Sam Bankman-Fried Heading to Prison After Intimidating Key Witness Using Leaks to New York Times

posted by Sundance at Conservative Treehouse 

Let’s see… We will trade you one SBF incarceration in exchange for one DJT incarceration and call it fair.

After a US judge in New York tells Sam Bankman-Fried he does not have unlimited first amendment rights, Judge Lewis Kaplan revoked bail and sent SBF to jail for using leaks to the media to intimidate a key federal witness against him – his former girlfriend.

Setting the stage for…

A US judge in DC telling President Donald John Trump he does not have unlimited first amendment rights; establishing the groundwork for sending DJT to jail for using his political platform to intimate Mike Pence, a key federal witness against him – his former Vice President.

Both of these things happened.  A narrative coincidence, I’m sure.

(Via NBC) – Sam Bankman-Fried will head to jail on Friday after a judge sided with a request by federal prosecutors to revoke the FTX founder’s bail over alleged witness tampering. Bankman-Fried will be remanded to custody directly from a court hearing in New York, where he will remain ahead of his criminal trial – which is due to begin on Oct. 2. 

Judge Lewis Kaplan denied Bankman-Fried’s request for delayed detention pending an appeal.

[…] In the motion requesting Bankman-Fried’s detention, the government said that, over the last several months, the defendant had sent over 100 emails to the media and had made over 1,000 phone calls to members of the press. The final straw, according to prosecutors, was Bankman-Fried leaking private diary entries of his ex-girlfriend, Caroline Ellison, to the New York Times. Ellison pleaded guilty to federal charges in Dec. 2022.

Ellison, who is also the former chief executive of Bankman-Fried’s failed crypto hedge fund, Alameda Research, has been cooperating with the government since December and is expected to be a star witness for the prosecution. 

[…] The prosecution described the effort by Bankman-Fried – who faces several wire and securities fraud charges related to the alleged multibillion-dollar FTX fraud – as an attempt to discredit Ellison, characterizing it as a “means of indirect witness intimidation through the press.” 

It is an argument that proved sufficient to convince Judge Kaplan to send Bankman-Fried to jail ahead of his trial. (more)

Meanwhile in DC….

(Politico) – U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan warned Donald Trump and his attorney Friday that repeated “inflammatory” statements about his latest criminal prosecution would force her to speed his trial on charges related to his bid to subvert the 2020 election.

“I caution you and your client to take special care in your public statements about this case,” Chutkan told Trump lawyer John Lauro during a hearing. “I will take whatever measures are necessary to safeguard the integrity of these proceedings.”

Chutkan’s stark admonition came at the conclusion of her first courtroom session in the newest criminal case against the former president. The aim of the hearing was for special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecutors and Trump’s attorneys to hash out disputes about the handling of evidence in the case. Once Chutkan enters a so-called “protective order” governing evidence, prosecutors say they’re prepared to share millions of pages of documents with Trump’s team, jumpstarting the case and setting it on a path to trial.

But Chutkan, aware of the national spotlight on her oversight of the explosive case, repeatedly emphasized that she intended to keep politics out of the courtroom and treat Trump like any other criminal defendant. That included potential consequences if he makes statements that could be construed as harassing or threatening witnesses.

“The fact that he’s running a political campaign has to yield to the orderly administration of justice,” Chutkan said. “If that means he can’t say exactly what he wants to say about witnesses in this case, that’s how it has to be.”

“Even arguably ambiguous statements from parties or their counsel, if they can be reasonably interpreted to intimidate witnesses or to prejudice potential jurors, can threaten the process,” Chutkan added later. (read more)