The post “Would Be Great to See Trump Hold Head of Anti-Crypto Army Accountable,” Says Political Commentator Eagleman appeared first on Coinpedia Fintech News
President Trump’s pardon of Binance’s CZ has sparked broader debates in the industry.
The decision drew sharp reactions from lawmakers and has also added new layers to the debate over accountability and fairness.
Gunther Eagleman, a commentator on social media platform X, has raised questions about the legal implications of the comments made by Senator Elizabeth Warren, citing legal analysis from Teresa Goody Guillén, a former SEC attorney and current partner at BakerHostetler.
Eagleman questioned whether Senator Warren’s remarks crossed legal boundaries and also brought up the idea if Warren’s actions could be considered obstruction of justice.
Political commentator Eagleman on Warren: 'Would be great to see the Trump Administration hold the head of the anti-crypto army accountable' | Globe Banner https://t.co/UQ27eaQhJ3
— CZ
Guillén Calls Out Warren’s Remarks
Guillén recently responded to Senator Warren by citing the 1979 Supreme Court case Hutchinson v. Proxmire. She noted that the Speech or Debate Clause only protects lawmakers when they are doing official legislative work.
However, the protection does not cover any false or misleading information outside of the legislative proceedings.
Great article @CGasparino! I may know something about this…
— Teresa Goody Guillén (@teresagoody) October 29, 2025
Eagleman also agreed with her point and called for accountability over Warren’s stance on crypto policy. “Would be great to see the Trump Administration hold the head of the anti-crypto army accountable,” he added.
.article-inside-link {
margin-left: 0 !important;
border: 1px solid #0052CC4D;
border-left: 0;
border-right: 0;
padding: 10px 0;
text-align: left;
}
.entry ul.article-inside-link li {
font-size: 14px;
line-height: 21px;
font-weight: 600;
list-style-type: none;
margin-bottom: 0;
display: inline-block;
}
.entry ul.article-inside-link li:last-child {
display: none;
}
- Also Read :
- Avalon Labs Launches On-Chain AI Marketplace on BNB Chain: Details
- ,
According to the Supreme Court decision, members of Congress are not protected by the Speech or Debate Clause when they share information through press releases or newsletters.
This means that in some situations, the defamation claims can proceed when the lawmakers are criticized for their statements outside of their official duties.
CZ to Sue Senator Warren
This comes after President Trump recently pardoned Binance founder Changpeng “CZ” Zhao. The pardon faced strong criticism from several senators and sparked a direct clash between CZ and Senator Warren.
CZ also announced plans to sue Warren for defamation, claiming that she spread false information about money laundering charges that never existed. Guillén, his attorney, has already sent Warren a formal letter demanding an immediate retraction. The letter warns that if she fails to respond, a defamation lawsuit will follow.
Crypto Community Reacts
Several X users weighed in on the growing influence of politics in the market. While some highlighted the fine balance between necessary regulation and government overreach, others called for fairness, saying that innovation in the U.S. can only thrive if both regulators and builders are held accountable.
Some users also noted that the conflict between regulation and innovation is more political than technical. “What we’re seeing isn’t a crypto war, it’s a struggle over who controls the next financial system,” the user wrote, emphasizing that accountability matters, but clarity matters more.
Never Miss a Beat in the Crypto World!
Stay ahead with breaking news, expert analysis, and real-time updates on the latest trends in Bitcoin, altcoins, DeFi, NFTs, and more.
FAQs
President Trump pardoned CZ as part of his broader push for crypto innovation, arguing the justice system had been too harsh on industry leaders.
Yes, if remarks are made outside official duties, lawmakers can face defamation claims, as they’re not fully protected under the Speech or Debate Clause.
The crypto community is split—some see it as justice and support for innovation, while others warn it raises new questions about accountability in regulation.