Really, the excuses this guy is throwing around remind me of little children.
> Carlson kept acting throughout the interview as though it’s just normal and reasonable for wealthy people who donate to politicians to expect corrupt favors from those same people in their time of need.
That's just being realistic, isn't it?
> That's just being realistic, isn't it?
For Carlson - a wealthy politically connected person who I would be unsurprised if he is the recipient of favor - I'm sure it's realistic.
But there are more of us who don't have the wealth or political connections to get favors than there are those who do.
So it's weird that people who claim to care about corruption keep voting for and snuggling up to extremely wealthy obviously-favor-trading conmen. The president doesn't even try to hide the games. So after that it's unsurprising that someone like Carlson is starting to drop the pretense too.
Will the people he gets his power from - his audience - care, though?
But that's overall a problem because it means the political system just gets more corrupt over time. I wonder how long until wannabe presidents are paying off the Praetorian Guard.
Go ahead and change that if you can figure out how.
I don't think that's true at all. My impression is that there are honest and honorable politicians in both parties. But the crazy Machiavellians rise to the top, I don't know why.
This is also what sets the stage for candidates like Trump, not because Trump doesn't trade favors but because voters get so sick of being force-fed establishment candidates that any opportunity to set the status quo on fire starts to look attractive.
STAR voting might help with this, because then you get more than two viable parties/candidates and each one is a chance to put a non-corrupt candidate on the ballot.
For example, I don’t think it’s immoral to offer a crooked cop in Mexico $20 to walk away from a dangerous situation.
In your example, it’s not your fault politicians are accepting bribes. So you can either do it or go out of business. Don’t hate the player, hate the game.
I think it would do a good job of weeding out bribes too. Because people offering bribes also get a form of blackmail - they don’t go to jail if they come clean but the other side does!
I really think it would actually end up net-positive. What do you think?
Richard is a US Senator. It's illegal for him to accept bribes and illegal for anyone to offer them, and there may even be some laws prohibiting him and his immediate family from accepting "gifts" over a certain amount. But there is nothing illegal about, say, hiring the Senator's brother-in-law to be a director on some company's board in exchange for a salary with at least six or seven digits in it. After all, the brother-in-law has to work somewhere.
So the company offers Richard's brother-in-law the job, and then goes to Richard and asks him to advance the company's position on some bill. If Richard votes the way the company wants, the brother-in-law gets the money. If not, the offer falls through. Nobody actually goes to the Senator and says "do what we want and you'll get the money", it's just understood that it's what will happen, and then the families of government officials become conspicuously wealthy.
If you legalize the offer and then someone goes to Richard and offers him a bribe, he declines, because of course he wouldn't accept a bribe, are you crazy? It's a crime to accept a bribe. So then nobody does that even if it's legal for them, anybody who tries is immediately suspected of wearing a wire and any explicit offers of a bribe are emphatically declined. But they still offer his brother-in-law a job, not formally in exchange for anything, but still with the implied understanding that the job is contingent on the votes.
Bitcoin was invented and a lot of idealists had a lot of hope that it would bank the unbanked, wrest control of the payments system away from the incumbent oligopoly, solve microtransactions for decentralized systems, etc.
It also generated a lot of hype, which attracts fraudsters. Fraud has been illegal for a long time and you can prosecute fraud without shutting the whole system down, but wait, what was that thing there on the list of things cryptocurrency was supposed to do? Disrupt the incumbents?
Then somehow, for some reason, the rules around cryptocurrency ended up not being the ones narrowly tailored to stamp out fraud, but instead being the ones that swamp ordinary people with paperwork if they try to use it for any of the neat things it was supposed to be good for. Which killed those things before they could become too big to fail, which left only the crimes, which turned public opinion against the concept. Which allowed the government to start really smashing things up.
Then you get a candidate who supports the now-hated thing that was once a hope. They put their money where their mouth is and get into the industry, and then once in office they start reforming the laws to not be so harsh and end some of the existing prosecutions, including of people who might have been involved with their previous ventures.
Is that corruption or is that just what they're supposed to do when they're supportive of something? You can cast it either way, which is the problem, because then people will want to choose how to characterize it based on whether the target is in their preferred party.
> Really, the excuses this guy is throwing around remind me of little children.
That's not what he says though, https://youtu.be/dN1CR2dyfo8?feature=shared&t=169 "My mind was racing because there were a billion things to keep track of [with the company]"
(Not defending SBF here, he deserves his sentence)
As evidenced by this situation it's not true that any criminal can give money to any politician and expect favours. Perhaps some criminals curry more favour, and perhaps some politicians are more transactional.
Prisons should need a strong medical/safety justification for putting prisoners into isolation, which is torturous for many people.
When the interview came out, it’s safe to assume the prison had no idea how it happened. He was in solitary for 24 hours, possibly so they could ensure there were no smartphones or anything else.
It also may have been just to punish him. But there’s at least one reasonable reason, given that it was only 24 hours.
I would prefer, of course, that it wasn’t solitary.
The only ethical stance I've ever heard for torturing someone is the "ticking time bomb" scenario popularized during George W. Bush's administration. (I disagree with that ethical stance, but that's beside the point.)
In your scenario the bomb isn't ticking. Nor is there even a bomb-- only a breach of security with an undefined relationship to safety and needs of people who aren't in any immediate danger.
Read the Senate Report on Torture for an in-depth analysis of the problems with that ethical stance.
SBF didn't sexually assault anybody, but the rules exist for such reasons, and SBF breaking those rules surreptitiously doesn't make it okay. The first concern, I imagine, was "how the fuck did that happen?" which meant assessing the damage.
Should he have been thrown in solitary for 24 hours? Probably not, but should he have been isolated from his room and other prisoners for 24 hours? Probably, while they assessed what had happened and how.
If he had snuck contraband in (a smartphone), then that would have been, for example, a real safety issue, since smuggling in contraband doesn't end at cell phones, and the pathway doesn't change. Initially, it was not clear how it occurred.
That's all I'm saying. I know the slippery slope argument, and I agree with it, and I have previously read the Senate Report on Torture, and do not disagree.
Cynicism is about people with agency. Saying you're not a cynic about the actions of an organization/institution with no agency/sentience is completely nonsensical.
Edit: I've been rate limited; to the person below:
> So, to be clear, I do not believe all prison guards and staff
Do you believe his confinement was decided by one guard (selflessly)? Do I need to explain to you how organizations with rules/processes/guidelines function?
Edit 2:
> Absent that evidence, your assumption of malice is unfounded, even if in general the prison system is corrupt and/or awful
Besides the clear contradiction here (at least from a Bayesian perspective), I think you are either unaware that (or do not understand why) "innocent until proven guilty" of individuals is explicitly codified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (not the "Universal Declaration of Corporate Rights").
Edit 3:
> Prisoners convicted of a crime in a court of law no longer have the presumption of innocence for that crime, by definition. Moreover, they lose many other rights, due to the fact that they are prisoners, and not general civilians.
You are accusing him of a new crime. Prisoners are still afforded their constitutional rights.
> I have no idea what point you’re trying to make, but I implore you to read what I’m saying and not what you think I’m saying.
I have already made my point at the beginning of this thread: you are doing an inordinant amount of free intellectual labor justifying the actions of an authoritarian institution.
1. a person who believes that people are motivated purely by self-interest rather than acting for honorable or unselfish reasons.
So, to be clear, I do not believe all prison guards and staff are motivated purely by self-interest rather than acting for honorable or unselfish reasons. Others do believe that.
That is not what I said, and it not the most charitable interpretation of what I said either.
Of course these choices aren’t made by a single guard. But there is no evidence that in this case it was not done for reasons that were reasonable. If it comes out that it was done purely as punishment, and not to assess what the fuck had just happened, I’d agree with you.
Absent that evidence, your assumption of malice is unfounded, even if in general the prison system is corrupt and/or awful.
You can separate the forest from the trees; in fact, you must.
Sometimes, the justice system incarcerates innocent people and abuses prisoners. That’s fucking awful, and we need to fix it.
But also, sometimes, the justice system works properly and locks up actual criminals who have committed actual crimes. SBF is one such case. There is no evidence he has been abused, unlike other criminals who had been abused.
If you want to make this an argument about whether incarceration is beneficial at all, or if we should focus on better rehabilitation, I’d almost certainly agree with you, but that’s not the discussion we’re having, and it isn’t the system we have.
[edit] > I think you are either unaware that (or do not understand why) "innocent until proven guilty" of individuals is explicitly codified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (not the "Universal Declaration of Corporate Rights").
Please. I’m very aware of this. Your extremely confident belief that you are right is clouding your ability to actually see what I’m saying.
SBF is, in fact, a convicted criminal. He was considered innocent until he was, ahem, proven guilty in a court of law, by a jury of his peers. They deliberated for less than an hour, I assume because the evidence was apparently very clear.
Prisoners convicted of a crime in a court of law no longer have the presumption of innocence for that crime, by definition. Moreover, they lose many other rights, due to the fact that they are prisoners, and not general civilians.
I have no idea what point you’re trying to make, but I implore you to read what I’m saying and not what you think I’m saying.
I’m done with this conversation, mostly because the rate limiting is annoying. Have a lovely weekend.
I am doing no such thing. I have no idea if he committed a crime. I am not litigating anything. He did an interview without getting permission, breaking the rules of his confinement. That’s obvious, since the interview aired. I don’t need to litigate it, and I’m not attempting to.
> Prisoners are still afforded their constitutional rights.
No, they aren’t; this is plainly untrue. They are afforded some of their constitutional rights, but not all of them.
While prisoners do not enjoy full constitutional rights, they do receive 8th Amendment protection from cruel and unusual punishment. For example, the Supreme Court ruled that California jails must abide by the court-mandated population limits to prevent overpopulation, and thus affording inmates a minimum standard of living in Brown v. Plata.
There are some other rights, like due process, protection under the 14th amendment from discrimination and unequal treatment based solely on their race, sex, or creed, etc.
Lastly, incarcerated individuals are guaranteed the right to religion and free speech as long as their status as prisoners does not interfere with these protected rights.
Please educate yourself: https://www.jailhouselaw.org/your-rights-prison
Prisoners do not have all their constitutional rights. If your argument is that they should, then that’s a different discussion.
Slave workers
Punishment
That’s implicitly authoritarian.
Many other countries try reparation and resocialization
We do a poor job in this respect. We seem incapable of integrating all three. So you have people who get irrationally squeamish about retribution, demonstrating a total lack of understanding and appreciation of the severity of crimes and of the nature and demands of justice. False compassion abounds. Some people cannot distinguish between chattel slavery and debt slavery (where in the latter case, this would mean penal labor, something that can have the benefit of both providing value to the society wronged to whom the perp is indebted and in punishing the perp). You have people who express hatred for the guilty under the pretense of justice, caring nothing for their rehabilitation. You have those who claim that the prospect of punishment doesn't deter crime, which is patently absurd.
The justice system should most definitely punish criminals prudently in proportion with the crime, but it should also provide means of correcting the person and leading them away from a criminal life. Learning skills could be a part, even if not exhaustive, of such a rehabilitation, whether they ever leave prison or not.
It’s precisely the desire for the rule of law that make it so unsettling right now.
Huh? If a someone commits unspeakable crimes against a loved one of yours and the state is mounting a case against that person, you'd view it as an adversary?
1. A disgraced crypto bro trying to throw a hail mary to get out of prison
2. An authoritarian state growing by leaps and bounds daily
Again as a rational person, which of these two is more serious and therefore warranting action (even at the level of constructing good faith interpretations)?
I am not relitigating his conviction here. I am assessing the relative threat were he to succeed and be pardoned. Simple.
Also, yeah, anyone thinking 24 hours in solitary is no big deal -- spend a weekend trying it for yourself. Look up the conditions, and mimic it to the best of your ability and see how it goes.
Also, as someone who has spent more than 24 hours in solitary confinement, I can say that doing it for a full day is pretty mild. You contemplate, use the toilet as needed, eat what's given to you, sleep and the time passes pretty quickly unless you're also being abused in some other way such as temperature extremes or having your clothes removed (I've had to deal with both and they make even brief solitary much worse)
Doing it for long stretches is a different story of course, but a day or two without "special" and basically abusive measures as mentioned above is very mild unless you have one very pathological aversion to any solitude. Claustrophobia could be a factor too but since prison is a confined place either way, it never fully stops applying (though Solitary cells are more claustrophobic than prison living outside of full lockdown.)
Assessing this is precisely why permission is required. Also victim protection, for example; a criminal recounting the crime in an interview in detail would potentially retraumatize their victims.
There are lots of reasons permission is required. I agree it’s not pleasant, and feels wrong, but there are real reasons that are not “prisoners aren’t people.”
I think the real justification is part of prison is living a life of servitude where you basically have no control and everyone else makes the decision for you. America already more or less decided free speech was a danger worth accepting, and limiting prisoner communication won't put a dent on the collateral from that.
Isn’t that the reason you need permission in the first place?
He did this constantly leading up to the trial, at some point you lose the benefit of the doubt
I agree with this, but prisons have no obligation to let prisoners do everything that's legal. That's kinda the point of prison. If SBF has some important information to share about what it's like on the inside or why he should get a pardon, he can forward it through his lawyer.
> Legally, seeking a pardon is no different than filing an appeal.
I don't agree with this. There's all kinds of ways in which formal legal processes are different than general speech, and this is one of them. Prisoners get to talk to their lawyer and file legal documents because these are critically important rights, which can't be suspended even for a good reason.
Solitary confinement is torture, plain and simple. I'm not a fan of SBF, but no one should have to endure it, even just for 24 hours.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2020/02/united-state...
I cannot find a single reputable source that states solitary confinement for a total of 24 hours is torture.
"5 seconds of 110v shocks isn't torture, but 30 seconds is."
Solitary is absolutely torture no matter the duration. The duration threshold for "torture" is relative in this case so someone could consider it "torture" after just a few minutes.
Billionaires like him should serve the same time in the same manner as any other citizen.
So it doesn't much matter whether the interview was fabricated, edited, or otherwise fraudulent. It was aired to lay the groundwork for a pardon. Look for SBF to receive a pardon from Trump in the future (cf. Ross Ulbricht.)
1: https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/greedy-associates/tucker-...
https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Mc...
Tucker Carlson is specifically cited as maintaining that he spoke the truth on page 5. Rather it's Fox News that argues that Tucker Carlson was stating an opinion with hyperbole for effect:
"Fox News first argues that, viewed in context, Mr. Carlson cannot be understood to have been stating facts, but instead that he was delivering an opinion using hyperbole for effect...
This “general tenor” of the show should then inform a viewer that he is not “stating actual facts” about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in “exaggeration” and “non-literal commentary.”"
At any rate, the case is a lot more complex than just one guy claiming no one believes anything he says. Using it to justify the possibility that the interview by Tucker Carlson was not with the actual Sam Bankman-Fried by with a potential imposter or AI is absolute bonkers.
What was Carlson actually stating, and what was the context? Obviously some people took it seriously, or it wouldn't have ended up in court.
Wait, you actually think he was sued by people who took his statements seriously (aka fans)? The people taking it seriously were likely misconstruing rhetoric in a literal sense. This happens quite a bit. Sometimes the rhetoric is out of line, sometimes not. One could argue that his meaning is clearly understood by fans, like a big inside joke, and that the ridiculous claims are just another form of entertainment.
That said, if you watch Tucker now you'll see that he's much more serious than when he was on Fox News. I don't think applying the results from that case in any way to his independent journalism makes sense.
I'll take your word for it, how's that.
Are you by any chance familiar with prison?
That's a whole new sentence.
There's no logical progression from:
"Billionaires like him should serve the same time in the same manner as any other citizen."
to
"only billionaires can get contraband in prison"
Rethink the modalities in the two comments and try again.
That's an especially important question when someone is going through a very long punishment process, like what does another life sentence mean to someone who has a life sentence? You can't execute someone twice, right?
If someone breaks a very important rule in prison there needs to be some way to put an immediate stop to that behaviour and to disincentivize them from doing it again and in a situation like this is seems like solitary confinement is the most effective way to do that.
For average folks, sure.
Like, the well behaved could be served pork chops and peas instead of slop and mush.
But regardless, what length of time do you think is needed before it could be termed torture? And whatever your answer is, I hope you'd agree that opinions might differ on what that length of time is.
He's in prison, it's not supposed to be a picnic. It's also not supposed to be torture. But 24 hours, strikes me as an adult "time-out". He'll be asleep for 8 or more hours of that - more because he's bored, what else is he going to do.
"Traditional" is irrelevant; psychological torture is just as much torture as physical torture is.
Trump does not care if you used to openly hate him. If you pledge allegiance to him, he is cool with it. Might need a small bribe, depending on the case.
It's not the strongest case for SBF so I don't know if it will happen, but I'd put it at more like 30-40% than the something like 1-5%.
Whether or not pardoning SBF would be a good deal for him is another question, though.
If this guy offered to pay him $5B at some point, maybe he will have a better offer later? It’s best to pardon him and see what he comes up with. As long as he’s motivated by “how can I pay more money to DJT,” it doesn’t matter who else he tried to bribe.
I mean there are laws against straight cash but getting a stake of ftx2 could be promised.
I'd rather he was bought by the crypto crims than by Putin.
All it takes for SBF to be pardoned is someone to talk to Trump about it at the right time and offer him something.
Trump pardoned the Silk Road guy, a drug dealer, while claiming he was going to be the hardest president ever on drug dealers because crypto bros convinced him to do it.
Fortunately SBF has burned a ton of bridges. Most folks, even in crypto, dont like him.
"Go on Tucker Carlsen, come out as a republican
a) While public contributions show one thing, you see another thing including super pacs
b) Come out against the woke agenda
c) Talk about how the cartel of lawyers is destroying value and throwing entrepreneurs under the bus in order to cover up the incompetence of lawyers"
Picking a fake fight with lawyers seems like the sort of thing you'd do if you were desperate to go back to jail...
It offends judges, and that's a risk, but most judges try extremely hard to avoid the appearance of favoritism. (I realize that seems unlikely, since the judges we hear about most are selected for their favoritism.)
Meantime, hating on lawyers is a popular pastime. It makes you seem sympathetic to people who feel that the government is oppressing them. Which, bizarrely, includes the government right now.
It seems SBF had a hard time listening to his laywers, and apparently continues to do so
> Every man has three hearts: one in his mouth, for the world to know; one in his chest, just for his friends; and a secret heart buried deep where no one can find it
The path to success is keeping your strategy secret until long after you've executed it.
Sadly this dude was afflicted with verbal diarrhoea, he just couldn't stop talking and writing. How much more effective the same strategy would be if he had just kept his mouth shut. He's made it needlessly difficult for himself.
Still, it's not a huge issue. All he has to do is cozy up to Trump and get his pardon. I can already hear it - "he was treated very horribly, very unfairly. Believe me, I know."
I can't see anything sad about a pathological liar outing himself.
b) Say the right things so Trump has cover to grant you a pardon
c) Say the right things so Trump has cover to grant you a pardon
We need more people in government leadership who experience a spectrum of empathetic responses.
For too long the government has been run by people who experience neurotypical empathy for others: think of the missed opportunities when you don't consider the feelings of others!
Here's the proposed text:
SECTION 1. The President shall not have the power to grant pardons and reprieves to—
(1) the President’s self;
(2) any person, up to a third degree relation, of the President, or a spouse thereof;
(3) any current or former member of the President’s administration;
(4) any person who worked on the President’s presidential campaign as a paid employee;
(5) any person or entity for an offense that was motivated by a direct and significant personal or pecuniary interest of any of the foregoing persons; or
(6) any person or entity for an offense that was at the direction of, or in coordination with, the President.
SECTION 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Some crimes clearly fit only under the federal umbrella, but some are meerly not currently addressed by state law because federal law was seen as sufficient. There's a recent supreme court decision that says trying someone for the same conduct in state and federal courts is fine [1], so it just becomes a question of if the federally pardoned conduct also violates a state law of a state that's relevant.
In this case, where the victims are numerous, if SBF were pardoned, the question would be do any of the 50 states have a fraud law that was violated. Or indeed, if any other countries do and if they can get an extradition arranged. I don't know if a federal pardon would prevent US cooperation in extradition?
Yes, solitary confinement is akin to forced mental distress in most incarceration systems. No, it’s not randomly doled out.
The fact remains if he wanted to do an interview with Tucker Carlson he could have accomplished it in writing using the mail. He chose not to do so. No sympathy here.
I am a handicapped person with an incurable chronic blood condition. The standard of care at TCC, via contract with JPS, is appalling. When I had blood pouring out of my mouth / skull from improper after care treatment following a tooth extraction, the responding “Nurse” brought two (2) Tylenol and mouth rinse and a gauze pad. Only due to a favor by the 3rd shift guards was I able to be sent over to the Tower (I was in Lon Evans) to be seen by a Provider and get my necessary medication to stop the bleeding. The staff completely disregarded the documented / listed after care protocol written in my file by the Specialist at JPS.
Furthermore, between January and February of 2024 I lost 25 pounds - to 124.6 from 150 at 5’7” - because they refused to acknowledge my daily repeat vomiting from a bacterial infection was deserving treatment. It’s a frustrating situation to be in for sure, but I hope by appropriately documenting my suffering and pain, something positive may be done about Sheriff Bill’s “they deserve to be abused” espoused mentality. Thank you for being concerned, I do mean that!
Extremely sorry to hear about the pain you went through.
At best case, they were such incompetent accountants that they didn't know they lent it to a related party.
At worse case, they knew and intentionally concealed this fact from their depositors.
They had zero responsibility to disclose this to users of this exchange. Again, completely unregulated financial institution operating in the Bahamas...what could go wrong?
Ironically, you have left-wing people who appear to be puzzled about why financial regulation exist.
Better to work towards a world where "they shouldn't have trusted him" doesn't have to get said as much because it's easy to verify that if you can transact with it, it's likely to be legitimate. Why was, as you put it, "an unregulated financial institution outside the US," able to make itself so accessible? How much of it was because of dishonestly. That people "should have" seen through? Fuck that. Let's make more laws that would've stopped them even sooner. And be thankful for the ones that did finally catch him.
We should wan to make it easier for any random person and harder for a scammers. You're advocating for the reverse.
You veer off into appointed judges or elected prosecutors (is there a third option you want here instead?), like nobody's complaining about exactly that when pointing out how Trump-appointed judges give Trump an easy time, but at the end of the day: there's no defense for SBF, and nobody who wants a productive economy instead of Wall Street-and-lawyers-middleman-leech-fest should defend him.
This attempt to apply national laws globally is an essential part of why the foreign policy of Western nations has been so bad. America First is an essential component of this as well, it is all the same thing.
No, I don't veer off. As I explain, the issue is that people complain very specifically about campaign finance as a problem in itself and ignore the issues with elected prosecutors and politically-appointed judges which is also very unique to the US, and causes the same outcomes as campaign finance. I helpfully explained for you in my original comment that when people are unable to see the connection between these things, it is because they have their own political motivation.
There is a defence for SBF, it is very easy: he did something that usually isn't prosecuted, the usual action would be a careful wind down that wouldn't destroy value (for the reasons here, billions of dollars was wasted because of the political context...again, people are very clear about SBF stealing money but only lawyers and consultants got FTX money), and a 30-year sentence makes absolutely no sense.
I have no idea why you are saying lawyers defend them...lawyers brought this case, there are tens of lawyers who deposited millions into their bank account last year from this case, the problem is lawyers (specifically: politically-motivated prosecutors, politically-motivated regulators, and a bankruptcy system that is designed to maximise fee income for lawyers). You are the one saying that the income of lawyers need protection.
He was rightfully charged with wire fraud. If you are talking about his campaign contributions, that was one of the only charges he had dropped.
It's like arguing that Bernie Madoff should have been treated better because he voted in the last Primary. Your special snowflake ideology does not acquit you from fraud and money laundering charges.
Madoff lied to investors over forty years, stole their money, deposited in his bank account, and spent it.
SBF didn't commit fraud (US laws like wire fraud are deliberately vague so they can be used to bolster the political credentials of prosecutors so they can run for higher office...this is a banana republic style legal system), he ran a totally unlicensed securities exchange, that exchange lent money to a hedge fund he also controlled, and that fund temporarily turned out not to be good credit.
If you followed the case, you will know that prosecutors never explained where the money went...it just disappeared...the reason why is because what happened is the same thing that happens at every bank in the world. A recent example is H20, investor's money was lost lending to an (essentially) related party, this is in a jurisdiction where there was a duty for oversight, customers were missold this investment (again, in a jurisdiction where this was a requirement), and the fund has been frozen since 2020...the result has been a fine, deauthorization of the firm, etc. No-one was put in jail for three decades, fees were disgorged but only on related products, etc.
...and this is for a regulated, onshore product...not a unlicensed crypto exchange operating in the Bahamas.
Also the federal prosecutors investigating him have been out on leave.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/federal-prosecutors-investigated-e...
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/appointee-recommends-j...
But it's clear that he isn't punished enough and got away with an easy fake prison if he's still commiting crimes.
SBF is beyond loathsome but he should still be treated humanely.
Prolonged use of Solitary confinement is a humans right abuse: https://www.aclu.org/documents/abuse-human-rights-prisoners-...
Prison is mostly just warehousing people for a prescribed amount of time. I've read that people start to develop PTSD after about 7 days of confinement. Sometimes incarceration is all you can do with violent people and fraudsters. I'm sure most inmates are deteriorated by their 'correction'.
My friend would rather be in jail than in a psych ward, so that's one positive take on incarceration. [I have videos proving she was misdiagnosed. Arizona's psych wards implement an obsolete approach to 'mental health', using palliative drugs. In 2022 Chris Palmer published his book about the 80 years of science establishing that mental disorders are caused by metabolic problems, but the standard of care is still palliative treatment.]
I didn’t realize it was so hard to control the freedoms of inmates. I actually thought that was the whole point.
It's likely not a violation they'll allow twice. But it's not at all surprising that it happened once.
So SBF kind of snuck the interviewer in under the guise of it being a legal meeting.
That’s why the prison got pissed.
For a Hail Mary, I get it. But it’s definitely either pardon or not, as a result. He’s not getting out on good behavior any time soon, lol.
I guess I get it, what else do you have to lose?
To me any decision could come out of the White House these days. If Trump decides to drop a nuclear bomb in China for no reason, I would not be surprised. Not that it is likely, but I have lowered my expectations enough.
Elon is the starkest example of "journalist contacts him about historic allegations that were never going to amount to anything other than embarrassment and within a couple of hours he's come out as a Republican and therefore rendered himself immune to shame over personal indiscretions of the sort only Teh Wokes care about". Again, trending that way because he was genuinely annoyed at pandemic regulations and not a fan of Teh Wokes but interesting to see how far he's taken it...
It reminds me of the joke: "libertarians are just Republicans who smoke weed"
btw the way i always heard it was "libertarians are just Republicans who are into S&M"
not sure that's aged well
but truly all the ayn rand types i first met when i was young were actually into S&M
He's upset that Democrats didn't let him commit crime just because he donated to them? Holy corruption, Bankman.
Yeah, doesn't he know that you have to be blood-related to the President for that privilege?
Of course, with the DOJ RIFs and brain drain it's uncertain he could be successfully prosecuted.
Otherwise there would be a good chance of making gambling with customer money legal (which is what the Silicon Valley Bank did) and SBF could co-chair the Sovereign Bitcoin Reserve together with DPR.