(The usual "rope to hang yourself with" genre in journalism is the interview, where the journalist has significantly more control, compared to a public talk.)
The biggest question to me is why he isn't in prison or at least why there seems to be some possibility that he won't end up in handcuffs the moment he lands in the US.
And as of now, they can only be handing him more rope. The media can help convict, but they cannot exonerate anyone. A prosecutor can just go forward and find 12 people who never saw this fairly niche event.
The US has a law that says they will invade The Hague if the court there makes a decision they don't like. Are you sure there's such thing as "the US guarantees"?
"Hague Invasion Act" is in the first sentence, not hard to Google...
Not hard to read either…
It might not be expressly stated, but it's pretty clear. Sure, it's a super-extreme case - but it's there, explicitly saying "by all means necessary ...".
He hasn't been convicted of anything yet. He hasn't even been charged with anything yet.
(Aside: prison is for sentences of greater than 1 year. Defendants awaiting trial who were denied bail are held in a jail.)
That is exactly my point.
FTX hasn't even finished collapsing. There will be plenty of time to prosecute him once all of the facts are known, assuming he hasn't been killed by one of his many victims before then.
There might also be a lesson in here: Any exceedingly wealthy person who's lawyer is their father has a fool for a client.