5 ms·
This has been refuted over and over again by people who aren't entirely clueless. What's even supposed to be the logic here? Where do you think that "$250M" fi
by bbbbb5 4y ago
This has been refuted over and over again by people who aren't entirely clueless.
What's even supposed to be the logic here? Where do you think that "$250M" figure comes? Why are you assigning some special meaning to it? It's pulled out of the ass of the very same judge who granted SBF bail.
- NullPrefix 4y agoJust saying "refuted" or "debunked" without actually refuting of debunking a claim makes it sound like you are trying to gaslight people. Would you care to provide these refutations that you speak of?
- bbbbb5 4y agoIf you read the last line of my previous comment you will find a short-form refutation. Here's a longer explanation by a former federal prosecutor, current criminal defence attorney https://www.serioustrouble.show/p/how-did-sam-bankman-fried-get-bail https://www.serioustrouble.show/p/how-did-sam-bankman-fried-...
- NullPrefix 4y agoThanks for providing the actual refutation that you speak of. The refutation just reiterates the fact that he did not have to pay a $250M bond. Your refutation also mentions that the house bond isn't actually posted yet. Regular crooks don't get the same treatment of walking out of jail before actually paying posting the bond money. Usually with a 10% fee for the bondsman. Do you think SBF will have to pay 10% to someone based on $4M of the house value or $250M?
- bbbbb5 4y ago> Regular crooks don't get the same treatment of walking out of jail before actually paying posting the bond money. Usually with a 10% fee for the bondsman Bail bondsmen basically do not exist in federal courts. But sure, regular crooks generally don't end up in federal courts. I think that's probably where this confusion stems from.