HappilyhiketheHump OP t1_j9yca5d wrote
Reply to comment by vermontaltaccount in Becca Balint cooperating with federal prosecutors as new allegations against Sam Bankman-Fried emerge by HappilyhiketheHump
The “she might not be able to comment on it yet” line is silly.
She is a US congressperson and can comment on anything she wishes, even ongoing investigations.
She is choosing not to comment and the optics are not good.
I don’t have a reason to believe she was aware of the fraud. She did benefit from the fraud.
I hope she gets it together over the weekend and agrees to talk about this with the Vermont media.
vermontaltaccount t1_j9ylk5d wrote
> She is a US congressperson and can comment on anything she wishes, even ongoing investigations.
lol, no, just because you're a congressperson doesn't mean you can ignore court or fed orders. What if she talked to the press and accidentally gave away information that helped Sam Bankman-Fried develop a better defense for himself?
If you've ever had jury duty it's actually specifically outlined that you can't, so I imagine that it's the same for her.
>However, once a jury is impaneled, journalists are prohibited from interviewing jurors while the case is being presented and during jury deliberations.
Again, I'm not saying she DOES have a no-talk clause from higher ups, but it's not unreasonable at all.
>I hope she gets it together over the weekend and agrees to talk about this with the Vermont media.
I hope she doesn't, because it would mean she is an idiot and I would no longer trust her to represent me.
Have you seen Breaking Bad? There's a scene in it where they actually joke about this with Badger.
>Did you say anything stupid? And by anything stupid I mean anything at all.
So I have to emphasize again, that the thing you are asking our congressperson to do, talk about an active legal case, is so well known in the public conscious as a horrible idea that modern media actually jokes about that one of the dumber meth dealers in a TV show might do it.
HappilyhiketheHump OP t1_j9z7jmn wrote
You watch too much TV.
vermontaltaccount t1_j9zgshg wrote
Haha, alright, the only thing I was trying to do was exemplify that the thing I'm saying isn't some obscure factoid or advice, it's common knowledge that I would expect a normal person to understand.
Let me ask you something: What does she stand to gain from a legal perspective? Again, I must emphasize legal, not "public image".
Here are the two ways it could play out:
-She says something good to the press. This is a net neutral because she could have saved it for the court.
-She says something bad. Now she is at a net loss.
She stands to gain absolutely nothing from speaking, only potentially lose.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments