![BASE HEADER tone vays doj interview.png](https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmXtJVV441odFe6Fu3EtGusYRfVbovq4SUoGNahhQ2TNKG/BASE%20HEADER%20tone%20vays%20doj%20interview.png)

In a leaked, and supposedly never intended for public viewing, Tone Vays interview with a DEA investigator some interesting clues come to light with regards to the American Department of Justice's stance on cryptocurrencies and Bitcoin in particular. I didn't think too much about this interview until the ending, when something strange definitely happens as the DEA Special Agent is instructed to remain silent by somebody off-screen.

https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmTdTogEsBP64wtTZD38triu4bHkmhUaGgnSNLYPLPwg34/dividerline%20cartooney3.png

DOJ can't or _won't_ stop Bitcoin?

![doj small logo.png](https://ipfs.busy.org/ipfs/QmYzmKRREG1BGZMpoaCLnaEZ5inkJTmv5wBZ86VvfMTvr7)

Alright, this may come across as a little bit conspiracy-ish but I urge you to actually view the video yourself that I will link below after you're done reading this post. The video is a 12 minute long video-interview done by Tone Vays with a Special Agent of the American Department of Justice (DOJ), which offers an interesting view of how the American justice system deals with situations such as criminal money laundering through cryptocurrency. The agent being interviewed seems to focus mainly on large cirminal cartels, and she explains how Bitcoin is booming as a method of transferring wealth easily. She explains how criminal cartels normally can pay up to 30% in costs of transporting money and Bitcoin reduces this cost significantly. She also lets the audience know that she herself is a Bitcoin maximalist, and she doesn't believe in altcoins, including Ethereum (_"You're not a believer in Ethereum?"_ Tone asks. _"No, not at all"_, she replies). **It gets interesting when you look closely at what's going on in the interview, especially off-screen.** At several points in the interview it is clear that there is somebody off-screen instructing the DEA agent, perhaps a PR officer, who sometimes interferes. In fact, the interview abruptly ends after about 12 minutes when this off-screen person instructs the DEA agent to withhold her answers after which the video ends. The question that Tone asked, which caused the interview to be ended abruptly was along the lines of (summarized): "Do you think that governments can stop Bitcoin, or do you think enough governments globally can get together in an effort to prevent Bitcoin?" to which she responded that she personally doesn't think so. Before being able to clarify what she meant, the off-screen person instructs her to refrain from answering. Yet, you can read a lot between the lines from the demeanor of the DEA Agent during her initial reaction. Her 'I don't see it happening' _could_ mean that they can't stop Bitcoin but from the way she starts speaking it almost sounds like government wouldn't _want_ to stop Bitcoin - as if there are entirely different interests. If you only want to watch this part of the interview, [click here to start watching it on Youtube from the 10:25 which is when the segment that I am talking about starts](https://youtu.be/IbVV7DbbjxM?t=625) Or if you want to watch the entire interview, you can do so below (or manually click to the 10:25 mark, of course): " Now there's a few things that I would like to underline 1) This video was cut off, and supposedly never intended for public viewing - I am assuming because it contains information that is not supposed to leak 2) This information appears to have to do mainly with the last question with regards to whether or not government can or wants to stop Bitcoin 3) The initial response was 'No, I don't think so, and I don't think...' after which she was cut off 4) Based on the DEA Agent's response I would wager that her response had little to do with the technical side of being _able_ to stop Bitcoin, but rather aimed at the _intentional_ aspect of the question. In other words, whether they _want_ to stop it or not. To which the answer appears to be 'no'. In fact, she seemed rather surprised by the question - as if she wanted to say "I don't see why we would want to" Of course, a Special Agent is not involved with policy or lawmaking and as such none of what she says offers any certainty at all. Yet, being a special agent involved with criminal cartels means she's still pretty deep within the 'need to know' circle. From the looks of it, as far deep as she's in, there's no sign that the Department of Justice has any real issue with Bitcoin itself. Which is a very good sign. It could very well be due to Bitcoin's transparant attributes, which enable Special Agents like herself to analyze and monitor the blockchain and trace criminal payments. Regardless of what it is, the Department of Justice would be a good ally to have to foster Bitcoin adoption. [![footercartoon new5.png](https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmXtn3TPJY7iQiZjPJq1NLh9MbgsCpT9rN6xKJLnPUu619/footercartoon%20new5.png)](https://steemit.com/@pandorasbox)

_{_(Art by: Roy Lichtenstein)_}