6 ms·

It is specified in the document that they will extradite him to the US

Alupis 4y ago
No, it says the US is likely to request extradition - but has not yet. SBF was scheduled to appear remotely (Zoom or similar) before congress tomorrow. It also says the US has filed criminal charges, which is the first I'm hearing of this. As an aside - anyone else think it makes congress appear weak to still be allowing people to remotely testify? They supposedly are the most powerful and important legislative body in the land, perhaps the world - yet they can't compel people to show up in person and treat the event with the deference it's supposed to deserve?
- ender341341 4y ago
  Specifically they said that they arrested him because the US notified them they were pressing charges and likely to request extradition. I imagine that the 'likely to request extradition' is specific phrasing related to how the extradition treaty with the US is worded as I don't think anyone expects the request to not be made.
- themitigating 4y ago
  You just can't give the current administration anything can you? It's like a mental block
  - Alupis 4y ago
    Congress is not the current administration. I have no idea where this comment came from... Congress is in session - meeting in person. Why should people be allowed to remotely testify at this point? It's congress - show up in person, it's important.
  - dang 4y ago
    Please don't take HN threads into partisan flamewar. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- HDThoreaun 4y ago
  > anyone else think it makes congress appear weak to still be allowing people to remotely testify? Not really. Not being compelled to testify against yourself is also one of the most important rights this country has enshrined.
  - Alupis 4y ago
    > Not really. Not being compelled to testify against yourself is also one of the most important rights this country has enshrined. Congress isn't a court, and he was not testifying because congress arrested him or anything - it doesn't work that way. He was going to testify - and a lot of people testify in front of congress all the time. But you used to have to do it in person until the pandemic. Now that congress is back to in-person session - so should the people who are testifying.
    - HDThoreaun 4y ago
      Congress has the power to charge people with crimes. If Sam wants to testify that’s his choice, but he can’t be forced to
      - Alupis 4y ago
        We're talking about two different things SBF was going to testify. He was going to do it remotely. My issue is remotely was not an option before the pandemic. It was allowed during the pandemic for good reason, but now that reason doesn't exist anymore. Therefore, remote testifying should not be allowed anymore either...
        HDThoreaun 4y ago
        So if someone says "I'll only testify remotely" congress should refuse?
        Alupis 4y ago
        Congress can legally compel you to appear - but they cannot compel you to say things against yourself (ie. incriminate yourself). You still have to show up... but you can just refuse to answer.
colechristensen 4y ago
Yes but will they do it in a handful of hours?
- joezydeco 4y ago
  Ever heard of Island Time?
LarryMullins 4y ago
Can they simultaneously criminally charge him and force him to testify before Congress without violating his 5th amendment rights? I think getting charged criminally does get him out of having to testify to Congress, or at least it should.
- HideousKojima 4y ago
  He can pleas the 5th to congress
  - Mistletoe 4y ago
    He should have pleaded the fifth to all those self incriminating interviews he has been doing.
- jrochkind1 4y ago
  You don't have to have been charged to have 5th ammendment rights or be able to exersize them. He could have pled the 5th and not said anything whether or not they already charged him, it doesn't change that. (If they grant you immunity , so they can't charge you even in the future, that's the only thing that gets you out of being able to plead the fifth).
- shagie 4y ago
  Back in the 80s... https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-12-02-mn-916-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-12-02-mn-916-st... > North Takes Fifth Amendment in Testimony to Senate Panel : Claimed Protection at Least 40 Times, One Source Says > WASHINGTON — Congressional sources said today that fired National Security Council aide Lt. Col. Oliver L. North took the Fifth Amendment during his testimony Monday before the Senate Intelligence Committee. > One source, who, like the others demanded anonymity, said North took the Fifth Amendment at least 40 times. Another source said he declined to answer a number of questions put to him by senators and committee staff members. > Asked about an apparent contradiction between Sen. Dave Durenberger’s contention that witnesses had been candid and the report that North refused to answer many questions, committee spokesman Dave Holliday said he would make no attempt to clear it up. --- NORTH SAID TO USE FIFTH AMENDMENT - https://www.nytimes.com/1986/12/02/world/north-said-to-use-fifth-amendment.html https://www.nytimes.com/1986/12/02/world/north-said-to-use-f... > ... > The Fifth Amendment protects an individual in any proceeding from being required to give testimony that he feels may incriminate him. Invoking it carries no implication of guilt. > Senator David Durenberger, Republican of Minnesota, who is chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, likened the proceedings before the panel to a grand jury investigation. He said witnesses were testifying under oath.

No, it says the US is likely to request extradition - but has not yet. SBF was scheduled to appear remotely (Zoom or similar) before congress tomorrow. It also says the US has filed criminal charges, which is the first I'm hearing of this. As an aside - anyone else think it makes congress appear weak to still be allowing people to remotely testify? They supposedly are the most powerful and important legislative body in the land, perhaps the world - yet they can't compel people to show up in person and treat the event with the deference it's supposed to deserve?

ender341341 4y ago
Specifically they said that they arrested him because the US notified them they were pressing charges and likely to request extradition. I imagine that the 'likely to request extradition' is specific phrasing related to how the extradition treaty with the US is worded as I don't think anyone expects the request to not be made.
themitigating 4y ago
You just can't give the current administration anything can you? It's like a mental block
- Alupis 4y ago
  Congress is not the current administration. I have no idea where this comment came from... Congress is in session - meeting in person. Why should people be allowed to remotely testify at this point? It's congress - show up in person, it's important.
- dang 4y ago
  Please don't take HN threads into partisan flamewar. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
HDThoreaun 4y ago
> anyone else think it makes congress appear weak to still be allowing people to remotely testify? Not really. Not being compelled to testify against yourself is also one of the most important rights this country has enshrined.
- Alupis 4y ago
  > Not really. Not being compelled to testify against yourself is also one of the most important rights this country has enshrined. Congress isn't a court, and he was not testifying because congress arrested him or anything - it doesn't work that way. He was going to testify - and a lot of people testify in front of congress all the time. But you used to have to do it in person until the pandemic. Now that congress is back to in-person session - so should the people who are testifying.
  - HDThoreaun 4y ago
    Congress has the power to charge people with crimes. If Sam wants to testify that’s his choice, but he can’t be forced to
    - Alupis 4y ago
      We're talking about two different things SBF was going to testify. He was going to do it remotely. My issue is remotely was not an option before the pandemic. It was allowed during the pandemic for good reason, but now that reason doesn't exist anymore. Therefore, remote testifying should not be allowed anymore either...
      - HDThoreaun 4y ago
        So if someone says "I'll only testify remotely" congress should refuse?
        Alupis 4y ago
        Congress can legally compel you to appear - but they cannot compel you to say things against yourself (ie. incriminate yourself). You still have to show up... but you can just refuse to answer.

colechristensen 4y ago

Yes but will they do it in a handful of hours?

joezydeco 4y ago
Ever heard of Island Time?

LarryMullins 4y ago

Can they simultaneously criminally charge him and force him to testify before Congress without violating his 5th amendment rights? I think getting charged criminally does get him out of having to testify to Congress, or at least it should.

HideousKojima 4y ago
He can pleas the 5th to congress
- Mistletoe 4y ago
  He should have pleaded the fifth to all those self incriminating interviews he has been doing.
jrochkind1 4y ago
You don't have to have been charged to have 5th ammendment rights or be able to exersize them. He could have pled the 5th and not said anything whether or not they already charged him, it doesn't change that. (If they grant you immunity , so they can't charge you even in the future, that's the only thing that gets you out of being able to plead the fifth).
shagie 4y ago
Back in the 80s... https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-12-02-mn-916-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-12-02-mn-916-st... > North Takes Fifth Amendment in Testimony to Senate Panel : Claimed Protection at Least 40 Times, One Source Says > WASHINGTON — Congressional sources said today that fired National Security Council aide Lt. Col. Oliver L. North took the Fifth Amendment during his testimony Monday before the Senate Intelligence Committee. > One source, who, like the others demanded anonymity, said North took the Fifth Amendment at least 40 times. Another source said he declined to answer a number of questions put to him by senators and committee staff members. > Asked about an apparent contradiction between Sen. Dave Durenberger’s contention that witnesses had been candid and the report that North refused to answer many questions, committee spokesman Dave Holliday said he would make no attempt to clear it up. --- NORTH SAID TO USE FIFTH AMENDMENT - https://www.nytimes.com/1986/12/02/world/north-said-to-use-fifth-amendment.html https://www.nytimes.com/1986/12/02/world/north-said-to-use-f... > ... > The Fifth Amendment protects an individual in any proceeding from being required to give testimony that he feels may incriminate him. Invoking it carries no implication of guilt. > Senator David Durenberger, Republican of Minnesota, who is chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, likened the proceedings before the panel to a grand jury investigation. He said witnesses were testifying under oath.