BREAKING: Did They Just DESTROY The Clarity Act?! [YOU HAVE 3 WEEKS] | EP 1554

**SPEAKER_1** (0:02)
The final text of the Clarity Act was just released.
And let's just say, there are some really, really interesting things included in it. The Republicans gave the Democrats everything they so-called wanted, but the Elizabeth Warren camp is still trying to crush the Clarity Act. Senator Lummis has been one of the loudest and most optimistic spokespersons for the Clarity Act. But listen to how her tone has shifted in today's eye-opening interview with Fox News. I'll dive into what's in the text, I'll dive into kind of the dilemma and where it stands currently. But first, Senator Lummis on Fox.

**SPEAKER_2** (0:44)
Let me get your take on that because it seems like you're going to have to even make more concessions on the language around ethics to secure the Democrats' support, right? Because look, you had several Democrats last night voicing concerns about the updated tax, particularly around the bill's enforcement mechanism. That places responsibility on the attorney general. Is that the issue right now?

**Cynthia Lummis** (1:11)
That is kind of a bright line. You know, we had worked until there was an impasse with Democrats earlier this month because they want state attorneys general to be able to sue elected officials that are subject to this ethics law. And so that would allow, for example, an attorney general from another state to sue me if they thought I violated the ethics law. So when I ran that by senators, they said, we don't want that. And so this ethics provision is not just applicable to the president and the vice president. It's applicable to every house member, every senator and every federal judge. So we're trying to not plan legislation around one person who holds one office for the next two years, but rather over time that will serve the house, the senate, the judiciary and the executive branch in a fair way.
The struggle is, of course, a lot of Democrats are absolutely focused on one person, and that's President Trump. So since President Trump actually agreed that he would have the choice to either put his assets in a blind trust or divest of his participation in digital assets and companies that derive revenue from digital assets, somehow that's not enough. I think it's going to be a struggle.
Fortunately, Tom Tillis is working with Democrats to continue to try to find a way that they could support the ethics provisions in this bill. But it's hard for me to see it right now because they're so focused on getting a pound of flesh from President Trump.

**SPEAKER_2** (3:13)
I mean, do you think...

**SPEAKER_1** (3:15)
So, there's Senator Lummis' view on it. And I do agree with what Intra Belden said here. Senator Lummis will be the reason it gets passed if it does. Totally agree. She's been putting in the... She's been putting the Herculean effort to get this passed, doing a lot of good work. But anyways, let's get into it here. So, again, we've all been kind of waiting on what's going to actually... The official text of the Clarity Act, it came in last night, it's 616 pages. There is this ethics provision, which from the Democrat camp, and again, not monolithic, but from, I guess, the Elizabeth Warren-led portion of the Democrat camp, which I would say is probably more of the popular perspective here. She's been there for a while, she does have, for some reason, I really don't get it, but a lot of authority in the party. There is seemingly a civil war going on in the Democrat camp right now, from I would say more of the status quo Democrats, the Obama leftovers, to now this whole, what's it, Democratic Socialist of America camp, AKA the new New York Mayor Mondami-led portion of the Democrats, and then, of course, what we all would consider the legacy Democrats here. Anyways, the part that was the most contentious, which is, of course, the ethics portion. And we all know why this is the case. I think Senator Lumet's kinda hit the nail on the head at the very end, that what we are seeing right now, the attack on the Clarity Act is really just a way to, as Senator Lumet put it, a way to get a pound of flesh from President Trump. And so, the whole idea of, oh, hey, look, parts of the Clarity Act we're okay with, but President Trump's, in my past two minutes, yes, President Trump's shit-coining is a big concern here, and we gotta get these ethics provisions in, and we finally got that. And so, the Senate Republicans pretty much gave the Democrats at least what they said they wanted up until this morning, everything they wanted, and now it seems like they are moving the goalpost. So, before I get into the update this morning, here is the subcommittee for the digital assets on the US. Senate banking, the ethics requirement. Now, I might be a little cynical when I read this a little bit, but that's not going to necessarily take away from the actual verbiage here, but I'll get into that in a little bit. So the top line, the ethics requirement, quote, no president in American history has voluntarily agreed to self-impose substantive ethics limits like President Trump has, Senator Cynthia Lummis, Digital Asset Market Clarity Act bans all federal officials, including the president of the United States, from issuing or sponsoring a digital asset for consideration backed by real enforcement and real penalties. Clean government and pro-innovation policy are not opposites, and this bill proves it. So here are the key ethics provisions included, which is it prohibits any, quote, covered individuals defined as any public official or employee and their spouses from issuing or sponsoring a digital asset in exchange for consideration, including the president of the United States, the vice president, members of Congress, and federal judges. So, you know, the president can't create a shit coin, his wife can't create a shit coin, and then, of course, the vice president, members of Congress, and of course, federal judges can also participate in any form of meme coins as it was put. Going further, it directs the attorney general to bring civil enforcement actions against any covered individual who knowingly and willfully violates the ban and against any digital asset intermediary that knowingly lists or violates a violating token. Now, when we got the Clarity Act at first, the person that would bring the enforcement, or rather the body that would bring the enforcement, it was originally outlined to be under the Department of Justice, the DOJ. And the Democrats came out and they're like, no, we don't want the DOJ to be the ones prosecuting because under the Trump administration, the DOJ is going to do what the president wants to do. And they said they wanted it under the attorney general. And they're like, okay, here, we gave you that. Fine, the attorney general can bring the enforcement. Now, it's evolved to wait. No, actually, we want the state attorney generals to do this. Not the federal attorney general, but on the state level. And as Senator Lummis kind of explained, she's like, that's not going to work out because any state attorney general could just bring another, you know, bring a case against someone not in their state, and that's just going to muddy up the waters. So the Republicans, you know, conceded on that point, and they moved it from the DOJ to the attorney general. Now, going further, quote, a digital asset intermediary that knowingly listed token issued or sponsored in violation of the ban faces a civil penalty of up to $250,000 per violation per day. Covered individuals who violate the ban must disgorge all profits and pay a penalty equal to 10% of the consideration received or $500,000. The ban further covers public officials and employees and their spouses government wide, including the president, members of Congress and judges applying one clean government standard of the top down and not a carve out for anyone. Which you would think is something that the Democrats could stand behind because again, it's a blanket ban here. But as we know, they want to very, very strictly attack President Trump. A lot of the stuff we're seeing right now is, hey, Trump's a bad guy, he's a scammer.