SBF didn't realize he was giving an interview to Vox | Hacker News Reader

SBF didn't realize he was giving an interview to Vox

twitter.com

32 pointsexolymph16 comments

I did get the sense reading that transcript he was trying so seem edgy - maybe even impress a girl. But a really dumb thought process that he would even respond to her at this time.

Wow, he's still tweeting. Does he not have a lawyer? At all? Half the thread are deleted messages from days ago. And he's still continuing on the same thread! Unbelievable. Here's a giant pile of shit I shouldn't have said that can easily be recovered through archives along with some more text messages I really shouldn't have said.

His father is a lawyer and law professor iirc (edit: and so is his mother). If that’s the case you would expect his father to tell his son to lawyer up and shut the fuck up.

But kids tend not to take their parent’s advice so maybe his father did :-p

Someone else on Twitter brought up that there is a chance, and this is a bit conspiratorial, that he is mounting a defense that he is incompetent. To be criminal requires intent. If he is just bad at his job then he is not criminally culpable—at least that is how the thinking goes.

I don’t know what would or would not hold up in court, but this basically sets him up to say, look, “I had no idea and I even said as much.” As long as any other evidence does not contradict that then it would probably hold some weight.

JUST A NOTE BEFORE MY POST: Had a couple of beers, its almost 6am my time and unable to sleep, so see this post more as a random stream of thoughts on the topic than anything "meaningful", INAL so I prob got all this wrong... Anyways on with the post.

> As long as any other evidence does not contradict that

That will be the problem. Its not just tweets he would have to worry about, esp as its been shown that during his "what happened" string of tweets his tweet count wasn't changing, so basically posting at the same time as deleting a tweet.

What was in those deleted tweets? Getting those deleted tweets from twitter (if they haven't already been archived) won't be a issue. Plus I'm sure people will have copies of any off twitter conversations he has had.

If he does try a "incompetency defense" all those will come out in court and which will look like such a defense would be in bad faith which won't play well with a jury.

Intent isn't always required, for an extreme example (just one that jumped to mind) involuntary manslaughter doesn't require intent. INAL so can't state if criminal fraud explictly requires intent (iirc and INAL so don't hold this as gospel I think criminal fruad requires intent but civil fraud doesn't - "just" negligence) but again INAL "destruction of evidence" could infer intent (however unless he has already been served with notice not to delete things related to this mere deletion of tweets may not been proof of destruction of evidence.

I do enjoy following a good trial. I can forsee any case against him being a federal case and we don't get cameras inside the court on federal cases, otherwise it would have been interesting to watch.

I simply would not have told the truth about my fraudulent self-dealing to my friend who works at Vox

Does he realize his life is over?

hey, hey Argentina is not that bad.

Yikes. So I as a “journalist” can leak any of my “friends” conversations because they didn’t tell me “off the record?” Must be hard having any actual friend, as a “journalist.”

Yes, and yes.

Which is not to say that the profession cannot be practiced with honor, just that it seems quite difficult to do so for many.

She emailed him from her work account the next morning asking for confirmation that was him. He obviously expected her to write something, but was counting on the typical puff piece treatment he'd become accustomed to.

She also states they were not "friends".

Kelsey's comments on this:

> If you say "off the record" and I don't agree I will say "no I don't agree to have this convo off the record", I won't just pull "well I never saaaaaid I agree". Though some journalists do do that so be careful.

https://twitter.com/KelseyTuoc/status/1593005784727977985

> I genuinely figured a CEO (who was giving other public interviews!) would say if he wanted ours to be off the record.

https://twitter.com/KelseyTuoc/status/1593031641722937344

And another tweet in between those two, in which she shows how their conversation started: https://twitter.com/KelseyTuoc/status/1593031254076977152

Of course not.

Because a journalist has personal relationships with their friends, not a professional relationship. Their friends are not of journalistic interest.

But a journalist has professional relationships with people they cover. And yes everybody understands that anything you say to a professional journalist is on the record, unless otherwise mutually agreed to.

Thinking a journalist is your friend is as idiotic as thinking a cop is your friend and joking about that crime you committed.

Doesn't this guy have a lawyer to tell him to STFU?

A law firm stands a good chance to have enforced until offcially judged otherwise in an exhaustive lengthy process what the former $16B polyman wants to hear.

Commentary: LOL

Reply on news.ycombinator.com