can anyone tell me the justification for putting Samuel Bankman-fried in prison for 25 years but Trump gets a fine? Is it federal vs. state?
Pretty much what the title says. I know he's a former president and has all of his supporters, but what's the official reason? Thanks.
I understand what you’re saying but the logic is a little flawed.
Yes, they both committed fraud.
SBF defrauded the crypto community, his investors, and FTX users.
Trump defrauded lenders, property insurers, and various tax authorities (and via that tax fraud, the taxpayers of NY and possibly the USA.)
SBF was charged criminally and found guilty. I assure you, the civil cases are coming against SBF. And the plaintiffs will most likely win those civil cases.
Trump was charged civilly and found guilty. I assure you, the criminal cases are coming against Trump. And the plaintiffs will most likely lose those criminal cases.
That’s the true difference.
Fucking when, after he becomes president again and pardons himself, or after he croaks from obesity and dementia?
President can't pardon state cases.
After all you've seen Trump get away with I can't believe that you still somehow think this little detail will matter. SCOTUS will create an exemption of some kind for him.
"White male Presidents over the age of 75 that wear predominantly red ties can pardon themselves at both the federal and state level."
As much as I'd like to believe that SCOTUS will honor separation between state and federal, I simply do not trust our current justices. I fully expect them to say, "Nah....it's totes cool for Trump, and only Trump, to commit crimes."
At some point people are just gonna start ignoring the SC completely. I can't find any polls specifically about legitimacy per se, but confidence in the court is already very low, and even Republicans aren't all that happy with it.
He's not supposed to be able to do a lot of the shit he's getting away with. At this point I fully expect him to try to pardon himself, NY will say he can't do that, it'll go to the SC, who will say that he can.
Do state cases stay state cases?
Could “someone” leak some evidence that would make the case a federal one, and then pardon himself?
technically he can but it would bring about a legitimate constitutional crisis if republicans look the other way since it would be the first time he openly acted against the constitution and received no push back for it.
Bank fraud seems relatively easy to charge him with. If you knowingly provide false info on a bank document, it's a federal crime. His signature on each loan application was a crime.
You can't tell the State of NY your building is worth $1 and tell the bank it's worth $3. These banks literally had a procedure for dealing with his constant lies on bank documents. Large banks are federally regulated and it's a federal crime to lie to them on your loan application.
Jesus fuck thank you, it's so hard seeing a bunch of doomer shit in threads like this
Saying he's going to win all the criminal cases is pretty doomer.
People keep asking this. I guess it's the new spin the Trump fascists are trying to work.
Why New York state is suing Trump instead of charging him with crimes
So the answer is: it's easier to win, it's easier to punish Trump & they can still file criminal charges after a successful civil case if more crimes are uncovered.
Thank you. That's pretty much what I was looking for.
they're both terrible people who deserve everything they get but sbf didn't nominate judges to the court who can rule in his favour.
Also nobody’s threatening to kill judges who rule against sbf
Trump subscribes to a higher justice tier than Sam does.
Sam didn't spring for the ad-free tier and now has to have his time wasted?
Civil vs Criminal. Trump got a disgorgement, it's not a fine. He's been ordered to pay back his ill-gotten gains, that's not the same thing as a fine. Anyhow, a civil case can't end in jail time. That's not how civil cases work.
A civil case can end with a criminal indictment however, which is certainly coming at this point.
See my other post in this thread for why it was done this way.
Disgorgement isn't a fine, it's a special attack that deals acid damage.
It's not federal vs state
It's protected vs sacrificial lamb.
The powerful avoid the mobs by occasionally giving up one of their own to the horde.
If that is the case, why is Trump being tried at all?
Just because the powerful enjoy breaking laws with impunity doesn't mean occasionally people won't try to hold them to account.
In Trump's case even powerful wealthy people think he went too far, and some of them are terrified of the consequences of a second term.
Trump's fines are from his Civil cases. SBF had Criminal charges.
Yeah but that was what I was asking. They both committed fraud. I realize the nature of the fraud was different but was wondering why one was criminal and the other not. They seem to have jumped on Fried pretty quickly and gave him a high penalty. It seems pretty obvious that Trump is a former president of but he's being prosecuted for other criminal charges so it seemed to me there must have been some crucial difference the two, other than their standing.
Trump defrauded the state/city/taxpayers while Bankman defrauded rich investors. Also, the aforementioned civil vs criminal cases.
Trump defrauded rich investors as well, one of the big cases against him right now is about him using a Forbes article to lie about his net worth to get loans.
Thank you.
It's a matter of privilege. Trump had the opportunity to stack the courts in his favor. SBF didn't. The rich rally around Trump because they see him as one of their own. SBF was an interloper. Trump has a rabid fan base willing to commit violence in his name. SBF cloaked himself in effective altruism.
If they both don't rot in jail, then the myth of the social contract in the US will be torn to shreds. I fear what would happen after that.
Mainly because Trump can start riots with a word and nobody gives a fuck about Sam Bankman Fraud. Obviously the cases are different, but the reason the approach is different is the aforementioned riots and possible civil war.
Yeah, I was looking for the legal reason.
I understand, but that's the reason. Even though legally he may have defrauded a bunch of people, they can't go after him as hard, because he can set the country on fire with a word. That's why no matter what he does, he seems to get away with it. He's not bulletproof. It's just that if you take a shot and miss, you're gonna kill innocent civilians.
In as barebones as I can make it, SBF disappeared money from the wealthy with no return of investment. Trump held office and was able to deregulate and reduce taxes for the wealthy allowing their wealth to accumulate.
Your bones are broken then, because that's just straight up not how it works.
Trump was fined because it was a civil trial that he lost. In this instance. His criminal trials are ongoing.
SBF is getting locked up because it was a criminal trial that he lost.
The laws that lead to such actions being classified as they are, are a direct result of the the rich imposing their desires on the world. Trump is a vessel for that to happen for most of them, so he is tolerated, more or less.
The fact that Trump was able to commit the frauds in the first place and only get attention from the law just now is part of the wealthy's SOP
Going by that logic, hasn't Trump defrauded big banks rich people have huge amounts of assets in?
I didn't say he was an ideal vessel. He's just managed to somehow be cool(?)er than they are with the population, and they benefit still. I don't mean like some illuminati type BS, just a matter of happy coincidences, and a few convenient occasional suggestions I'd imagine. Oh, and money.
Besides, the amount he's defrauded is essentially chump change once you consider insurance and assets etc.
SBF was a poor who got money through a fluke. Trump was born a rich and therefore the system is set up to protect him. Poors are not allowed to become riches unless they got it from exploiting the poors. Steal from the rich: that's theft. When you steal from the poor: capitalism.
Bit of a difference between outright theft and a civil dispute over the value of a property put up for a loan,
Really? Isn't fraudulently paying less in taxes, stealing from the government? I thought Al Capone went to prison for tax avoidance.
Tax evasion and a dispute over property valuation are not the same thing either. Tac avoidance is legal, think loopholes, evasion is not, but i think you knew that and intentionally used the wrong term.
Pretty sure fluxuating your property valuation depending on your need is actually illegal and not just loopholes. But i think you knew that.
Nobody knows that until sometime after the next three-five appeals. Besides, assessed value is for taxes, real value is for loans.
A president in jail would be disastrous for the reputation of America as a country. That's been my theory as to why he will never face any real consequence. It seems like an elephant in the room. One that probably doesn't even split neatly down partisanship.
In my opinion, not prosecuting a blatant criminal is a much worse look for the country. You can't undo the past, but you can bring him to justice.
Not prosecuting a ex-President for literally trying to both violently and by subterfuge overturn a lawful, democratic election while in office by a position that is literally sworn to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution would officially make America a joke.
Other democracies can uphold their own laws even when the highest official of the land violates their oath of office. If we do not, the idea of America as a democracy is officially dead.
Sorry, but the fact he was even elected the first time made America a complete joke to the rest of the world. It is utterly bizarre watching this all unfold, and that after everything that's happened since, Trump still has a good chance of election AGAIN?
Wtf is going on over there?
I mean, if you want to stay safe in life, maybe don’t make your own last name “Fried”
Well the legal system doesn't exist on paper. Laws are not what the legal system operates on. Allegedly, breaking a law is what allows, but doesn't require, the legal system to be involved at all.
So to answer your question, Sam Bankman is a nobody, that no one likes, and caused a very public number of people to lose a lot of money. His case is a slam-dunk, and has no further implications. Trump is a former president who did exactly the same shit that every other former president has done since Washington. So prosecuting him for his crimes now means that the power brokers of the US empire are now potentially open to prosecution. So of course the two aren't going to be comparable.
So there is no "official reason" because officially the judicial system is based on individual discretion.
I was with you until
"Trump is a former president who did exactly the same shit that every other former president has done since Washington."
Every president since Washington has misused campaign funds to pay for silence on an affair, stolen top secret documents, conducted business fraudulently, and plotted multiple attempts to subvert an election?
I must be missing something. If you take that line out I agree with the rest of your comment.
Your answer doesn't pass my smell test. Yes they can choose NOT to prosecute because, for instance, presidents are too important, but they DID prosecute and they have to say what law was broken and there are sentencing guidelines. If Trump and Fried were both convicted of murder, I'm pretty sure Trump would not just be fined while Fried was jailed. I don't pretend that Trump will ever face serious consequences but I kind of think there IS a legal reasoning behind the differences in the two cases.
Moderate Dems don't want to set the precedent of holding powerful politicians accountable, because moderate Dems are terrified if progressives gain power, they'll hold people accountable regardless of the letter by their name.
That's the whole point of being "moderate" occupying the gray area in-between republicans and progressives. And when Republicans are bat shit insane grifters and progressives honestly aren't asking for anything radical...
Well, moderates aren't exactly going to be great people, at least they don't have to be. I'm sure some are just misguided and genuinely think they're helping.
A bunch of text, all of it unrelated to the question.
Trump lost a civil trial, SBF lost a criminal trial.
You can't be sent to jail for breaking civil laws.
So do you think Trump broke no laws doing that stuff?
Because he did.
If you want the explanation on why he had a civil and not a criminal trial, refer to that "bunch of text unrelated to the question".
Sometimes I forget different people need different amounts spelled out for them. I'm sorry I skipped a step and that caused you to become confused.
Your comment proves you don't understand what's happening. At all.
Trump defamed someone. That's a civil issue. He was put on trial. On a civil trial. Because it's a civil issue. He lost. He got fined. Not sent to jail. Because it's a civil trial.
This isn't about the trial he lost from raping Jean Carroll. This is about Trump lost a trial about defrauding banks and insurance companies.
Bankman Fried defrauded banks, was put on criminal trial and was sent to jail Trump defrauded banks but was only put on civil trial resulting in a fine.
My bad, of course, not sure why the defamation trial was still in my head.
SBF engaged in things like securities fraud as well, which is harder to spin into a civil thing I guess.
My bet on why they decided to go the civil route is that Trump has the money to make things right (if he will that's another thing), and SBF has nothing.
So they've just decided to go the "better for everybody" route, since, well, it's better for everybody.
Why New York state is suing Trump instead of charging him with crimes
So the answer is: it's easier to win, it's easier to punish Trump & they can still file criminal charges after a successful civil case if more crimes are uncovered.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-letitia-james-new-york-engoron-38bc3a7f2ccb22555c026e9bf70fd5bbp
Crazy someone hasn't heard of that, or did you forget?
You literally don't know what's happening bro
Oh yeah, we're talking about the New York Trump corp trial :)
In that case, here's a nice explanation why a criminal trial wouldn't make sense and why a civil one is much better for everyone