Sam Bankman-Fried thrown into solitary over Tucker Carlson interview: report

https://gizmodo.com/sam-bankman-fried-thrown-into-solitary-over-tucker-carlson-interview-report-2000573371

by rntn • 1 year ago

180 178 1 year ago

dgfitz3• 1 year ago

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.

borski7• 1 year ago

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• 1 year ago

Yeah I mean if I were Trump I still wouldn't trust him considering his history

dgfitz3• 1 year ago

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?

rurp3• 1 year ago

Given that federal convincts don't have parole the good behavior part won't matter for that. But it will mean more solitary and other punitive measures.

casenmgreen• 1 year ago

I may be wrong, but on the face of it, to interview with TC says a lot about who and what you are.

russdill• 1 year ago

Out of all the things SBF has done, who he chooses to interview with is so so so far down there.

jfengel3• 1 year ago

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.

dgfitz3• 1 year ago

Seems odd it’s easy for a nationwide interview to happen on the sly in prison. But then again, what do I know?

Trasmatta• 1 year ago

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• 1 year ago

He's lying. He's angling for a pardon by playing up to republicans' hatred of democrats/"woke".

jfengel3• 1 year ago

It's a pretty good tactic.

nojonestownpls• 1 year ago

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• 1 year ago

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

javajosh2• 1 year ago

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• 1 year ago

I reflexively agree, but what other folks have blantantly switched like this that you know of?

mizzao• 1 year ago

Eric Adams, for one.

Apocryphon3• 1 year ago

Russell Brand

evan_• 1 year ago

Blagojevich

bdangubic2• 1 year ago

Trump

gengwyn• 1 year ago

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• 1 year ago

It also shows that every powerful/influential person knows which party is the most dishonest one.

cmrdporcupine2• 1 year ago

Musk famously "switched" after sexual harassment allegations against him came out.

agoodusername632• 1 year ago

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• 1 year ago

On an EV basis, the worst thing SBF did was probably funding Anthropic and accelerating the demise of humanity.

dralley• 1 year ago

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• 1 year ago

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• 1 year ago

Yeah

It seems SBF had a hard time listening to his laywers, and apparently continues to do so

jfengel3• 1 year ago

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.

rawgabbit• 1 year ago

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• 1 year ago

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."

tempodox2• 1 year ago

Sadly this dude was afflicted with verbal diarrhoea

I can't see anything sad about a pathological liar outing himself.

gsf_emergency_2• 1 year ago

https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/34330

javajosh2• 1 year ago

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• 1 year ago

Didn't Mark Twain say that an honest politician is one who stays bought? I guess Tucker agrees with him.

maxbond2• 1 year ago

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.

misiti37803• 1 year ago

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• 1 year ago

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.

maxbond2• 1 year ago

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.

kelnos7• 1 year ago

While Trump is clearly a vengeful person who holds grudges, I do believe if he sees a good deal in front of him, he'll set those feelings aside.

Whether or not pardoning SBF would be a good deal for him is another question, though.

rurp3• 1 year ago

I don't know if Trump will pardon him but I also wouldn't be surprised. Doing things simply to spite liberals, no matter how stupid they are, is one of his few guiding principles. Most liberals correctly think the SBF should be in prison and some percentage would get vocally upset about a blatant criminal walking free for no reason.

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%.

trenchgun• 1 year ago

He did start to donate more to Republicans, by 2022 it was quite even.

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.

preisschild• 1 year ago

He also stopped the invastigation against the corrupt Major Adams (D), after he more or less swore allegiance to him...

throw16180339• 1 year ago

SBF's money is just as good as anyone else's.

cvalka• 1 year ago

Unless Trump is a complete moron, SBF will not be pardoned.

chneu2• 1 year ago

wait, is trump being a complete moron not accepted by most people?

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.

tim333• 1 year ago

Trump has a term limit coming up anyway so why not take some bribe like things?

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.

randycupertino• 1 year ago

Ever since Trump pardoned Ross Ulbricht I have been waiting to see if he will also pardon Sam Bankman-Fried and Elizabeth Holmes.

forinti• 1 year ago

Ulbricht had the backing of the libertarians.

sitkack• 1 year ago

Many things the administration are doing are gifts to crypto bros and libertarians.

misiti37803• 1 year ago

i never understood why they backed him though?

seydor• 1 year ago

Why? they are fraudsters, which ulrbicht was not. also they have only served a few years

mvid• 1 year ago

Yea, Ulbricht only tried to have people murdered

Apocryphon3• 1 year ago

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...

spongebobstoes• 1 year ago

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• 1 year ago

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.

borski7• 1 year ago

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.

fallingknife3• 1 year ago

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.

jancsika2• 1 year ago

What does your response have to do with the medical needs/safety of SBF or the other inmates? I don't see the connection.

kelnos7• 1 year ago

Nah, solitary is nearly always punitive. Other justifications don't really hold water.

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.

Teever• 1 year ago

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.

pjot2• 1 year ago

Maybe leading with a stick instead of a carrot isn’t the right approach?

brunoqc2• 1 year ago

Surely prisoners still have some privileges that could be taken away as a punishment (going outdoors, books, tv, computers, phone, visits, classes/work...

viccis2• 1 year ago

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• 1 year ago

Your contention is that only billionaires can get contraband in prison?

Are you by any chance familiar with prison?

missedthecue• 1 year ago

If they accuse him of having a phone they should probably find it before punishing him

ericcumbee• 1 year ago

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.

kolbe2• 1 year ago

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.

brunoqc2• 1 year ago

Solitary isn't torturous in the traditional sense of the word.

I think it might actually be. It can break people.

kelnos7• 1 year ago

Solitary isn't torturous in the traditional sense of the word.

"Traditional" is irrelevant; psychological torture is just as much torture as physical torture is.

cm2187• 1 year ago

So what are you suggesting to handle misbehaving inmates? A strongly worded memo?

paganel• 1 year ago

They’re already in prison, applying extra pain with no trial or anything like that is not very civilized, to the contrary.

bobbylarrybobby• 1 year ago

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.

timbit42• 1 year ago

Ban visitors?

GaggiX• 1 year ago

which is torturous for many people.

That's why it's used as a punishment.

pedalpete2• 1 year ago

I'd agree if he were in solitary for an extended period of time, but is 24 hours really that torturous?

kelnos7• 1 year ago

Have you ever sat in a small room, by yourself, with nothing to do, for 24 hours? It's no picnic.

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.

aprilthird2021• 1 year ago

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• 1 year ago

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• 1 year ago

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.]

6stringmerc2• 1 year ago

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.

sebmellen2• 1 year ago

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?

6stringmerc2• 1 year ago

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!

tempodox2• 1 year ago

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?

majormajor2• 1 year ago

> 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• 1 year ago

Wouldn't 'acting surprised' at such things be merely performative? I don't think anyone in this thread is surprised either.

AnthonyMouse5• 1 year ago

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.

verzali• 1 year ago

If you believe all politicians are by definition corrupt, then the ones who are openly corrupt are at least "honest" about it.

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.

PavleMiha• 1 year ago

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• 1 year ago

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• 1 year ago

> 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• 1 year ago

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.

xiphias22• 1 year ago

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.

kelnos7• 1 year ago

Be that as it may, psychological torture is wrong.

voxadam• 1 year ago

Solitary confinement as punitive measure is most certainly cruel, unfortunately it's far from unusual, at least in the United States.

SBF is beyond loathsome but he should still be treated humanely.

rwmj• 1 year ago

Is there a chance the constitution will be changed after all this so the president can't pardon people?

dragonwriter• 1 year ago

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• 1 year ago

Joe Arpaio was pardoned in Trump's first term. Nobody is gonna change anything.

toast02• 1 year ago

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• 1 year ago

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• 1 year ago

Even if this law passes, it will face a problem of violating the constitution: ArtII.S2.C1.3.1

kelnos7• 1 year ago

Not really. Political polarization means constitutional amendments for anything remotely contentious are basically impossible.

rurp3• 1 year ago

It's essentially impossible to get the consensus needed in such a partian era. Maybe if and when we're in a different era, but that could be an awfully long time coming.

tw1231283• 1 year ago

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.

slimebot80• 1 year ago

Well after Tucker fluffed Putin, kinda makes me wonder if they put the right person in solitary.

takeda• 1 year ago

Adams, Tate now this, looks like the administration is looking for best scammers they can find.

Sam Bankman-Fried thrown into solitary over Tucker Carlson interview: report

Related Stories