However, its seemingly arbitrary process closing accounts for community guidelines violations is crushing small businesses,” Eddy told me.

While it was a massive inconvenience for the organizers and attendees, it does highlight why a conference like RePlatform is so essential at this moment, as a culture of censorship is permeating major tech and financial platforms. This trend of canceling voices that speak out on issues as diverse as COVID-19 to the war in Ukraine should be very concerning for anyone who cares about free speech.

It’s bad enough to be removed from social media, but when individuals and organizations are barred from participating in standard banking and financial services, it signals a terrifying new front in the war on free speech. China has used this tactic to great effect to silence domestic political opponents, and sadly, it’s becoming a reality for Americans critical of mainstream opinions.

I spoke with Joe Rodgers, the publisher of Bitcoin magazine, about this trend.

“I was de-banked from Bank of America, so this is not something we're unfamiliar with. Amex quit credit card processing for us because we're a Bitcoin business, so we’re unfortunately familiar with this reality,” Rodgers said. “I think that's why this conference is important.”

Despite the setbacks and the ominous trend of censorship, the attendees I spoke with were excited about the future. Events like RePlatform highlight a movement that cares deeply about freedom of speech and is building the tools needed to fight back.

Stripe did not respond to a request for comment.

The Feds Gave Banks Woke Censorship Tools To Control All Your Money

The same government pressure erecting an Iron Curtain around the Internet is also constructing a financial social credit system like Communist China's inside the United States.

U.S. Classical College Brings Back From ‘Exile’ Pastor Threatened For Praying At Trucker Convoy

A pastor run out of his native Canada for protesting lockdowns is now president of a classical college in Wyoming.