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

> > 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?

> 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.

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.

> > 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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

>which is torturous for many people.

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

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

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?

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

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)

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

> 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...

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

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."

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

> 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?

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.

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

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

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

Ulbricht had the backing of the libertarians.

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

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.

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.

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.