[HN Gopher] Sam Bankman-Fried thrown into solitary over Tucker C...
___________________________________________________________________
Sam Bankman-Fried thrown into solitary over Tucker Carlson
interview: report
Author : rntn
Score : 152 points
Date : 2025-03-08 17:14 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (gizmodo.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (gizmodo.com)
| dgfitz wrote:
| > the federal agency confirmed to the newspaper that it did not
| give permission for the interview with Carlson to go forward.
|
| I didn't realize it was so hard to control the freedoms of
| inmates. I actually thought that was the whole point.
| borski wrote:
| This was actually somewhat clever, but very dishonest. He used
| a link to the outside that is normally used solely for
| discussions between inmates and their lawyers; the catch is
| that on the other end was Tucker, not his lawyer.
|
| 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.
| DiscourseFan wrote:
| Yeah I mean if I were Trump I still wouldn't trust him
| considering his history
| rs186 wrote:
| Brave of you to assume what Trump would think.
|
| 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.
| laughing_man wrote:
| Trump seems inclined to drop charges or pardon people who
| he feels were unjustly persecuted by the Biden
| administration. I don't see any way for Bankman-Fried to
| make that case.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| Also potential sex offenders who are facing both Romanian
| and UK charges.
| mindslight wrote:
| You don't? Just outright lie and fabricate a narrative
| where he was unjustly persecuted by the Biden
| administration - the same as the rest of the Trumpists
| have done. 140 character attention spans love an underdog
| story, and 140 characters isn't nearly long enough to
| reiterate things like why we have laws in the first
| place.
| dgfitz wrote:
| Ah I didn't realize that. Holmes also seemed to try and throw
| a Hail Mary by this logic.
|
| I guess I get it, what else do you have to lose?
| agoodusername63 wrote:
| Well, building a case for an early release on good behavior
| is something he definitely burned here. But he's got a long
| sentence. He can start building that from square one again.
| Maybe.
| casenmgreen wrote:
| I may be wrong, but on the face of it, to interview with TC
| says a lot about who and what you are.
| russdill wrote:
| Out of all the things SBF has done, who he chooses to
| interview with is so so so far down there.
| jfengel wrote:
| It actually is quite difficult, outside of solitary
| confinement. It's not a panopticon. You're not watched closely
| most of the time. Many violations are ignored.
|
| It's likely not a violation they'll allow twice. But it's not
| at all surprising that it happened once.
| dgfitz wrote:
| Seems odd it's easy for a nationwide interview to happen on
| the sly in prison. But then again, what do I know?
| Trasmatta wrote:
| > SBF said in the Thursday episode of Carlson's show that he
| doesn't believe Democrats "saved" him while being prosecuted
| during the Joe Biden years because they knew he was giving to
| Republicans as well.
|
| He's upset that Democrats didn't let him commit crime just
| because he donated to them? Holy corruption, Bankman.
| bloopernova wrote:
| He's lying. He's angling for a pardon by playing up to
| republicans' hatred of democrats/"woke".
| jfengel wrote:
| It's a pretty good tactic.
| nojonestownpls wrote:
| > He's upset that Democrats didn't let him commit crime just
| because he donated to them?
|
| Yeah, doesn't he know that you have to be blood-related to the
| President for that privilege?
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| the phenomenon of going right wing after committing crimes so you
| can find a sympathetic ear feels rather troubling, especially
| because it seems to work no matter how blatant it is
| javajosh wrote:
| What better way to "own the libs" than to openly transgress
| against sacrosanct values? There is a certain power when you
| demonstrate that shame, consistency, or principle has no hold
| on you. To avoid the internal backstabbing this would entail,
| you also need to convince the audience that it's all a kind of
| kayfabe, make-believe, and that you really ARE principled and
| trustworthy with _your_ people, or for some short period of
| time to achieve a goal. It 's foolish, but the world is full of
| foolish people believing simply because it feels good. Reality
| has no place in this calculus. This is NOT a partisan problem.
| efnx wrote:
| I reflexively agree, but what other folks have blantantly
| switched like this that you know of?
| mizzao wrote:
| Eric Adams, for one.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Russell Brand
| notahacker wrote:
| Oddly enough, Russell's political transformation came long
| before the world's least surprising revelations, probably
| because he'd got to the point of his "revolution" where the
| left considered him tiresome and the pandemic was a reboot
| opportunity.
|
| 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...
| evan_ wrote:
| Blagojevich
| misiti3780 wrote:
| he was setup though.
| wasimanitoba wrote:
| He was hilariously brazen in his attempt to sell a Senate
| seat. His attempt to claim it was all a conspiracy
| against him was even more hilarious.
| bdangubic wrote:
| Trump
| gengwyn wrote:
| He was always right-wing coded so not really a switch, but
| Andrew and Tristan Tate are two huge ones that did the grift
| and it's played out for them.
| jxjnskkzxxhx wrote:
| It also shows that every powerful/influential person knows
| which party is the most dishonest one.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| Musk famously "switched" after sexual harassment allegations
| against him came out.
| agoodusername63 wrote:
| Musk was always one of those "both sides" libertarian tech
| bros that usually just end up right wing. Well before he
| became a household name with SpaceX and Tesla.
|
| It reminds me of the joke: "libertarians are just Republicans
| who smoke weed"
| Leary wrote:
| On an EV basis, the worst thing SBF did was probably funding
| Anthropic and accelerating the demise of humanity.
| dralley wrote:
| Sam Bankman-Fried's "comeback plan", item #3, as per evidence
| obtained from his Gmail account:
| https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.59...
|
| "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"
| bigyabai wrote:
| > Talk about how the cartel of lawyers is destroying value
|
| Picking a fake fight with lawyers seems like the sort of thing
| you'd do if you were desperate to go back to jail...
| raverbashing wrote:
| Yeah
|
| It seems SBF had a hard time listening to his laywers, and
| apparently continues to do so
| jfengel wrote:
| When you have money, you can always find one lawyer willing
| to help, and that's all you need.
|
| 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.
| belter wrote:
| So, not Autistic anymore?
| therealpygon wrote:
| No, it transferred to Elon remember?
| ethbr1 wrote:
| I support Trump's autistic DEI hires!
|
| 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!
| 01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote:
| Both sides make good arguments about turning children
| into pre workout smoothies
| ethbr1 wrote:
| I prefer all proposals to be modest.
| rawgabbit wrote:
| a) Pay Trump
|
| 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
| nindalf wrote:
| I'm reminded of this quote from Shogun.
|
| > 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."
| tempodox wrote:
| > Sadly this dude was afflicted with verbal diarrhoea
|
| I can't see anything sad about a pathological liar outing
| himself.
| javajosh wrote:
| Sidenote: Voidzilla did a 6 minute video about this interview
| [1]. Tucker focused on injustice, but not the billions SBF stole
| from people, but the fact that the people who took SBF's
| political contributions didn't get him off. The implications seem
| to be that Tucker values transactional justice rather than
| unbiased justice. This is a sea-change in American (and indeed
| Western) jurisprudence that is (to me) some combination of
| shocking and expected at this point.
|
| 1 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BLzWTRmq2k
| wmf wrote:
| Didn't Mark Twain say that an honest politician is one who
| stays bought? I guess Tucker agrees with him.
| maxbond wrote:
| If Bankman-Fried does somehow get a pardon, I will be amazed that
| the bitter debate on HN about whether he would get off scott free
| or would be thrown in prison somehow resulted in _both_ parties
| being correct.
| misiti3780 wrote:
| why would trump pardon him - he donated to mostly democratic
| causes and openly hated trump (was going to pay him 5B to not
| run reportedly)
| pavlov wrote:
| You don't understand Trump's transactional instinct.
|
| 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.
| maxbond wrote:
| I doubt he will, I'd think it would be to curry favor with
| the crypto crowd, but I don't think they have a lot of love
| for Bankman-Fried. But it's a spicy administration so it's
| not a 0% chance. Maybe a 1% to 5% chance.
| randycupertino wrote:
| Ever since Trump pardoned Ross Ulbricht I have been waiting to
| see if he will also pardon Sam Bankman-Fried and Elizabeth
| Holmes.
| forinti wrote:
| Ulbricht had the backing of the libertarians.
| sitkack wrote:
| Many things the administration are doing are gifts to crypto
| bros and libertarians.
| misiti3780 wrote:
| i never understood why they backed him though?
| toast0 wrote:
| Don't libertarians like free markets? Why should the
| government intrude on contracts for drugs or murder?
| ty6853 wrote:
| The government literally had to show up for the market
| for murder, with their own offerings, on silk road before
| they even were able to attempt to litigate it. We need
| the government so badly, because if a dark market shows
| up their informants/agents might solicit murder!
| Completely circular logic the state used in that case.
| seydor wrote:
| Why? they are fraudsters, which ulrbicht was not. also they
| have only served a few years
| mvid wrote:
| Yea, Ulbricht only tried to have people murdered
| lurk2 wrote:
| That was never proven in a court of law.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Eric Adams had federal charges dropped, even though he's not
| even a Republican. Almost as if someone's building a team...
|
| Also the federal prosecutors investigating him have been out
| on leave.
|
| https://abcnews.go.com/US/federal-prosecutors-
| investigated-e...
| zdragnar wrote:
| Or, the charges are being dropped, a layer appointed by the
| judge to be a neutral advisor recommended the charges be
| dismissed with prejudice, and the prosecutors are on leave
| and being investigated for potential misconduct revealed
| they may have acted in bad faith:
|
| https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/appointee-
| recommends-j...
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Perhaps, but it's funnier to imagine that someone is
| assembling a comic book-styled initiative of charismatic
| crooks
| spongebobstoes wrote:
| I think it's wrong to use solitary as an extra (and extra-
| judicial) punishment.
|
| Prisons should need a strong medical/safety justification for
| putting prisoners into isolation, which is torturous for many
| people.
| namuol wrote:
| The story here is that a criminal that stole billions is
| staging a prison escape through an openly corrupt political
| administration and their subservient media apparatus.
| borski wrote:
| You're right. But in this case SBF engaged in an external
| interview, without permission, over a link normally reserved
| for access to attorneys.
|
| 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.
| fallingknife wrote:
| This seems extremely authoritarian. Obviously prisoners lose
| many rights due to their conviction, but I see no reason that
| freedom of speech or of the press should be among them.
| Unless he is communicating with a former co-conspiritor or
| otherwise in furtherance of some crime, I think a prisoner
| should be able to speak with whoever he wishes.
| croes wrote:
| > Unless he is communicating with a former co-conspiritor
| or otherwise in furtherance of some crime
|
| Isn't that the reason you need permission in the first
| place?
| davidcbc wrote:
| > Unless he is communicating with a former co-conspiritor
| or otherwise in furtherance of some crime
|
| He did this constantly leading up to the trial, at some
| point you lose the benefit of the doubt
| fallingknife wrote:
| I think think you are correct here to a point. If you
| want to say SBF has lost the benefit of the doubt and is
| never allowed to engage in business related to crypto or
| to communicate with the former management of FTX I think
| that's reasonable. I also think it's reasonable to say
| that as a convicted criminal in prison the level of
| suspicion is so high that all your communication with
| anyone (except lawyers) can be monitored without
| additional due process. But going from that to "you can't
| communicate with anyone at all unless we say so" is a
| step too far.
| davidcbc wrote:
| How do you tell if he's talking to co-conspirators and
| doing more crimes or not unless you are monitoring who he
| is talking to?
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| This was absolutely in furtherance of his crimes. A Tucker
| Carlson interview was item 3 on the list he kept of ideas
| for how to get away with it.
| fallingknife wrote:
| Seeking a pardon is legal and actions in furtherance of
| that end are also legal as long as those actions
| themselves are not crimes. You are allowed to try to "get
| away it" in the context of legal process. Legally,
| seeking a pardon is no different than filing an appeal.
| lazide wrote:
| Going on Fox News from inside prison is not the way a
| pardon gets requested.
| smallerfish wrote:
| It is in 2025.
| notahacker wrote:
| It is when the POTUS is a Fox News addict who _actively
| enjoys_ the appearance of impropriety...
| bdangubic wrote:
| appearance? :)
| notahacker wrote:
| I mean, some people prefer covering it up to flaunting it
| :)
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| Carlson is doing his own thing now, he got fired from Fox
| in 2023.
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| > Seeking a pardon is legal and actions in furtherance of
| that end are also legal as long as those actions
| themselves are not crimes.
|
| 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.
| tiahura wrote:
| Seems expensive and passive aggressive. Just horsewhip him.
| He'll get the message.
| borski wrote:
| > Unless he is communicating with a former co-conspiritor
| or otherwise in furtherance of some crime.
|
| 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."
| UltraSane wrote:
| "This seems extremely authoritarian"
|
| Yes prisons generally are like that.
| jancsika wrote:
| What does your response have to do with the medical
| needs/safety of SBF or the other inmates? I don't see the
| connection.
| borski wrote:
| The safety and needs of a prisoner are not the only
| concerns. The safety and needs of the victims and public
| are also a concern. Moreover, if there was a breach of
| security (which is at least close to the definition of what
| happened), temporarily securing the prisoner in a separate
| location to assess what happened and how it happened
| doesn't immediately strike me as unreasonable.
|
| I would prefer, of course, that it wasn't solitary.
| jancsika wrote:
| > The safety and needs of a prisoner are not the only
| concerns.
|
| 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.
| borski wrote:
| If, for example, someone convicted of sexual assault
| decides to give an interview without permission, and
| proceeds to reiterate the details of the crime, that
| would undoubtedly harm the victim of their crimes. That
| is what I meant by the safety and needs of a prisoner not
| being the only concerns.
|
| 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.
| IshKebab wrote:
| I don't think one day in solitary quite counts as
| torture. Obviously longer term it is, but one day is
| hyperbolic.
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| If he had smuggled items there could be safety implication
| and yes even medical implications (eg if he was boofing an
| iPhone)
| Teever wrote:
| I broadly agree with this but it raises a bigger question --
| how do you punish someone who is already in a process of
| punishment?
|
| 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.
| pjot wrote:
| Maybe leading with a stick instead of a carrot isn't the
| right approach?
| ethbr1 wrote:
| It's hard to carrot already-wealthy prisoners.
|
| For average folks, sure.
| pjot wrote:
| I don't know, I feel like there is much more room for
| positive incentives than negative. Prisons put people on
| a pretty level playing field.
|
| Like, the well behaved could be served pork chops and
| peas instead of slop and mush.
| fitblipper wrote:
| Have you ever experienced prison yourself or through
| someone close? Prisons don't put people on a level
| playing field at all. It is significantly more
| comfortable to be rich in prison than poor in prison.
| brunoqc wrote:
| Surely prisoners still have some privileges that could be
| taken away as a punishment (going outdoors, books, tv,
| computers, phone, visits, classes/work...
| viccis wrote:
| If SBF was able to get a smuggled phone, as the article
| speculates, to do an unauthorized interview, then he is clearly
| using his connections to sidestep aspects of his incarceration.
| Putting him in solitary is an appropriate way to cut him off
| from engaging in further such corruption, and it should be
| repeated for any further violations. The only problem here is
| that it took this long for them to identify that he had the
| ability to do things like this.
|
| Billionaires like him should serve the same time in the same
| manner as any other citizen.
| _3u10 wrote:
| Your contention is that only billionaires can get contraband
| in prison?
|
| Are you by any chance familiar with prison?
| viccis wrote:
| >Your contention is that only billionaires can get
| contraband in 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.
| missedthecue wrote:
| If they accuse him of having a phone they should probably
| find it before punishing him
| dullcrisp wrote:
| You think Tucker fabricated the interview using AI?
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| Tucker Carlson went to court to argue that no reasonable
| person would believe what he says on the air. [1] Yet
| American conservatives hang on his every word.
|
| 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-...
| Maxatar wrote:
| In reading the actual judgement that's not the case:
|
| 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.
| scottiescottie wrote:
| you actually read the case instead of parroting a talking
| point? witch
| ericcumbee wrote:
| you don't have to be particularly well connected in prison to
| get access to a phone. Just knowing who to talk to and being
| able to give them something they want. phones are right up
| there with drugs and tobacco being smuggled into prisons.
| kolbe wrote:
| What would you suggest to solve the problem solitary is aiming
| to solve? Chesterton's Fence was built for a reason. Solitary
| isn't torturous in the traditional sense of the word. It is
| consistent with the idea of prison--it's just a worse version
| of prison. It acts to disincentivize rule breaking within the
| system. What other ways can we attack this problem with high
| enough confidence that removing the proverbial "fence" will not
| result in a total disaster.
| brunoqc wrote:
| > Solitary isn't torturous in the traditional sense of the
| word.
|
| I think it might actually be. It can break people.
| Matthyze wrote:
| It is. Psychological torture is torture.
| cm2187 wrote:
| So what are you suggesting to handle misbehaving inmates? A
| strongly worded memo?
| paganel wrote:
| They're already in prison, applying extra pain with no trial
| or anything like that is not very civilized, to the contrary.
| bobbylarrybobby wrote:
| A simple middle ground would be confinement to your cell with
| a book or two, but still in the presence of people. You'd
| take your meals there, not in the cafeteria. You wouldn't get
| to hang out with people or go outside. The jail equivalent of
| a time out. Not fun, probably boring, but not literal
| psychological torture.
| nabeards wrote:
| Prison already _is_ psychological torture.
| timbit42 wrote:
| Ban visitors?
| GaggiX wrote:
| >which is torturous for many people.
|
| That's why it's used as a punishment.
| pedalpete wrote:
| I'd agree if he were in solitary for an extended period of
| time, but is 24 hours really that torturous?
| aprilthird2021 wrote:
| I really wonder if the whole insolvency and locking up customer
| funds thing happened which led to the revelation of fraud etc. If
| that happened now, with Trump in office. Would he have just not
| been arrested, indicted, convicted, etc.?
| outer_web wrote:
| Given the measurable shift away from consumer protection and
| prosecution of corporate greed as well as the micromanagement
| of the DOJ, I think the answer is "in that hypothetical
| situation, what would SBF have to offer the White House?"
|
| Of course, with the DOJ RIFs and brain drain it's uncertain he
| could be successfully prosecuted.
| tcj_phx wrote:
| The most important line in this interview was at about 33:00:
| "The hardest thing is not having something meaningful to do in
| here". https://x.com/tuckercarlson/status/1897709140535132442
|
| 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.]
| 6stringmerc wrote:
| As an inmate in a terrible county jail who chose solitary
| confinement for mental health reasons - and to avoid the 4 Tray
| Crips who effectively run general population in Tarrant County
| Corrections - I'm glad he's going in. I have several stories of
| hearing entitled and "tough" men absolutely crumble when forced
| to sit out punishment in that environment. There's a recent
| phrase that goes "fuck around and find out" which totally fits
| here.
|
| 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.
| sebmellen wrote:
| I live in Tarrant County. I've heard horrible things about the
| deaths in our county jail. Maybe slightly off topic, but
| anything you can share from your time there?
| 6stringmerc wrote:
| Yes and I'm working in earnest to write it up on my Medium
| account (in profile). The Corrections Officers are
| legitimately over worked and in numerous chats I found 3 of 5
| officers highly disapprove of Sheriff Waybourn's handling of
| the department. This includes Sheriff Deputies tasked with
| Warrant Enforcement pulling Medical Transport duty.
|
| 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!
| sebmellen wrote:
| Unbelievable. How in the hell is Waybourn still in charge!?
|
| Extremely sorry to hear about the pain you went through.
| tempodox wrote:
| > SBF blamed his erratic appearance in old interviews on being
| distracted by tech devices.
|
| 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?
| majormajor wrote:
| > > 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?
|
| 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?
| generalizations wrote:
| Wouldn't 'acting surprised' at such things be merely
| performative? I don't think anyone in this thread is
| surprised either.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| The general problem is that honest politicians are uncommon.
| If you have to choose between corrupt politician who is going
| to do X and corrupt politician who is going to do Y then
| you're going to choose on the basis of X and Y rather than
| corruption because "honest politician" isn't on the ballot.
|
| Go ahead and change that if you can figure out how.
| ccorcos wrote:
| Hot take: I think it should be legal to offer a bribe and
| illegal to accept a bribe.
|
| 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?
| PavleMiha wrote:
| > That's just being realistic, isn't it?
|
| 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.
| amazingman wrote:
| No. Not in a society that values the rule of law. I keep seeing
| amoral "do whatever you can get away with" sociopathy
| masquerading as "realism" in our discussions of politics. I
| wish it would stop.
| Recursing wrote:
| > > SBF blamed his erratic appearance in old interviews on
| being distracted by tech devices.
|
| > 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)
| Molitor5901 wrote:
| I despise the snot but solitary confinement should only be used
| for the most egregious, violent offenders. Throwing someone in
| the "hole" for such a minor thing is inhuman. Solitary should be
| outlawed.
| xiphias2 wrote:
| By stealing billions of dollars he destroyed more people than
| the worst repeated violent offenders. Also he's clearly paying
| politicians off. In my opinion he should be categorized in the
| worst category even just looking at the lost thousands of years
| because people won't be able to pay medical bills because of
| him.
| rwmj wrote:
| Is there a chance the constitution will be changed after all this
| so the president can't pardon people?
| dragonwriter wrote:
| It is unlikely that any amendment to the Constitution that
| would pass (or even a new order of government instituted
| without amending the Constitution, e.g., by autocoup or violent
| revolution) would eliminate the pardon power, though it is
| somewhat more plausible that it might be made either subject to
| some kind of after-issue review or made non-unilateral, either
| generally or in particular circumstances.
| ycombinatrix wrote:
| Joe Arpaio was pardoned in Trump's first term. Nobody is gonna
| change anything.
| toast0 wrote:
| The president can only pardon for federal crimes. I imagine
| if/when people are tired of federal pardons, that many things
| will become both state crimes and federal crimes, where that's
| possible.
|
| 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?
|
| [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamble_v._United_States
| Ankaios wrote:
| Here's a proposal for an amendment restricting the pardon
| power: https://cohen.house.gov/media-center/press-
| releases/congress...
|
| 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.
|
| Any pardon issued for a corrupt purpose shall be invalid.
|
| SECTION 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this
| article by appropriate legislation.
| raincom wrote:
| Even if this law passes, it will face a problem of violating
| the constitution: ArtII.S2.C1.3.1
| cvz wrote:
| It wouldn't be an ordinary law, it would be a
| constitutional amendment, so that wouldn't be an issue.
| It's probably not going to happen, though. Amending the
| U.S. constitution is incredibly difficult.
| tw1231283 wrote:
| Crypto czar David Sacks was in favor of the Silicon Valley Bank
| bailout but spoke against SBF in 2022, when SBF was believed to
| be a Democrat.
|
| 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.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-03-08 23:01 UTC)