‘Don’t Lie’: Bill Maher Rips Media For Claiming Trump Wanted Liz Cheney In Front Of ‘Firing Squad’
'This is exactly what hippies always said'
Did this criminal mastermind create Bitcoin?
Who is Satoshi Nakamoto, the mysterious mastermind behind Bitcoin? According to a new HBO documentary, the answer is Peter Todd.
"Who?" I hear readers asking.
Todd is unknown outside the crypto world. However, he is renowned within it.
A Bitcoin core developer who has played a major role in improving the cryptocurrency’s security and scalability, Todd is a legitimate expert in cryptography and decentralized systems. The Canadian has been a vocal figure in privacy, security, and blockchain governance debates.
However, I argue HBO misses the mark — and badly at that.
Todd himself denies the claim, and his denials make sense when you look at other candidates. Well, one in particular.
This leads us to Paul Le Roux, a South African-born criminal mastermind whose technical genius made him virtually undetectable — until his empire grew too vast to ignore. Le Roux operated in the shadows for years, evading authorities while building a vast transnational crime syndicate. But like all empires built on secrecy and greed, it eventually attracted the wrong kind of attention — for LeRoux, anyway.
To be clear, the grizzled geek isn’t your typical criminal; he’s one with a deep understanding of encryption, one of the foundational elements of Bitcoin. He created E4M, an open-source disk encryption software, which later inspired TrueCrypt — one of the most advanced encryption tools. This background in cryptography aligns perfectly with the skills needed to develop a secure, decentralized currency like Bitcoin. Le Roux’s work in encryption wasn’t just theoretical; he was actively applying this knowledge, which is exactly what someone like Satoshi Nakamoto would need to create a technology like Bitcoin.
The mind and the motivation
The timing of Le Roux’s disappearance from public view is another piece of the puzzle. Satoshi Nakamoto stopped communicating with the Bitcoin community in December 2010. Le Roux, having run a global criminal empire involved in everything from drug trafficking to arms smuggling, was arrested not long after. The fact that Satoshi went silent just as the walls closed on Le Roux appears to be more than a coincidence.
Furthermore, Bitcoin itself, as a concept, fits perfectly into Le Roux’s world. His criminal empire required an untraceable and anonymous way to move money across borders. Bitcoin, designed to allow peer-to-peer transactions without the need for banks or governments, would have been an ideal solution. If anyone had the motive to create such a tool, it was Le Roux. His illegal activities thrived on invisibility and untraceable financial systems, and Bitcoin provided exactly that. The structure of Bitcoin — decentralized, largely anonymous, and resistant to control at the time of his dealings — would have been the perfect financial instrument for someone running a vast international criminal network.
There are also direct links between Le Roux and the Bitcoin community, albeit subtle ones. During the Kleiman v. Wright lawsuit involving Craig Wright (a man who also claims to be Satoshi), a court document included a reference to Le Roux’s Wikipedia page. This raised suspicions that Wright had access to Le Roux’s hard drives or other materials connected to Bitcoin’s creation. While this connection remains entirely speculative, it adds another intrigue to the theory. It’s possible that Wright, who has been widely discredited as Satoshi, may have stumbled upon information linking Le Roux to Bitcoin, which could explain why he included that reference in the legal case. Then, there’s Calvin Ayre, whose connection to both Wright and LeRoux deepens the mystery surrounding Bitcoin’s origins. Despite widespread skepticism, Ayre, a gambling magnate, reportedly backed Wright's claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. The theory suggests that Ayre may know Wright isn't the real Satoshi, but he continues supporting him in gaining access to the private keys.
But wait, there’s more.
What’s in a name?
Le Roux’s alias, “Paul Solotshi Calder Le Roux,” might be one of the most compelling clues linking him to Bitcoin’s creation. The middle name “Solotshi” is strikingly close to “Satoshi,” don’t you think? It’s easy to imagine a criminal of Le Roux’s caliber adopting a clever variation of his name to hide in plain sight, especially in the midst of developing something as revolutionary as Bitcoin. Yes, I know, many will brush it off as a coincidence, but the similarity between the names is pretty hard to overlook.
Even after his arrest, Le Roux remained connected to Bitcoin in surprising ways. In 2020, while serving his prison sentence, he told a Manhattan judge that he planned to start a Bitcoin mining business after serving his time. The grizzled guru specifically mentioned his desire to design faster, more efficient mining hardware. Again, maybe it’s all just coincidental. Then, again, maybe not.
Although there’s no definitive proof that Paul Le Roux is Satoshi Nakamoto, the circumstantial evidence paints a rather compelling picture. Le Roux's mastery of cryptography, the suspicious timing of his vanishing from the public eye, his criminal motivations, and his tendency to use aliases all line up with the profile of Bitcoin’s mysterious creator. Le Roux is certainly a far more plausible candidate than Peter Todd. Todd, though respected in the cryptography community, has never been associated with the kind of large-scale, secretive operations that would require something like Bitcoin. His skills are undeniable, but he lacks the shadowy, high-stakes background that aligns so well with the motivations behind Bitcoin’s design.
Pelosi Celebrates Bill Allowing Illegal Immigrants To Buy Homes With American Tax Dollars
The program gives first-time homebuyers loan assistance of up to 20 percent of a property's value with a cap of $150,000.Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund fires back in response to Pelosi's attempts to deflect blame for Jan. 6: 'I am stunned'
“I take the full responsibility.”
Those words by former U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) — the polar opposite of what she has publicly proclaimed for nearly 44 months — were uttered on Jan. 6 as she and Democratic colleagues watched the unfolding protests and violence at the U.S. Capitol on television, new video shows.
While claiming she takes responsibility in one video clip, she lashed out at former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund in another, putting the blame for Jan. 6 on his head.
Pelosi also claimed that she wanted the National Guard to “get rid of these people” on Jan. 6, although her office rejected Sund’s request for the Guard just days earlier.
Sund said if Pelosi had simply granted his Jan. 3 request for the National Guard, “I don’t think we would be here discussing this today.”
'They should have had much more anticipation about the National Guard.'
“I am stunned by the repeated statements by Pelosi about there not being any National Guard deployed to the Capitol in advance of the attack on January 6,” Sund told Blaze News, “when it was her sergeant at arms for the House of Representatives who denied my request for support on January 3, and then again repeatedly for 71 minutes while we were under attack on January 6.”
The Committee on House Administration Subcommittee on Oversight released six new video clips from unaired documentary footage shot on Jan. 6 after Pelosi and other House leaders were evacuated from the Capitol to nearby Fort McNair.
The videos had been in the possession of the now-defunct Jan. 6 Select Committee but were not turned over to House Republicans in January 2023 as required by House rules, said U.S. Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.), chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight.
The Subcommittee on Oversight had to obtain the videos directly from Home Box Office Inc., Loudermilk said.
“For over three years, Nancy Pelosi has refused to take responsibility for her failure to secure the Capitol grounds on January 6, 2021,” Loudermilk said.
“Instead, she has pushed the focus of the failure on President Trump. As speaker, she controlled House operations and security on the House side of the Capitol — which she acknowledges in this HBO footage.”
'A complete victory for them'
Sitting with other House leaders watching news coverage from Fort McNair shown in one video, Pelosi said, “I don’t care what they say, they should have had much more anticipation about the National Guard.”
Pelosi’s statements are at odds with what the House sergeant at arms told Sund, who said he frantically tried to get approval for National Guard help practically from the time the crowds broke through the first police line at 12:53 p.m. on Jan. 6.
In one of the videos — filmed by Pelosi’s daughter Alexandra for an HBO documentary “Pelosi in the House” — the speaker was riding in a Capitol Police vehicle on the way to Fort McNair after top leaders were evacuated from the Capitol at 2:15 p.m. The House had just announced a recess due to the breach of the Senate wing door by rioters.
“They had to recess the session,” Pelosi said. “It’s a complete victory for them.”
As the Capitol Police vehicle navigated traffic with its siren blaring, Pelosi said, “Oh my God, I cannot believe the stupidity of this. And I take the full responsibility.”
Pelosi was visibly frustrated at being taken from the Capitol to a secure off-site location. “We going to stay here all day, the rest of our lives, or what?” she snapped. “We’re here until what? The National Guard decides to come and get rid of these people?”
'We got to come up with another plan. Pelosi will never go for it.'
According to congressional testimony, Sund asked House Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving more than an hour earlier for the Capitol Police Board to declare an emergency and approve a request for deployment of the National Guard.
“I was advised by Mr. Irving that he needed to run it up the chain of command,” Sund testified before the U.S. Senate in February 2021.
The House sergeant at arms is appointed by and reports to the speaker. Under rules in force at the time, the police chief could not even request National Guard help without permission from the Capitol Police Board. Voting members of the board include the House and Senate sergeants at arms and the architect of the Capitol. Sund was an ex-officio member.
Sund's initial request to Irving and the Capitol Police Board for National Guard help was made at 1:09 p.m. on Jan. 6. Sund said he made repeated calls for updates from Irving and was told a decision was forthcoming. Pelosi did approve Irving's request to go to the Pentagon for Guard help. That decision was relayed to Sund from the Police Board at 2:10 p.m., three minutes before the Capitol was breached at the Senate wing door entrance.
Sund told Loudermilk’s subcommittee on Sept. 19, 2023, that he requested the National Guard three days ahead of Jan. 6, but that request was turned down by Irving because Irving said Pelosi would “never go for it.”
According to Sund, Irving suggested he speak to Senate Sergeant at Arms Michael Stenger about it on Jan. 3, 2021. Stenger, who died on June 27, 2022, later told Sund that Irving had called to tip him off that the chief was on his way over, Sund testified.
“And he told me Paul Irving had called him ahead of time and said: ‘Sund came here looking for the National, asking for the National Guard. We got to come up with another plan. Pelosi will never go for it.’”
“I was floored by him saying that,” Sund testified.
President Trump authorized use of up to 20,000 members of the National Guard during a meeting at the White House on Jan. 3, 2021, according to Kash Patel, a former senior Trump aide who attended the meeting. Under federal law, the president cannot order the Guard's use for domestic law enforcement. The president can only authorize. In the case of the District of Columbia, either Mayor Muriel Bowser or federal law enforcement could have requested Guard deployment.
In another video, shot while Pelosi walked to the subway under the Capitol grounds during evacuation, she said to her Capitol Police protective detail, “Over and over again. Are we prepared for what could happen? Consider the worst. And we didn’t.”
Sund said he was hamstrung by a bureaucratic structure that left Capitol Police protection open to partisan politics.
“People need to realize that I was the only chief of police in the U.S. who was restricted by law (2 U.S. Code 1970) from bringing in resources for my men and women without the approval of the Capitol Police Board and congressional leadership,” Sund told Blaze News.
“No wonder Congress changed this law in December of 2021, only 11 months after January 6,” Sund said. “If my request for support had been approved on January 3, 2021, I don’t think we would be here discussing this today.”
Pelosi and her staff director, Jamie Fleet, attacked Sund in several of the new videos.
'We have totally failed'
Riding to the Capitol on Jan. 7, 2021, Pelosi said during a phone call, “I never liked Sund. I think he should have been gone a long time ago.”
During a meeting at the Capitol with staff that same day, Pelosi said, “What a mess. What a mess,” then asked Fleet, “Do you have any confidence in Sund? What do you think of him?”
“We’ve always been skeptical of Sund,” Fleet said. “He has terrible relationships with the union. He has particularly been, I think, not great handling this coronavirus pandemic with the workforce.”
Sund told Blaze News he was endorsed by the United States Capitol Police Labor Committee, and police departments from around the country have used USCP’s pandemic plans as a model.
In another video clip, Pelosi said, “We have totally failed. We have to take some responsibility for not holding the security accountable for what could have happened.”
'I think our focus has to be on the president.'
While walking down a stairway with other House leaders after 2:15 p.m. as the Capitol was evacuated, Pelosi asked whether the National Guard had been called.
“Are they calling the National Guard? I asked him to do that earlier,” Pelosi said. When someone answered that a call had been made, Pelosi repeated, “And did they call the National Guard? And they didn’t come?”
National Guard troops from the District of Columbia were staged within sight of the Capitol the afternoon of Jan. 6. Due to delayed Capitol Police Board approval and bureaucratic wrangling at the Pentagon, troops didn’t arrive at the Capitol until 5:30 p.m., after a massive law enforcement mutual-aid response regained control of the grounds.
As Pelosi worked with her staff to craft public statements she was to release in the wake of Jan. 6, she made it a top priority to blame Trump for what she called “an armed insurrection against America.”
That focus had to come ahead of any announcements of staff resignations, according to the HBO videos. As a staff member read the draft of a statement being written for her, the speaker interrupted.
“Now wait, wait a minute,” she said, speaking on a ride to the Capitol on Jan. 7. “Let me just say this. I think our focus has to be on the president. Let’s not divert ourself.”
A staff member interjected that incoming Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) had announced plans to fire Stenger, the Senate sergeant at arms. “I don’t even know who that is,” she said, to which a staff member replied, “It’s immaterial. Heads are rolling is what we’re saying.”
Pelosi was not deterred on the message to be emphasized.
“I don’t want to have it on a par with the insurrection and the impeachment and the rest of that,” she said. “If they ask, I will respond, but I’m not doing it on a par. It’s a diversionary tactic.”
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
New Footage Shows Pelosi Admitting Dem Leadership ‘Totally Failed’ On Jan. 6
Nancy Pelosi demanded congressional leadership "take some responsibility" over the Capitol security failures.Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com