4 ms·

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

32 points by exolymph 4y ago

exolymph 4y ago
Commentary: LOL
whateveracct 4y ago
I simply would not have told the truth about my fraudulent self-dealing to my friend who works at Vox
fasthands9 4y ago
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.
JakeAl 4y ago
Does he realize his life is over?
- theCrowing 4y ago
  hey, hey Argentina is not that bad.
reducesuffering 4y ago
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.”
- h2odragon 4y ago
  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.
- dahdum 4y ago
  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".
- exolymph 4y ago
  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 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 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 https://twitter.com/KelseyTuoc/status/1593031254076977152
- crazygringo 4y ago
  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.
NtochkaNzvanova 4y ago
Doesn't this guy have a lawyer to tell him to STFU?
- abudabi123 4y ago
  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.
deckard1 4y ago
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.
- Crosseye_Jack 4y ago
  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
  - etempleton 4y ago
    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.
    - Crosseye_Jack 4y ago
      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.

32 points by exolymph 4y ago

exolymph 4y ago

Commentary: LOL

whateveracct 4y ago

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

fasthands9 4y ago

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.

JakeAl 4y ago

Does he realize his life is over?

theCrowing 4y ago
hey, hey Argentina is not that bad.

reducesuffering 4y ago

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.”

h2odragon 4y ago
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.
dahdum 4y ago
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".
exolymph 4y ago
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 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 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 https://twitter.com/KelseyTuoc/status/1593031254076977152
crazygringo 4y ago
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.

NtochkaNzvanova 4y ago

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

abudabi123 4y ago
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.

deckard1 4y ago

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.

Crosseye_Jack 4y ago
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
- etempleton 4y ago
  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.
  - Crosseye_Jack 4y ago
    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.