vermontaltaccount t1_j9u0ykc wrote
Reply to comment by StankyBo in Becca Balint cooperating with federal prosecutors as new allegations against Sam Bankman-Fried emerge by HappilyhiketheHump
100%. Reddit and the general public think "If they aren't talking, they're hiding something and must be guilty".
You know what happens to innocent people who talk? They go to jail, because they accidentally incriminate themselves.
Honestly people like the OP who criticize Balint for not talking are part of the reason so many innocent people go to jail. Common tactic of cops to say things like "Well, if you won't answer my questions, that'll make you look guilty." And then ask you a question like
"Do you remember where you got these drugs, yes or no?"
"No"
"So you admit these are your drugs".
If you are involved in any form of legal proceeding, do not talk, and do not like redditors like the OP guilt you into falsely incriminating yourself.
TrumpImpeachedAugust t1_j9uliab wrote
More and more, I'm starting to believe something that feels extra controversial: confessions should not be admissible in court, and it should not be possible to plead guilty. Reason being that there are just so many people who did not commit a crime, and yet end up confessing to it and/or pleading guilty, thus pointlessly ruining their lives.
When this happens, it's usually due to one of two main factors: either they entered an interrogation in good faith and succumbed to psychological pressure, or they were offered a plea deal that would only ruin their life a little bit.
The onus for proving guilt should fall entirely upon the state. Especially in this era where video evidence, DNA evidence, and extensively abundant meta data is readily accessible. It simply is not worth imprisoning innocent people for the sheer convenience of an expedited trial/sentencing.
imfacemelting t1_j9unrep wrote
Good day to post this evergreen wisdom
HappilyhiketheHump OP t1_j9vebqj wrote
It’s gonna be a dark world when no politician ever makes a statement on a sticky issue and relies solely on their spokesperson/attorney.
Why such a low standard?
vermontaltaccount t1_j9vpw8i wrote
Do you think Balint is never going to comment on this ever? If she's cooperating with federal prosecutors, I imagine there is going to be an official statement released at some point.
"Speaking first without properly analyzing the situation and coming up with a clear and concise answer" is the type of thing Trump did. And look at not only the problems that resulted in his candidacy, but also the legal issues that have been ongoing as a result of it.
HappilyhiketheHump OP t1_j9w8j3q wrote
She declined to comment to VT Digger. She has been free with the media before and after the election, but on this issue, she’s avoiding the media.
Maybe that’s a good strategy. She is part of the largest fraudulent campaign violation that has taken place in the nation’s history.
In my original comment, I noted that there is no evidence she was aware of the fraud.
I had hoped she would be forthcoming when asked about this by the local press. Sadly, some of our federal delegation doesn’t take questions from the Vermont media.
vermontaltaccount t1_j9x5svw wrote
> She declined to comment to VT Digger. She has been free with the media before and after the election, but on this issue, she’s avoiding the media.
Yeah, because again, this issue is an active legal investigation. It's a totally different scenario. If she's cooperating with feds, depending on what's happening, she might not even be allowed to comment on it yet, who knows.
>Maybe that’s a good strategy.
"Maybe"? Again, this is probably like Law 101-level strategy. If you ever go to a lawyer about anything, the first thing they're going to ask you is "Have you spoken to this to anyone outside of my office?" and if your answer is "Yes" they're going to tell you to stop doing that immediately. If you say you've posted about it online, they tell you to delete it. There is literally nothing you can say publicly that will help your case, only things you can say publicly that will hurt your case.
To say it's "maybe" a good strategy is like saying "maybe" it's good to eat vegetables.
HappilyhiketheHump OP t1_j9yca5d wrote
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