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

81–90 of 123 posts

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried doesn't recall

#81

Post by dheera »

NegativeK wrote: post #61
digging wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

> you have to answer all of the opposing side's questions truthfully

What if you don't know the answer, are only probabilistically sure of the answer, or the answer isn't a simple yes or no?

I see lots of courtroom videos and congress videos where the idiot keeps pressing for a "yes or no" but the reality of the universe is that lots of things are more nuisanced than just a yes or no.

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried doesn't recall

#82

Post by vkou »

medler wrote: post #25

“I found myself reflecting on how smart the average person is. Maybe they don’t know calculus. Maybe they’ll never read Ulysses. Maybe they can’t code. But they definitely know how to identify bullshit when they see it.” How could anyone believe this? “Average” people fall for bullshit all the time.

> “Average” people fall for bullshit all the time.

Average people fall for bullshit all the time when the charismatic bullshit artist is able to control the whole setting, facts, and narrative.

The rules around a criminal trial are designed in such a way to give prosecutors plenty of opportunity to shut that down. And prosecutors are very, very experienced at playing in that arena - far moreso than even a serial bullshitter is.

Also, even if these defense measures weren't in place, there's a lot of selection bias that goes into being a victim of fraud. It's true that some kind of fraud will work on just about anybody, but no particular kind of fraud is guaranteed to work on a particular person. Jury selection is semi-random, it's not pulled from the pool of 'all people who respond affirmatively to Nigerian Prince spam-emails'.

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried doesn't recall

#85

Post by [deleted] »

NegativeK wrote: post #61
digging wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

[deleted]

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried doesn't recall

#86

Post by 0cf8612b2e1e »

closewith wrote: post #75
sgt101 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I wonder if that's true. Right up until today, I think he thought he could walk on many or all of the charges through his guile.

He thought he could walk away. I suspect his legal team knew that was not happening and the best outcome was damage control and a relative slap on the wrist. The case is too big and public for him to walk.

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried doesn't recall

#87

Post by 0cf8612b2e1e »

NegativeK wrote: post #61
digging wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

Not a lawyer, but I am not sure that is entirely true.

Theoretically, if on the stand they asked SBF if he stole candy from the baby next door, I think he could take the fifth with regards to that questioning because it is for a different crime?

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried doesn't recall

#88

Post by fxd123 »

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.

> but I wish

> I do not care

Stop trying to make the author's article about yourself

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried doesn't recall

#89

Post by mvdtnz »

dheera wrote: post #80
mvdtnz wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't recall anything you said more than 5 minutes ago? Even from prepared statements in court, or in rehearsed public speaking situations, or in one-off conversations with celebrity podcast hosts? I would suggest you see a doctor because that's not normal at all.

> I would suggest you see a doctor because that's not normal at all. I'd suggest they do NOT see a doctor because it would be an evolutionary advantage in court, as well as lots of other places. It's also just all-around generally good practice to live in the present, not the past.

> It's also just all-around generally good practice to live in the present, not the past.

Maybe not when you're testifying under oath.

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried doesn't recall

#90

Post by mvdtnz »

omarfarooq wrote: post #73
duped wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That information is literally the headline of the piece and the meat of the article. Perhaps you want the full transcript.

There are very few direct quotes from SBF in the piece. In fact there are very few direct quotes from the prosecutor, the author preferring to summarise them and leaving us to guess as to how close they got.

For example,

> To each of those questions, Bankman-Fried replied, “No, but I might have.”

> And then Sassoon played a clip from FTX’s official podcast. You are never going to guess what he said on the pod.

I'm not here to guess. Give us a direct quote. (The questions were also not quoted, so they don't provide a direct quote either).

Post reply on HN