7 ms·

> The word-salad began again, interrupted only by the judge saying things like “So I take it the answer is you don’t remember; is that about it?” or “Listen to

by flutas 3y ago

> The word-salad began again, interrupted only by the judge saying things like “So I take it the answer is you don’t remember; is that about it?” or “Listen to the question and answer the question directly.” It was like watching someone get run over by a very slow-moving steam roller. This line encapsulates everything I've thought about this trial. Feels like watching the man scream at the steam roller in Austin Powers.[0] He just can't keep his feet out of his own mouth. At this point I can't tell if it's hubris, or just straight ineptitude. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_PrZ-J7D3k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_PrZ-J7D3k

danpalmer 3y ago
I think it's a combination of a few things. Firstly that he's smart enough that he's got plenty of experience of getting his way just by being smart around people, and yet he's naive enough that he thinks that will work in court under the eye of the whole media. Secondly though he seems to have quickly latched on to a specific sort of messaging that's built around "honesty" and admitting his own failings, not in a real way it seems though. I think he's seen a bunch of people get "cancelled" in recent years and seen that this sort of admission of guilt tends to work well for people. What he doesn't realise though is that this isn't him being accused in the court of public opinion about something the public don't agree fully on, it's a legal accusation in court about specifics that the law is clear on. I'd say this was just bad advice he was being given, but it seemed to happen so quickly that I think it's just his own bad take on the best way out.
- DriverDaily 3y ago
  > he's naive enough that he thinks that will work in court under the eye of the whole media I mean his publicity tour immediately after FTX went under worked pretty well for a while. He got Kevin O’ Leary to blame CZ in front of congress. And Michael Lewis painted a pretty positive picture. He talked to everyone he could and the vast majority of the media were not sure if he did or did not commit a crime. All he has to do is convince the jury to have a reasonable doubt.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    That Michael Lewis did this still puzzles me.
    - fatbird 3y ago
      Me too, since in _The Big Short_ he was so good at untangling a lot of complicated financial machinery to say “this is what was going wrong” in very tangible terms. That he doubts SBF et al actually committed a crime is boggling. The best explanation I’ve seen is that the book was mostly done when it all came crashing down, and SBF was already the befuddled hero and herald of a new age, and Lewis just didn’t want to rewrite the whole damn thing.
      - kalupa 3y ago
        never let the truth get in the way of a good paycheck
      - cjbgkagh 3y ago
        It’s the build exploit cycle of trust, Michael Lewis has built up trust that he can now exploit. Though SBF is so far beyond the pale that instead of trusting SBF more I just trust Michael Lewis much less.
      - nytesky 3y ago
        In his couric interview he keeps calling SBF a “kid”. He’s a 30 year old man. But I know Lewis has gone through some personal tragedy, and I think it has softened his gaze, at least upon young people who act like a foundling in Brave New World.
    - baggachipz 3y ago
      Kevin O'Leary, not so much. :)
- londons_explore 3y ago
  It is a jury he needs to convince... Maybe if this technique works in the media and on twitter, it will work against a jury, even if the judge sees right through it.
  - taude 3y ago
    Is it working in the media for him, though? No.
    - TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
      I'd guess most jury members will have no clue what any of this is about. It'll just sound like big numbers, weird people speaking in jargon, and acronym soup. If he's convicted it won't be on the details, but on credibility. The "I don't recall" strategy won't fool a judge, but it might fool enough jurors. I think the prosecution is going to have to work unexpectedly hard to nail him to the wall. But I also suspect there's more to the story than we're being told. The fact that so much of the money seems to have gone on bribes and political donations, the fact that his parents are lawyers but apparently were shocked - shocked! - to discover he was doing something illegal, the fact that he seems so casual about the whole thing - it's all a little strange. His father "is considered a leading scholar in the discipline of tax law" and is a Stanford Professor of Law and Business. So with no obvious warning signs this must have come as a complete surprise to him.
      - callalex 3y ago
        Stanford is corrupt to its core, so none of this is all that unexpected.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    But if the judge thinks he's being unresponsive to the questions, he can be penalized (including possibly jailed) for that.
    - SilasX 3y ago
- tlb 3y ago
  The dude masterminded the embezzling and frittering away of billions of dollars, and there is plenty of documentation and testimony from his lieutenants that he knew what he was doing. It's not like some slightly more coherent testimony will prove it was just a wacky misunderstanding. His only plausible strategy is confusion and delay to buy time. A shame that it ends up burning millions more dollars of prosecutor resources.
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    The resources spent aren’t wasted. They are setting an example. Think of it as legal framework marketing expense. slaps hood “These gears turn slowly but watch how fine they grind!” Money well spent imho.
    - tlb 3y ago
      I am glad to have the whole scheme laid out, which wouldn't have happened if he'd just pled guilty.
- sanp 3y ago
  Smart or just aggressive?
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    Both? I think he's clearly very smart, but not nearly as smart as he thinks he is.
- phone8675309 3y ago
  The "specific source of messaging that's built around 'honesty'" is a classic malignant narcissist behavior. "Oh gosh gee, yes, I did that but you should go easy on me because I'm admitting it - there's no reason to punish me harshly if pretend to be honest now, I've learned my lesson!"
- AniseAbyss 3y ago
  [dead]
tjrgergw 3y ago
It's ineptitude. It's always been ineptitude.
- hef19898 3y ago
  One can be a criminal fraud and inept at the same time so.
cm2187 3y ago
A scene stolen from A fish called Wanda [0] [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgJvgESR920 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgJvgESR920
bane 3y ago
I remember when interviews with Elizabeth Holmes really started to go awry. She would be asked very straightforward questions but respond with these bizarre meandering answers that never really got to the point. It was strikingly different from the way politicians don't respond, and after a few of these I started to think that something was up. However, a fair number of people I talked with back then thought she was absolutely brilliant and that her answers were the workings of a deeply complex mind. It's mean spirited, but the phrase "she's what stupid people think smart people sound like" struck me at the time. I think the same may be true here. This kind of behavior has been reinforced so much in their lives that in some cases they start to also get high on their own supply. But they to are profoundly stupid people, and start to think that how they interact with the world is what smart people "sound like" and it perpetuates into these spectacular fraudulent failures.
- m_0x 3y ago
  > a fair number of people I talked with back then thought she was absolutely brilliant and that her answers were the workings of a deeply complex mind. I bet it's because she spoke with confidence. Stupid people follow confidence disregarding everything else.
- FireBeyond 3y ago
  > However, a fair number of people I talked with back then thought she was absolutely brilliant and that her answers were the workings of a deeply complex mind. There are a subset of people, and Elizabeth herself who, to this day, believe we and the world were robbed of Theranos' revolutionary advances, because they "really, truly, were this close and would have done it by now", and think that that is the miscarriage of justice.
  - SilasX 3y ago
    SBF likewise claimed he had investors lined up to save FTX and depositors, right when he was forced to declare bankruptcy. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/29/technology/sam-bankman-fried-ftx-bankruptcy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/29/technology/sam-bankman-fr... Earlier comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33984977 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33984977
FireBeyond 3y ago
My favorite line: > Defense lawyer Mark Cohen did his best. Unfortunately for him, the cross-examination was conducted by Sassoon, who looks like someone who uses “summer” as a verb, and often appears deceptively timid, with her hands held close to her chest. In her cross, she simply unhinged her jaw and ate Bankman-Fried.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> He was obviously evading questions, trying to pour forth verbiage to distract Sassoon from what she’d asked This line captures the recent wave of Silicon Valley bullshitters so perfectly.
- soneca 3y ago
  Yep. Turns out that “reality distortion field” only works when the people inside the field can earn a lot of money from you.
- dylan604 3y ago
  By recent, you mean since the beginning of time?
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > By recent, you mean since the beginning of time? No. Rambling idiots were historically judged. The quick-talking stream-of-consciousness bullshitter relies on rapid technological change to suspend listeners' disbelief. Because ex ante, you can't know if you've got someone brilliant but nervous (or simply neurodivergent), or one of these.
    - jyounker 3y ago
      Its very easy to look at your own time, and the particular details of your time, and see something unique and special, but it's rarely true. The quick-talking-stream-of-connsciousness bullshitter aptly describes snake oil salesman and evangelists also. It's the bread-and-butter of classic carnival barkers, and the heart of the con. SBF is the same classic huckster, but wrapped up in a hoodie.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > the bread-and-butter of classic carnival barkers Who were widespread in the industrial era. Less so before. (In part because peasants didn't have the disposable income to scam.)
baq 3y ago
It’s probably drugs
- ghodith 3y ago
  Or not enough drugs [1] [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/willskipworth/2023/10/16/sbfs-lawyers-are-asking-the-judge-for-more-adderall/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/willskipworth/2023/10/16/sbfs-l...

by flutas 3y ago

danpalmer 3y ago

I think it's a combination of a few things. Firstly that he's smart enough that he's got plenty of experience of getting his way just by being smart around people, and yet he's naive enough that he thinks that will work in court under the eye of the whole media. Secondly though he seems to have quickly latched on to a specific sort of messaging that's built around "honesty" and admitting his own failings, not in a real way it seems though. I think he's seen a bunch of people get "cancelled" in recent years and seen that this sort of admission of guilt tends to work well for people. What he doesn't realise though is that this isn't him being accused in the court of public opinion about something the public don't agree fully on, it's a legal accusation in court about specifics that the law is clear on. I'd say this was just bad advice he was being given, but it seemed to happen so quickly that I think it's just his own bad take on the best way out.

DriverDaily 3y ago
> he's naive enough that he thinks that will work in court under the eye of the whole media I mean his publicity tour immediately after FTX went under worked pretty well for a while. He got Kevin O’ Leary to blame CZ in front of congress. And Michael Lewis painted a pretty positive picture. He talked to everyone he could and the vast majority of the media were not sure if he did or did not commit a crime. All he has to do is convince the jury to have a reasonable doubt.
- hef19898 3y ago
  That Michael Lewis did this still puzzles me.
  - fatbird 3y ago
    Me too, since in _The Big Short_ he was so good at untangling a lot of complicated financial machinery to say “this is what was going wrong” in very tangible terms. That he doubts SBF et al actually committed a crime is boggling. The best explanation I’ve seen is that the book was mostly done when it all came crashing down, and SBF was already the befuddled hero and herald of a new age, and Lewis just didn’t want to rewrite the whole damn thing.
    - kalupa 3y ago
      never let the truth get in the way of a good paycheck
    - cjbgkagh 3y ago
      It’s the build exploit cycle of trust, Michael Lewis has built up trust that he can now exploit. Though SBF is so far beyond the pale that instead of trusting SBF more I just trust Michael Lewis much less.
    - nytesky 3y ago
      In his couric interview he keeps calling SBF a “kid”. He’s a 30 year old man. But I know Lewis has gone through some personal tragedy, and I think it has softened his gaze, at least upon young people who act like a foundling in Brave New World.
  - baggachipz 3y ago
    Kevin O'Leary, not so much. :)
londons_explore 3y ago
It is a jury he needs to convince... Maybe if this technique works in the media and on twitter, it will work against a jury, even if the judge sees right through it.
- taude 3y ago
  Is it working in the media for him, though? No.
  - TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
    I'd guess most jury members will have no clue what any of this is about. It'll just sound like big numbers, weird people speaking in jargon, and acronym soup. If he's convicted it won't be on the details, but on credibility. The "I don't recall" strategy won't fool a judge, but it might fool enough jurors. I think the prosecution is going to have to work unexpectedly hard to nail him to the wall. But I also suspect there's more to the story than we're being told. The fact that so much of the money seems to have gone on bribes and political donations, the fact that his parents are lawyers but apparently were shocked - shocked! - to discover he was doing something illegal, the fact that he seems so casual about the whole thing - it's all a little strange. His father "is considered a leading scholar in the discipline of tax law" and is a Stanford Professor of Law and Business. So with no obvious warning signs this must have come as a complete surprise to him.
    - callalex 3y ago
      Stanford is corrupt to its core, so none of this is all that unexpected.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  But if the judge thinks he's being unresponsive to the questions, he can be penalized (including possibly jailed) for that.
  - SilasX 3y ago
tlb 3y ago
The dude masterminded the embezzling and frittering away of billions of dollars, and there is plenty of documentation and testimony from his lieutenants that he knew what he was doing. It's not like some slightly more coherent testimony will prove it was just a wacky misunderstanding. His only plausible strategy is confusion and delay to buy time. A shame that it ends up burning millions more dollars of prosecutor resources.
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  The resources spent aren’t wasted. They are setting an example. Think of it as legal framework marketing expense. slaps hood “These gears turn slowly but watch how fine they grind!” Money well spent imho.
  - tlb 3y ago
    I am glad to have the whole scheme laid out, which wouldn't have happened if he'd just pled guilty.
sanp 3y ago
Smart or just aggressive?
- JohnFen 3y ago
  Both? I think he's clearly very smart, but not nearly as smart as he thinks he is.
phone8675309 3y ago
The "specific source of messaging that's built around 'honesty'" is a classic malignant narcissist behavior. "Oh gosh gee, yes, I did that but you should go easy on me because I'm admitting it - there's no reason to punish me harshly if pretend to be honest now, I've learned my lesson!"
AniseAbyss 3y ago
[dead]

tjrgergw 3y ago

It's ineptitude. It's always been ineptitude.

hef19898 3y ago
One can be a criminal fraud and inept at the same time so.

cm2187 3y ago

A scene stolen from A fish called Wanda [0] [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgJvgESR920 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgJvgESR920

bane 3y ago

I remember when interviews with Elizabeth Holmes really started to go awry. She would be asked very straightforward questions but respond with these bizarre meandering answers that never really got to the point. It was strikingly different from the way politicians don't respond, and after a few of these I started to think that something was up. However, a fair number of people I talked with back then thought she was absolutely brilliant and that her answers were the workings of a deeply complex mind. It's mean spirited, but the phrase "she's what stupid people think smart people sound like" struck me at the time. I think the same may be true here. This kind of behavior has been reinforced so much in their lives that in some cases they start to also get high on their own supply. But they to are profoundly stupid people, and start to think that how they interact with the world is what smart people "sound like" and it perpetuates into these spectacular fraudulent failures.

m_0x 3y ago
> a fair number of people I talked with back then thought she was absolutely brilliant and that her answers were the workings of a deeply complex mind. I bet it's because she spoke with confidence. Stupid people follow confidence disregarding everything else.
FireBeyond 3y ago
> However, a fair number of people I talked with back then thought she was absolutely brilliant and that her answers were the workings of a deeply complex mind. There are a subset of people, and Elizabeth herself who, to this day, believe we and the world were robbed of Theranos' revolutionary advances, because they "really, truly, were this close and would have done it by now", and think that that is the miscarriage of justice.
- SilasX 3y ago
  SBF likewise claimed he had investors lined up to save FTX and depositors, right when he was forced to declare bankruptcy. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/29/technology/sam-bankman-fried-ftx-bankruptcy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/29/technology/sam-bankman-fr... Earlier comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33984977 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33984977

FireBeyond 3y ago

My favorite line: > Defense lawyer Mark Cohen did his best. Unfortunately for him, the cross-examination was conducted by Sassoon, who looks like someone who uses “summer” as a verb, and often appears deceptively timid, with her hands held close to her chest. In her cross, she simply unhinged her jaw and ate Bankman-Fried.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> He was obviously evading questions, trying to pour forth verbiage to distract Sassoon from what she’d asked This line captures the recent wave of Silicon Valley bullshitters so perfectly.

soneca 3y ago
Yep. Turns out that “reality distortion field” only works when the people inside the field can earn a lot of money from you.
dylan604 3y ago
By recent, you mean since the beginning of time?
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > By recent, you mean since the beginning of time? No. Rambling idiots were historically judged. The quick-talking stream-of-consciousness bullshitter relies on rapid technological change to suspend listeners' disbelief. Because ex ante, you can't know if you've got someone brilliant but nervous (or simply neurodivergent), or one of these.
  - jyounker 3y ago
    Its very easy to look at your own time, and the particular details of your time, and see something unique and special, but it's rarely true. The quick-talking-stream-of-connsciousness bullshitter aptly describes snake oil salesman and evangelists also. It's the bread-and-butter of classic carnival barkers, and the heart of the con. SBF is the same classic huckster, but wrapped up in a hoodie.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > the bread-and-butter of classic carnival barkers Who were widespread in the industrial era. Less so before. (In part because peasants didn't have the disposable income to scam.)

baq 3y ago

It’s probably drugs

ghodith 3y ago
Or not enough drugs [1] [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/willskipworth/2023/10/16/sbfs-lawyers-are-asking-the-judge-for-more-adderall/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/willskipworth/2023/10/16/sbfs-l...