It really only seems that way because people have amnesia about the timelines involved in accountability for similar events; Enron collapsed in December 2001 (well, that’s when the bankruptcy was filed, Ken Lay resigned as CEO in January 2002.) It wasn’t until February that there were hearings in the Senate. The first indictment related to it was in March ’02 – for Arthur Andersen, Enron’s accounting firm, who were convicted in June ’02. Enron’s CFO was indicted in October ’02 and convicted in a plea bargain in January ’04, and Ken Lay wasn’t arrested until July ’04 and was convicted in May ’06.
SBF being out free three whole weeks after the SBF collapse is not strong evidence that he will never see a day in jail and other accountability. So far, that have been public, there were separate probes of FTX and/or FTX.US by at least CFTC, SEC, and DOJ in progress before the collapse, and there are more institutions in more countries targeting FTX and its principals now.
The NYT began publishing legitimately scathing articles about Enron and effectively accusing outright fraud in January 2002 [1].
Contrast to the kid-gloves puff-piece the NYT published about SBF recently.
If we take the NYT as a bellwether for what the "elite" and well-connected want known, it's quite clear that the treatment is very, very different between the two collapse stories.
My personal feeling is that SBF is not permanently safe. Like Epstein, occasionally you have to sacrifice one of your own to sate the appetite of the masses and to quell the tendency of conspiracy theories to be demonstrated correct. Depending on how uncontrollable narratives evolve on this story, it's possible they'll need to throw him under the bus.
For the moment, however, it's clear they're treating this as Not-Enron. He's safe for now. We'll see.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/28/us/enron-s-many-strands-e...
We should not, nor should we even take the relation between NYT and elite opinion as relatively consistent over time.
There is a difference between knowing and proving. The gears of the legal system can move slowly, but deliberately. With this much money on the line, you don’t want to quickly jump to conclusions. It’s better to figure would what happened first and then determine the best path forward.
But I think your main question is actually the point of this page/token/article. What if nothing happens? What if it just gets swept away? The point of the token being - let’s see what happens in a year. Keep pressure and visibility up on this. At the end of 2023, let’s take stock and see what has happened to unravel the what was really done with the money from FTX... and what the consequences are.
Having politicians as friends only helps when one is not radioactive. Pulling strings can sweep minor problems under the rug but this is a giant problem, and I suspect SBF will find that all his donations won't buy him anything given his current predicament.
The mainstream media does not deserve the benefit of a doubt anymore. From this point forward, I am going to assume that anything published by the NYT, the post, the WSJ, any of them, is either purposefully misleading or just a bold-faced lie.
Does anyone have any good reasons why this is illogical? I really do not see a reason why we should think any of these people are trustworthy.
I've also seen the argument that this is just "run of the mill journalism", in that it's totally normal for an outlet to run puff pieces if they get paid to do so. But doesn't that completely undermine the integrity and trustworthiness of the outlet writing the pieces? If any rich guy can just buy positive press without any scrutiny, why should we give them our trust?
Journalism is supposed to be about digging up dirt on the rich and powerful so that us peons can get mad when they do bad stuff and make sure our government to punish them. This scandal is so massive because it involves journalists and government actors working together to make sure that didn't happen with SBF. How is anyone supposed to trust any of these people ever again?
The vast majority of journalism articles have never involved any of that. They are there for informational purposes. You get a few investigative pieces with a much larger helping of lighter fare.
I just don't buy it. I just can't believe that all these hundreds of millions of dollars moved between all these entities without anyone understanding what was really going on.
It takes time to run an investigation. Since FTX is not a regulated institution, it may in fact not be a fiduciary for its 'customers'. It's not black and white from a legal perspective and will take time to unravel. The fact he's still walking around means the US isn't a banana republic that just locks people up by popular demand.
The public won’t hear that name on The View or Trevor Noah. Therefore there was no fraud.
As to the idea that connections will always get you out of trouble, again I don't think that's universally true. Elizabeth Holmes is extremely well connected as was Bernie Madoff but that didn't stop either of them being prosecuted and convicted.
My guess here is that once the dust settles on exactly what's happened with FTX (which is still unclear in a lot of ways) SBF will be charged.
Ken Lay was Dec 2001 -> July 2004
Madoff was very quick from the collapse to arrest (December 2008 for both), but that’s largely because he confessed to his sons and told them he planned to surrender to authorities, who talked to the FBI, who visited Madoff who then confessed that it was “all one big lie” to them.
The reason it was fast with Madoff wasn’t the confession, per se, it was that it came with the telegraphed (and actual) intent to surrender to the authorities.
Though I suspect SBF’s inability to control his public statements is an indicator that it is likely to be quicker to line up things against him than it was against Lay, its not going to be as easy as with someone who was burned out and done fighting like Madoff.
Definitely some people are more equal than others. And I realize he is in the Bahamas.
----------
re: premise below
There is plenty of non-fabricated probable cause for SBF, pretty much all of below is a false premise.
A search warrant needs to specify a particular place to search and particular things to search for. So, even if there was an LEO that was going to fabricate evidence to support such a warrant…what would they fabricate evidence to point toward that would actually be useful?
Also, while it may not have mattered to the LEO fabricating evidence against you–assuming your story is accurate–it may be that the particular folks involved in the SBF investigations are less willing to commit crimes of their own to advance it, if not for ethical reasons, potentially because the attention to the case and the resources likely to be deployed by the defense make it rather more likely than in your case that either (1) such a crime would result in criminal consequences for the government agent committing it, or (2) manufacturing evidence would compromise any prosecution of SBF.
The event was updated today morning to add two more speakers.
You are right and I suspect SBF is going to get sentenced very leniently, probably with bail in a year and home arrest.
Do you have this stat? conservative-aligned judges do give harsher sentences to white-collar crimes? Because in my country, this is pretty much the opposite.
They even bail them out of prison for "medical reasons" and then we can see them on the dancefloor at christmas. Hopefully we'll get US-like gun laws (and US will uban sniper rifles and sniper AP rounds, as their mass killing power is low).
https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2020/10/07/implication...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-21/us-prosec...
Investigations take time.
I don't personally put any credence into this very old and ugly conspiracy, but given the recent surge of attention to it by other unhinged actors, if this kid doesn't get thrown under the bus and burn, the meme is only going to grow much stronger legs to run with.
This is a dangerous moment, and the elites need to be aware that people are watching to see what they do when it's one of their favorite sons who crosses the line.
If someone is a rich bad person, they are disproportionately likely to be Jewish. If they are a rich good person they are also disproportionately likely to be Jewish.... but some only see the bad.
https://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2...
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/total-u-s-foreign-aid-t...
Anyway, the lesson I got after seeing SBF's philanthropic forays, which were all a ruse, was to never trust a techbro no matter how inspirational outwardly they may be. Ravening wolves they are the lot of them, in sheeps' clothings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Bankman-Fried#Early_life_a...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Fried
https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/1/6/21046631/mind-the-gap-si...
Quite a lot of companies give to both sides. Tech money has been prominent: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/03/american-billionaires-spent-...
There's SBF next to Larry Ellison and Peter Thiel.
I know this is cliche and I honestly hate saying it, but can you imagine if SBF some guy with two deeply connected republican parents, one of whom founded an explicitly secretive superpac for republicans? Don't you think the reaction would be a bit different?
Who are implicated?
>“Among the three executives, $57 million was given to Democratic candidates, while $22 million went to Republican candidates,” opensecrets.org details. “Bankman-Fried was the second biggest Democratic-leaning megadonor and Salame was 10th largest Republican donor this election cycle,” the report adds.
https://news.bitcoin.com/ftx-execs-gave-70-million-to-both-d...
I will admit this is all pretty upsetting to me though. I'm a very left-leaning person, and to see the party that is supposed to represent my values doing this stuff and then everyone making claims along the lines of "well everyone does it" is very disappointing.
I'll make sure to add a "I am not a republican" disclaimer in the future.