5 ms·

Maybe this was the only way to ensure he testified

throw_m239339 4y ago
> Maybe this was the only way to ensure he testified Nope, it doesn't make any sense to arrest him if the goal was to force him to testify in front of congress. Once he is placed under arrest then I'm pretty sure the house cannot make him testify if he is in custody, he becomes at the mercy of a judge and I imagine bail conditions will not allow him to talk in public about the case either.
- beambot 4y ago
  If Congress issued a subpoena, why would any judge reasonably withhold a willing detainee? Also, it what universe would bail make sense for such an obvious flight risk?
  - from 4y ago
    Arthur Hayes of Bitmex got bail (after he agreed to extradition) and had substantial ties to Singapore. But then again he wasn’t looking at 40 years.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - ender341341 4y ago
    He wasn't arrested by the US government (or US state government), the Bahamas arrested him after the DOJ said they were pressing charges and likely to request extradition. As for flight risk the Bahamas had previously confiscated his passport and he wasn't able to get himself smuggled out in the last 2 weeks so he doesn't appear hugely flighty, but then again knowing that he's being formally charged may change that.
- kjksf 4y ago
  There's no bail here. Bail is a US thing for: when you're arrested and charged with a crime, you're not necessarily going to sit in jail until trial. You are either let go or you pay money (bail) to decrease the chance you'll flee. If you can't pay bail or bail is refused by the judge, you sit in jail. SBF hasn't been charged yet. Bahamas arrested him for the sole purpose of preventing him from fleeing because U.S. indicated that they'll charge him and will want to extradite him to U.S. I don't know if Bahamas even has a concept of bail but it doesn't apply here and wouldn't make sense to let him out.
  - bb88 4y ago
    The charges have been filed in the US.
  - alvah 4y ago
    Bail is definitely not just a US thing, in fact a quick search brings up details of how bail works in the Bahamas. That said, bail does seem unlikely in this case.
- bb88 4y ago
  > Once he is placed under arrest then I'm pretty sure the house cannot make him testify if he is in custody. I think they can since they have vast subpoena power. SBF, however, can plead the 5th -- which would make it nothing more than a TV spectacle.
  - DonHopkins 4y ago
    I'd love to see a TV spectacle of him pleading the 5th in an orange jumpsuit.
- jrochkind1 4y ago
  People in jail and prison testify in court all the time. They are transported to and from the court by guards, have a guard assigned to them in the courtroom, and sometimes testify in prison uniforms etc. I don't know why a house subpoena would be any different. If you are out on bail, I have never heard of bail conditions restricting what someone can say, that's not what bail is, I don't think that's even a thing. Judges in the case do sometimes put "gag orders" on the parties involved, but that's not related to bail. Where are you getting this information? He's perhaps unlikely to be testifying to the house tomorrow though, when he's been arrested in the bahamas. Probably just as a practical matter he needs to be extradicted to US custody and processed first.
  - kelnos 4y ago
    > People in jail and prison testify in court all the time. I think the point the GP is trying to make is that his arrest does not obligate him to testify in front of anyone: his "right to remain silent" and all that. Prior to being arrested, voluntarily testifying (or complying with a subpoena to do so) before Congress could have been useful to him if he could manipulate things well enough to get the heat turned down. (I don't think he'd actually be successful at that, but that's another story.) Now that he's in jail, he may actually listen to the advice I'm sure his lawyer has been giving him all along: shut the hell up. And he's perfectly within his rights to do that. Even if he is hauled before Congress, he can simply assert his 5th Amendment rights after every question, and that might actually be the best move for him now. Edit: re-reading the GP, I realize what you were objecting to, the "I'm pretty sure the house cannot make him testify if he is in custody" bit; I agree with you in that I don't think that's the case. Still, though, even if Congress can force him to testify, they can't actually force him to answer questions. They technically couldn't do that before, but now that he's been arrested it's likely even less in his best interests to talk.

> Maybe this was the only way to ensure he testified Nope, it doesn't make any sense to arrest him if the goal was to force him to testify in front of congress. Once he is placed under arrest then I'm pretty sure the house cannot make him testify if he is in custody, he becomes at the mercy of a judge and I imagine bail conditions will not allow him to talk in public about the case either.

beambot 4y ago
If Congress issued a subpoena, why would any judge reasonably withhold a willing detainee? Also, it what universe would bail make sense for such an obvious flight risk?
- from 4y ago
  Arthur Hayes of Bitmex got bail (after he agreed to extradition) and had substantial ties to Singapore. But then again he wasn’t looking at 40 years.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ender341341 4y ago
  He wasn't arrested by the US government (or US state government), the Bahamas arrested him after the DOJ said they were pressing charges and likely to request extradition. As for flight risk the Bahamas had previously confiscated his passport and he wasn't able to get himself smuggled out in the last 2 weeks so he doesn't appear hugely flighty, but then again knowing that he's being formally charged may change that.
kjksf 4y ago
There's no bail here. Bail is a US thing for: when you're arrested and charged with a crime, you're not necessarily going to sit in jail until trial. You are either let go or you pay money (bail) to decrease the chance you'll flee. If you can't pay bail or bail is refused by the judge, you sit in jail. SBF hasn't been charged yet. Bahamas arrested him for the sole purpose of preventing him from fleeing because U.S. indicated that they'll charge him and will want to extradite him to U.S. I don't know if Bahamas even has a concept of bail but it doesn't apply here and wouldn't make sense to let him out.
- bb88 4y ago
  The charges have been filed in the US.
- alvah 4y ago
  Bail is definitely not just a US thing, in fact a quick search brings up details of how bail works in the Bahamas. That said, bail does seem unlikely in this case.
bb88 4y ago
> Once he is placed under arrest then I'm pretty sure the house cannot make him testify if he is in custody. I think they can since they have vast subpoena power. SBF, however, can plead the 5th -- which would make it nothing more than a TV spectacle.
- DonHopkins 4y ago
  I'd love to see a TV spectacle of him pleading the 5th in an orange jumpsuit.
jrochkind1 4y ago
People in jail and prison testify in court all the time. They are transported to and from the court by guards, have a guard assigned to them in the courtroom, and sometimes testify in prison uniforms etc. I don't know why a house subpoena would be any different. If you are out on bail, I have never heard of bail conditions restricting what someone can say, that's not what bail is, I don't think that's even a thing. Judges in the case do sometimes put "gag orders" on the parties involved, but that's not related to bail. Where are you getting this information? He's perhaps unlikely to be testifying to the house tomorrow though, when he's been arrested in the bahamas. Probably just as a practical matter he needs to be extradicted to US custody and processed first.
- kelnos 4y ago
  > People in jail and prison testify in court all the time. I think the point the GP is trying to make is that his arrest does not obligate him to testify in front of anyone: his "right to remain silent" and all that. Prior to being arrested, voluntarily testifying (or complying with a subpoena to do so) before Congress could have been useful to him if he could manipulate things well enough to get the heat turned down. (I don't think he'd actually be successful at that, but that's another story.) Now that he's in jail, he may actually listen to the advice I'm sure his lawyer has been giving him all along: shut the hell up. And he's perfectly within his rights to do that. Even if he is hauled before Congress, he can simply assert his 5th Amendment rights after every question, and that might actually be the best move for him now. Edit: re-reading the GP, I realize what you were objecting to, the "I'm pretty sure the house cannot make him testify if he is in custody" bit; I agree with you in that I don't think that's the case. Still, though, even if Congress can force him to testify, they can't actually force him to answer questions. They technically couldn't do that before, but now that he's been arrested it's likely even less in his best interests to talk.