3 ms·

At least since the OJ case I think it's pretty clearly a part of a legal defenses goals to win or at least do damage control in the media for a high profile cas

At least since the OJ case I think it's pretty clearly a part of a legal defenses goals to win or at least do damage control in the media for a high profile case, assuming resources to do so. Even if sequestering worked better than it does, I think there are a lot of other subtle influences from mainstream consensus that affect all the participants in the process.

qball 4y ago
>I think there are a lot of other subtle influences from mainstream consensus that affect all the participants in the process. But unlike OJ, political figures and the media higher-ups weren't nearly as personally invested in the outcome of the case. Sam Bankman-Fraud is unique because he somehow managed to ensnare a good portion of those higher-ups in his scheme, so naturally they really want to do some damage control. That approach is hierarchical, and it looks like this: That didn't happen. (It's pretty firmly established that it did.) And if it did, it wasn't that bad. (It was tens of billions of dollars.) And if it was, that's not a big deal. (Again, it was tens of billions of dollars.) And if it is, that's not my fault. <- ("But he's just a kid" rhetoric.) And if it was, I didn't mean it. (Media has been pivoting harder towards "honest mistake" these days.) And if I did, you deserved it. Expect to see the media further pivot towards something resembling "honest mistake" (note that they're doing this already) before settling on "and that's why we need onerous regulation of cryptocurrencies" (which, unfortunately, has a chance of being taken seriously by the government because it affects currently-sitting politicians and not just the people whose dinner parties they attend).
- hypothesis 4y ago
  > Sam Bankman-Fraud is unique because he somehow managed to ensnare a good portion of those higher-ups in his scheme I wonder if that started as “just send donations to mainstream political parties”…

qball 4y ago

>I think there are a lot of other subtle influences from mainstream consensus that affect all the participants in the process. But unlike OJ, political figures and the media higher-ups weren't nearly as personally invested in the outcome of the case. Sam Bankman-Fraud is unique because he somehow managed to ensnare a good portion of those higher-ups in his scheme, so naturally they really want to do some damage control. That approach is hierarchical, and it looks like this: That didn't happen. (It's pretty firmly established that it did.) And if it did, it wasn't that bad. (It was tens of billions of dollars.) And if it was, that's not a big deal. (Again, it was tens of billions of dollars.) And if it is, that's not my fault. <- ("But he's just a kid" rhetoric.) And if it was, I didn't mean it. (Media has been pivoting harder towards "honest mistake" these days.) And if I did, you deserved it. Expect to see the media further pivot towards something resembling "honest mistake" (note that they're doing this already) before settling on "and that's why we need onerous regulation of cryptocurrencies" (which, unfortunately, has a chance of being taken seriously by the government because it affects currently-sitting politicians and not just the people whose dinner parties they attend).

hypothesis 4y ago
> Sam Bankman-Fraud is unique because he somehow managed to ensnare a good portion of those higher-ups in his scheme I wonder if that started as “just send donations to mainstream political parties”…