10 ms·

This tweet explains it all https://twitter.com/RepMaxineWaters/status/1598693811252875264?s=20&t=ggxPucSx6TSWYq15Pe4zcw https://twitter.com/RepMaxineWaters/sta

This tweet explains it all https://twitter.com/RepMaxineWaters/status/1598693811252875264?s=20&t=ggxPucSx6TSWYq15Pe4zcw https://twitter.com/RepMaxineWaters/status/15986938112528752... (For folks who don't know, Maxine is a congresswoman sitting on U.S. House Committee on Financial Services)

smcl 4y ago
Yes a congresswoman is going to stand strong with some disgraced, new-money mark who donated to her, out of loyalty. Come on, get a grip
gjsman-1000 4y ago
1 year ago: "We need to put reporting requirements on account flow for all bank accounts worth more than $600 to avoid billionaire corruption." Now: "SBF, would you join us for tea and coffee at a cordial executive meeting?"
- maxbond 4y ago
  My reading is this is a very cordial invitation to hang himself under oath. If you think SBF is guilty, than you have to believe he'd be insane to "participate in a hearing." (If you think he's innocent, it's still a crazy thing to do. I'd encourage anyone who hasn't seen Don't Talk to the Police to watch it. https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE )
  - soumyadeb 4y ago
    Not unless you know you will be asked about weather in the Bahamas.
    - maxbond 4y ago
      Would you bet your liberty on it? For what upside? Say Waters throws only softballs. Why wouldn't Republicans on the committee seize the opportunity to make her look foolish and compromised by throwing hardballs?
  - mindslight 4y ago
    Most prosecutions don't involve playing coy with the defendant in hopes they might be forthcoming with evidence before things get all adversarial. There's no reason for kid gloves, especially for this case with its clear cut set up of fraud - the hard evidence is going to consist of transaction logs and other digital files that need to be preserved. About the most generous interpretation you can give the above tweet is the representative merely trying to get her name in the spotlight on a current hip topic. But that still begs the question of why she would want her name anywhere near stories about a con man - it still seems as if only some types of criminals need to be distanced from.
    - maxbond 4y ago
      Waters is not a prosecutor. She's on the financial services committee; there's been a big disruption in the finance world. It's pretty normal for the committee to investigate it. If you were in her position - wouldn't you reach out to SBF? If you did - wouldn't you do so with honey and not vinegar? What is there about what or how she did this that leads you to believe it's a ploy for attention rather than straightforwardly doing her job? For me the only unusual thing is that it's over Twitter, but seeing as how he and CZ laid out all their bad blood over Twitter, that seems to be the preferred medium for this community.
      - mindslight 4y ago
        Yes, I know that. The "big disruption" is that someone committed basic fraud - SBF seemingly took money while promising to act as its custodian, while actually gambling with it behind the scenes. What's the meta issue to be investigated and pondered here? Fraud is one of the oldest crimes. Arrest the fraudster, put them in jail, perhaps recover some assets for the victims, done. I'm not saying that's a quick process, nor should it be. But congress treating this as some sort of exceptional meta issue simultaneously deemphasizes that SBF appears to be a run of the mill fraudster ("but on the Internet"), while also emphasizing the narrative that "something must be done" (in other words, never let a good crisis go to waste).
        4y ago
tedunangst 4y ago
Crazy that NY mag would write a whole article when they could have just clicked retweet.
- jasonhansel 4y ago
  The NY Mag article argues against that interpretation.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    He agrees. He's implying, reasonably, that the comment above is fatuous.
    - jasonhansel 4y ago
      Ah, sorry, I think I didn't catch the sarcasm.
warinukraine 4y ago
You know.... it might be time for a presidential candidate to run on fighting corruption.
emmp 4y ago
I mean Congress doesn't arrest people
- rocket_surgeron 4y ago
  Technically speaking they can, but haven't since the 1800s. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/19/204/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/19/204/ Not applicable in this case, though.
- deaddodo 4y ago
  In what way? They literally write and vote on the (Federal) legislation that puts people in jail via the War on Drugs, the War on Terrorism, various specific crimes, etc. Or do you mean literally? Because they most definitely have officers in both chambers of Congress and they’re fully empowered LEOs.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
NelsonMinar 4y ago
well no, actually the linked article we're discussing explains it all.
guelo 4y ago
The US is corrupt but not that corrupt. There is separation of powers between congress and the DOJ. And even within the executive there are firewalls between the politicians and the prosecutors.
- deaddodo 4y ago
  > The US is corrupt but not that corrupt. By that metric, every nation is corrupt and the term becomes meaningless. It would be like hyperbolically calling every person guilty of physically injuring someone else a “murderer”.
  - guelo 4y ago
    Every nation does have corruption. Corruption is not a binary.
    - drewcoo 4y ago
      If every nation had it, it would not be a binary. It would be a gradient characteristic, like temperature. And given that nations are made of people and people are corruptible, that actually sounds about right.
    - deaddodo 4y ago
      Which is precisely the point. When you say a nation is "corrupt", you're generally referring to one that is notable for that factor. Because otherwise the term is meaningless (because every nation does have corruption). As a complementary example, you could argue all legislation is authoritarian; but describing a nation as "authoritarian" in the general (vs specific, as in certain laws/bills) goes above and beyond "normal" legislation.

smcl 4y ago

Yes a congresswoman is going to stand strong with some disgraced, new-money mark who donated to her, out of loyalty. Come on, get a grip

gjsman-1000 4y ago

1 year ago: "We need to put reporting requirements on account flow for all bank accounts worth more than $600 to avoid billionaire corruption." Now: "SBF, would you join us for tea and coffee at a cordial executive meeting?"

maxbond 4y ago
My reading is this is a very cordial invitation to hang himself under oath. If you think SBF is guilty, than you have to believe he'd be insane to "participate in a hearing." (If you think he's innocent, it's still a crazy thing to do. I'd encourage anyone who hasn't seen Don't Talk to the Police to watch it. https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE )
- soumyadeb 4y ago
  Not unless you know you will be asked about weather in the Bahamas.
  - maxbond 4y ago
    Would you bet your liberty on it? For what upside? Say Waters throws only softballs. Why wouldn't Republicans on the committee seize the opportunity to make her look foolish and compromised by throwing hardballs?
- mindslight 4y ago
  Most prosecutions don't involve playing coy with the defendant in hopes they might be forthcoming with evidence before things get all adversarial. There's no reason for kid gloves, especially for this case with its clear cut set up of fraud - the hard evidence is going to consist of transaction logs and other digital files that need to be preserved. About the most generous interpretation you can give the above tweet is the representative merely trying to get her name in the spotlight on a current hip topic. But that still begs the question of why she would want her name anywhere near stories about a con man - it still seems as if only some types of criminals need to be distanced from.
  - maxbond 4y ago
    Waters is not a prosecutor. She's on the financial services committee; there's been a big disruption in the finance world. It's pretty normal for the committee to investigate it. If you were in her position - wouldn't you reach out to SBF? If you did - wouldn't you do so with honey and not vinegar? What is there about what or how she did this that leads you to believe it's a ploy for attention rather than straightforwardly doing her job? For me the only unusual thing is that it's over Twitter, but seeing as how he and CZ laid out all their bad blood over Twitter, that seems to be the preferred medium for this community.
    - mindslight 4y ago
      Yes, I know that. The "big disruption" is that someone committed basic fraud - SBF seemingly took money while promising to act as its custodian, while actually gambling with it behind the scenes. What's the meta issue to be investigated and pondered here? Fraud is one of the oldest crimes. Arrest the fraudster, put them in jail, perhaps recover some assets for the victims, done. I'm not saying that's a quick process, nor should it be. But congress treating this as some sort of exceptional meta issue simultaneously deemphasizes that SBF appears to be a run of the mill fraudster ("but on the Internet"), while also emphasizing the narrative that "something must be done" (in other words, never let a good crisis go to waste).
      - 4y ago

tedunangst 4y ago

Crazy that NY mag would write a whole article when they could have just clicked retweet.

jasonhansel 4y ago
The NY Mag article argues against that interpretation.
- tptacek 4y ago
  He agrees. He's implying, reasonably, that the comment above is fatuous.
  - jasonhansel 4y ago
    Ah, sorry, I think I didn't catch the sarcasm.

warinukraine 4y ago

You know.... it might be time for a presidential candidate to run on fighting corruption.

emmp 4y ago

I mean Congress doesn't arrest people

rocket_surgeron 4y ago
Technically speaking they can, but haven't since the 1800s. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/19/204/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/19/204/ Not applicable in this case, though.
deaddodo 4y ago
In what way? They literally write and vote on the (Federal) legislation that puts people in jail via the War on Drugs, the War on Terrorism, various specific crimes, etc. Or do you mean literally? Because they most definitely have officers in both chambers of Congress and they’re fully empowered LEOs.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

NelsonMinar 4y ago

well no, actually the linked article we're discussing explains it all.

guelo 4y ago

The US is corrupt but not that corrupt. There is separation of powers between congress and the DOJ. And even within the executive there are firewalls between the politicians and the prosecutors.

deaddodo 4y ago
> The US is corrupt but not that corrupt. By that metric, every nation is corrupt and the term becomes meaningless. It would be like hyperbolically calling every person guilty of physically injuring someone else a “murderer”.
- guelo 4y ago
  Every nation does have corruption. Corruption is not a binary.
  - drewcoo 4y ago
    If every nation had it, it would not be a binary. It would be a gradient characteristic, like temperature. And given that nations are made of people and people are corruptible, that actually sounds about right.
  - deaddodo 4y ago
    Which is precisely the point. When you say a nation is "corrupt", you're generally referring to one that is notable for that factor. Because otherwise the term is meaningless (because every nation does have corruption). As a complementary example, you could argue all legislation is authoritarian; but describing a nation as "authoritarian" in the general (vs specific, as in certain laws/bills) goes above and beyond "normal" legislation.