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.

    • Gristle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Sam didn’t spring for the ad-free tier and now has to have his time wasted?

    • Professorozone@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      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.

  • itsgroundhogdayagain@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Trump defrauded the state/city/taxpayers while Bankman defrauded rich investors. Also, the aforementioned civil vs criminal cases.

  • bbbbbbbbbbb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    7 months ago

    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.

    • LufyCZ@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      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.

  • MiltownClowns@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    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.

      • MiltownClowns@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        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.

  • lemmyseizethemeans@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    Oh my sweet summer child

    The law does not exist

    There is a genocide in Gaza that the entire world said stop with a 'non binding resolution ’

    The law

    Does not

    Exist. (Unless you’re poor lol)

  • Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    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.

  • John_McMurray@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    Bit of a difference between outright theft and a civil dispute over the value of a property put up for a loan,

    • Professorozone@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      Really? Isn’t fraudulently paying less in taxes, stealing from the government? I thought Al Capone went to prison for tax avoidance.

      • John_McMurray@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        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.

        • III@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Pretty sure fluxuating your property valuation depending on your need is actually illegal and not just loopholes. But i think you knew that.

          • John_McMurray@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            Nobody knows that until sometime after the next three-five appeals. Besides, assessed value is for taxes, real value is for loans.

  • forgotmylastusername@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    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.

    • Liz@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      7 months ago

      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.

    • asim0v@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      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.

      • K3zi4@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        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?

  • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    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.

    • MutilationWave@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      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.

    • Professorozone@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      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.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    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.

    • LufyCZ@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      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.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        7 months ago

        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.

        • LufyCZ@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          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.

          • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            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.

            • LufyCZ@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              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.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            Engoron ruled that Trump engaged in a yearslong conspiracy with top executives at his company, the Trump Organization, to deceive banks and insurers about the size of his wealth and the true value of such properties as Trump Tower in Manhattan and his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida.

            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

            • LufyCZ@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              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