Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sam Bankman-Fried doesn't recall

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 123 posts

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried doesn't recall

#61

Post by NegativeK »

digging wrote: post #49
dheera wrote: post #2

"don't recall" I'm guessing this is largely just an ass-covering strategy to avoid giving the opposing side an upper hand. If you say "yes" to anything you might give them verbal grounds to convict you of more than they can directly find and show external evidence for.

If he simply doesn't want to talk about something, isn't he entitled to take the 5th and just refuse to answer? Saying he doesn't recall is a gambit because it's an obvious lie but I think he's hoping it's one we're so used to hearing that it sounds less incriminating than refusing to answer.

I don't believe you can selectively take the 5th.

As in once you waive your right to the 5th and take the stand, you have to answer all of the opposing side's questions truthfully.

(Not a lawyer.)

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried doesn't recall

#63

Post by jihadjihad »

mpalmer wrote: post #39
mvdtnz wrote: post #33

This article has some really great stuff in it but I wish the author would cut the flowery bullshit and most importantly stop trying to make the piece about themselves. I do not care about how much YOU cringed, about the "holy fucking shit" you wrote on YOUR notes, etc. So many journalists nowadays think THEY are the story. Stick to the real story, keep yourself out of it.

It'd be one thing if the flowery writing were actually good, but the images don't even make sense. as prosecutor Danielle Sassoon went through a brutal line of questioning like a hot buzzsaw through a butter cow Shouldn't the brutal line of questioning be the buzzsaw, and SBF the butter?

It's ambiguous, but I read it as "the prosecutor effortlessly heaped a brutal line of questioning upon the defendant," or something to that effect.

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried doesn't recall

#64

Post by RationalDino »

sieste wrote: post #17
fasthands9 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definitely - but it's still notable that he's doing this after voluntarily taking the stand.

I really don't understand what the big deal is with "Do you remember saying 'these precise words'?" - "No, but it sounds like something I could have said." Given how human memory works, that should be the honest answer for everything anyone ever said more than 5 minutes ago. Why does the article turn this into a major gotcha?

Saying that it sounds like something you could have said opens the floodgates to why you could have said it. In this case, "Yeah, I could have admitted to a crime" is a quick way to go to jail.

So is saying you don't recall. Which is why people don't take the stand in their own defense. But scammers like SBF make their living off of being in front of people in hopeless situations, and finding a way to convince them. So of course they want to roll the dice. Which he did.

Unfortunately for scammers like SBF, courtrooms and lawyers are well-equipped to handle most of the tricks that scammers use. So the result of their testifying is like a street tough entering a BJJ gym and learning the hard way that chokeholds actually work.

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried doesn't recall

#65

Post by setgree »

mvdtnz wrote: post #33

This article has some really great stuff in it but I wish the author would cut the flowery bullshit and most importantly stop trying to make the piece about themselves. I do not care about how much YOU cringed, about the "holy fucking shit" you wrote on YOUR notes, etc. So many journalists nowadays think THEY are the story. Stick to the real story, keep yourself out of it.

meh, I liked it. I lol'd at this part

> Still, he hadn’t made any of those statements under legal oath, had he? Well… that remained true until we reached his Congressional testimony. Bankman-Fried read aloud testimony he’d submitted to Congress: that trading platforms’ obligations included maintaining sufficient liquid assets that customers could withdraw on request. That platforms should ensure appropriate bookkeeping to prevent misuse of customer assets. Ensuring appropriate management of risks. Avoiding conflicts of interest.

> Sassoon immediately followed this with direct messages Bankman-Fried had sent to Kelsey Piper, in which he said this was all just public relations, and “fuck regulators.”

> At this point, my notes simply read “Jesus fucking Christ” in all caps.

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried doesn't recall

#66

Post by duped »

omarfarooq wrote: post #46
mvdtnz wrote: post #33

This article has some really great stuff in it but I wish the author would cut the flowery bullshit and most importantly stop trying to make the piece about themselves. I do not care about how much YOU cringed, about the "holy fucking shit" you wrote on YOUR notes, etc. So many journalists nowadays think THEY are the story. Stick to the real story, keep yourself out of it.

Don't see an issue with that here, she was present in the courtroom so the personal narrative is warranted, and I don't see that got in the way at all. Adds a human element. With that being said, you can copy and paste the article in ChatGPT and have it render the way you want. What a time to be alive!

> so the personal narrative is warranted, and I don't see that got in the way at all.

I would actually like to know what SBF said on the stand that caused the reactions in the gallery/jury and not the author's personal reaction.

ChatGPT can't do that because the author left out information.

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried doesn't recall

#68

Post by dragonwriter »

H8crilA wrote: post #20

What is amazing is that nobody infiltrated their structure and ran off with the money. There are sophisticated criminal organisations out there that go to much, much more effort to obtain funding. Just to take Hezbollah since it's all over the news recently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_of_Hezbollah#Latin_Ame...

> What is amazing is that nobody infiltrated their structure and ran off with the money.

How do you know that, on top of whatever SBF, etc., ran off with, embezzled, misdirected, and stole, someone else didn't?

AFAIK, there is clear accounting of misuse of some amount of the funds, but it there's no complete balanced accounting overall, and the whole structure of the FTX network of conpanies was designed to make that impossible.

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried doesn't recall

#69

Post by RationalDino »

0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #26
vkou wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm guessing this is largely just an ass-covering strategy to avoid giving the opposing side an upper hand. I It is, but it looks really, really bad to the jury. The government needs to convince the jury of a particular version of events, in order to convict you. If you plead the fifth, and just poke holes at that version of events, you might convince the jury that the government failed to meet the standard of conv…

I naively think there is still a chance his parents get implicated for assisting the scheme.

At the very least they face significant clawbacks.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/09/19/sbfs-parents-sued-by-ftx-for...

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried doesn't recall

#70

Post by sgt101 »

Animats wrote: post #62

This is the worst case for a bullshitter - on trial, in a criminal court, under oath, being cross-examined, in front of a jury, with a competent prosecutor who has plenty of evidence.

I think that the defense (and SBF) must have concluded that they were looking at 40 years before he took the stand, and if it ends in him getting 80 does that really make a difference? Maybe, just maybe, he could have swung it - but it looks like he hasn't.
Post reply on HN