On July 14, Roman Storm’s trial  — on charges of conspiracy to commit money laundering, operating an unlicensed money-transmitting business, and violating US sanctions — began in a Manhattan courtroom. The allegations sound pretty serious, but they all boil down to one real action: Developing, in cooperation with others, a computer program.

That program is Tornado Cash, an “open source, non-custodial, fully decentralized cryptocurrency tumbler.”

In English, it’s a program that anyone can use, that no one controls, and that can be used to keep prying eyes off crypocurrency transactions. It obscures who’s sending  how much to whom. It’s a useful tool, whether you’re just a regular guy who likes his privacy or a group of North Korean hackers looking to “launder” your take.

Tornado Cash is “legal” in the US, at least for the moment. In 2022, the US Treasury banned US citizens from using it, citing “national security,” but withdrew the ban earlier this year after Tornado Cash users sued.

But its developers remain in legal jeopardy.

Alexey Pertsev languishes in a Netherlands prison, sentenced to five years.  Roman Semenov is wanted by the FBI. And Roman Storm is in the dock in New York.

For writing a computer program.

This case was settled — or at least should have been settled — nearly three decades ago in Bernstein vs. US Department of Justice.  One Daniel J. Bernstein sued over the US government’s “export controls” on encryption software, controls based on the fiction that such software constitutes “munitions.”

In 1996, The US District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that  “code is speech,” and therefore protected by the First Amendment. In 1999, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling.

That PARTICULAR code COULD be used by PARTICULAR people to do PARTICULAR things is irrelevant to our absolute right to create such code.

That would be true even if code wasn’t speech. A lock pick can be used by a burglar or by a locksmith; a gun can be used to defend your home or to murder your spouse; an airplane can be used to transport passengers or to kill thousands in a terror attack. None of those things are, or should, be illegal just because they can all be used to do illegal things.

Roman Storm’s lawyers should file, and the court should grant, a motion to dismiss the charges — and the US government should stop attacking our speech and our financial privacy.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Eugene Debs speaking in Canton, Ohio, shortly before his arrest for sedition.

“I now think the United States may well be evolving,” Damon Linker writes at Persuasion, “to become a competitive authoritarian system in which free elections are still held but fall far short of fairness.”

While I often disagree with Linker — I’m a radical libertarian, he’s a conservative-leaning centrist, do the math — I also often agree with his criticisms of Donald Trump, the MAGA wing of the Republican Party, and the faux “populism” they espouse.

But wow. I don’t know that I’ve ever resorted to the Britishism “gobsmacked” to describe my response to an op-ed before. In this case, it’s the only term that really fits.

What happened to the Damon Linker who was born in 1969 and has written on politics for decades … and why has he been replaced with a doppelgänger who, Rip Van Winkle style, apparently fell asleep in the early 1880s and just now woke up?

The whole idea of “fairness” in American elections went out at the end of the 19th century with the introduction of the “Australian” ballot — a government-printed ballot that replaced write-in elections (that is, all American elections prior to 1888).

Naturally, once the government started printing ballots, the government got to decide which candidates could appear on those ballots.

Would it shock you to learn that the two “major” political parties, the Democrats and Republicans, have ever since colluded to ensure that it’s always difficult, and often impossible, for independent and “third party” candidates to compete?

In 1988, those two “major” parties also took over the quadrennial ritual of “presidential debates” from the League of Women Voters, forming the Commission on Presidential Debates and turning those public affairs into bi-partisan — not multi-partisan — beauty contests.

After Ross Perot made it onto the “debate” stage in 1992, the CPD started tweaking its rules. Over the 29 years since, only Republicans and Democrats have been deemed eligible for a share of “debate” screen time.

It’s not difficult to find authoritarianism over that whole history, either.  Herding immigrants and the immigrant-adjacent off to concentration camps is nothing new (ask the Nisei about World War 2). Neither is imprisoning political opponents (Convict 9653, also known as Eugene Debs, ran for president from prison in 1920 after his conviction for speaking against military conscription).

Same play, new cast. Our “competitive authoritarian system in which free elections are still held but fall far short of fairness” is older than any living American … except, perhaps, Rip Van Linker.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

“The DOJ may be releasing the list of Jeffrey Epstein’s clients? Will that really happen?” a Fox News host asked US Attorney General Pam Bondi on February 21, 2025. “It’s sitting on my desk right now to review,” Bondi replied.

On July 8, Bondi’s department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation released an unsigned memo claiming that a “systematic review revealed no incriminating ‘client list.'”

Something of a bombshell, but the shell carried two bigger payloads inside.

First: “We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.”

Second: “[N]o further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted.”

Bondi defended the “no further disclosures” decision (while also trying to explain missing time from video covering Epstein’s cell at the time he allegedly killed himself)  at a cabinet meeting because most or all of the unreleased evidence supposedly consists of child pornography. Not child pornography of Epstein or his “clients” sexually abusing minors, just stuff he downloaded.

Move along, folks, nothing to see here.

And yet the UK’s Prince Andrew settled a lawsuit (reputedly for $16.9 million) with one of Epstein’s victims, who claims that Epstein delivered her into Andrew’s clutches for sex while she was a minor.

And Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell sits in prison, sentenced to 20 years in prison for sex trafficking and conspiracy.

And records HAVE been released including the names of many prominent individuals — including one Donald J. Trump — who flew on Epstein’s private plane (“The Lolita Express”), in some cases to and from his private island where lavish “sex parties” were allegedly held.

There may or may not be a piece of paper somewhere labeled “my client list, signed, Jeffrey Epstein,” but no “evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties?” If that’s a joke, it’s not funny. But it isn’t a joke. It’s a lie. Period.

Who were Epstein’s accomplices in crime? We may never know.

But the US Department of Justice knows, and would rather keep that information to itself than tell the rest of us about it.

Now, I’m not saying Donald Trump’s name would appear on a list of those who provably had sex with minors courtesy of Epstein’s trafficking operation. Given his known history and predilections, and his long public friendship with Epstein, it wouldn’t surprise me, but hey, maybe not.

Trump’s own name wouldn’t have to be on that list to make him want to quash the matter, though. A number of prominent, wealthy, and powerful people have already been shown, beyond doubt, to have associated with Epstein.

Some of those prominent, wealthy, and powerful people have already been publicly accused of taking part in, and advantage of, his depredations.

Any or all of those prominent, wealthy, and powerful people are well-positioned to bludgeon Trump with threats, buy his favors with inducements, or become useful targets for extortion by a president who regularly, even openly, engages in that practice.

We may not know the reasons for this blatant cover-up, but we all know that’s exactly what’s going on here.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY