Read on Twitter
🧵1/Ω
Thoughts about SBF’s testimony today:
1. I never imagined it would be so grimly satisfying to watch a man hang himself before my eyes. The only disappointing part was that today wasn’t in front of the jury.
Thoughts about SBF’s testimony today:
1. I never imagined it would be so grimly satisfying to watch a man hang himself before my eyes. The only disappointing part was that today wasn’t in front of the jury.
🧵2/Ω
SBF’s “my view from the perspective of the data I had available to me at the time” and “I’ll try to answer the question I think yr asking”¹ schtick did not play well with the judge.
¹ he actually said this, after which the prosecutor said “you didn’t answer my question".
SBF’s “my view from the perspective of the data I had available to me at the time” and “I’ll try to answer the question I think yr asking”¹ schtick did not play well with the judge.
¹ he actually said this, after which the prosecutor said “you didn’t answer my question".
🧵3/Ω
His testimony today was about whether he would be able to use the “but my lawyer said it was OK” defense in front of the jury. Let me summarize how it went:
His testimony today was about whether he would be able to use the “but my lawyer said it was OK” defense in front of the jury. Let me summarize how it went:
🧵4/Ω
Prosecutor: “So when you took the money, you thought it was OK?”
SBF: “That was my impression based on counsel.”
Prosecutor: “Did you actually ask counsel?”
SBF: “Telepathically and well after the fact, yes.”
Prosecutor: “What about in the real world?”
SBF: “Well...”
Prosecutor: “So when you took the money, you thought it was OK?”
SBF: “That was my impression based on counsel.”
Prosecutor: “Did you actually ask counsel?”
SBF: “Telepathically and well after the fact, yes.”
Prosecutor: “What about in the real world?”
SBF: “Well...”
🧵5/Ω
(I’m oversimplifying but that’s pretty much how it went.)
(I’m oversimplifying but that’s pretty much how it went.)
🧵6/Ω
Culminating in this exchange:
AUSA: “So you believed from counsel that the terms of service allowed you to take the money?”
SBF: “Yes.”
AUSA: “Here’s the terms of service. Can you show me where it says that?” (Presents document)
[insert long, incredibly awkward pause]
Culminating in this exchange:
AUSA: “So you believed from counsel that the terms of service allowed you to take the money?”
SBF: “Yes.”
AUSA: “Here’s the terms of service. Can you show me where it says that?” (Presents document)
[insert long, incredibly awkward pause]
🧵7/Ω
AUSA: “Just let me know if you want to look at another page.”¹
[insert longer, even more incredibly awkward pause]
This is that "courtroom drama" you hear about. You could have heard a pin drop.
¹ absolutely pitch perfect snark from AUSA
AUSA: “Just let me know if you want to look at another page.”¹
[insert longer, even more incredibly awkward pause]
This is that "courtroom drama" you hear about. You could have heard a pin drop.
¹ absolutely pitch perfect snark from AUSA
🧵8/Ω
The part about auto deleted msgs went like the part about taking the money:
AUSA: “Did FTX have a document retention policy?”
SBF: “I believe I discussed it with counsel.”
A: “Was that policy written down?”
S: “I believe so.”
A: “Where is that document?”
S: “I don’t know.”
The part about auto deleted msgs went like the part about taking the money:
AUSA: “Did FTX have a document retention policy?”
SBF: “I believe I discussed it with counsel.”
A: “Was that policy written down?”
S: “I believe so.”
A: “Where is that document?”
S: “I don’t know.”
🧵9/Ω
(That was actually his response. It came out later that his defense team had not bothered to issue a subpoena for this document, which he claims is in the possession of Smithwick & West (sic?))
(That was actually his response. It came out later that his defense team had not bothered to issue a subpoena for this document, which he claims is in the possession of Smithwick & West (sic?))
🧵10/Ω
AUSA: “Did FTX ever receive subpoenas ordering you to retain all documents?”
SBF: “Yes.”
AUSA: “Did you turn off auto delete on your Signal group chats with your co-conspirators at that time?”
SBF: “Well…”
AUSA: “Did FTX ever receive subpoenas ordering you to retain all documents?”
SBF: “Yes.”
AUSA: “Did you turn off auto delete on your Signal group chats with your co-conspirators at that time?”
SBF: “Well…”
🧵11/Ω
AUSA: “So it was yr understanding that only publicly disseminated documents needed to be retained?”
SBF: “That was my belief based on advice of counsel.”
AUSA: “When did your counsel tell you this?”
SBF: “Well…”
AUSA: “So it was yr understanding that only publicly disseminated documents needed to be retained?”
SBF: “That was my belief based on advice of counsel.”
AUSA: “When did your counsel tell you this?”
SBF: “Well…”
🧵12/Ω
It was like this on every area of questioning. Things got particularly bad when the AUSA was trying to ask him if he knew about Alameda’s “allow negative” privileges. SBF spent a lot time discussing definitional issues:
“I didn’t know of the policy under that name.”
It was like this on every area of questioning. Things got particularly bad when the AUSA was trying to ask him if he knew about Alameda’s “allow negative” privileges. SBF spent a lot time discussing definitional issues:
“I didn’t know of the policy under that name.”
🧵13/Ω
AUSA: “But did you know that Alameda had a negative balance?”
SBF: “What do you mean by ‘negative’?”
AUSA: “I mean when you subtract A from B is the number less than 0.”
SBF: “What do you mean by 'less than'?”
AUSA: “But did you know that Alameda had a negative balance?”
SBF: “What do you mean by ‘negative’?”
AUSA: “I mean when you subtract A from B is the number less than 0.”
SBF: “What do you mean by 'less than'?”
🧵14/Ω
AUSA: “Whatever the policy was called, were you aware Alameda could go below 0 balance?”
SBF: “Do butterflies sing more beautifully in May or September?”
AUSA: “ENGLISH MOTHERFUCKER DO YOU SPEAK IT?”
AUSA: “Whatever the policy was called, were you aware Alameda could go below 0 balance?”
SBF: “Do butterflies sing more beautifully in May or September?”
AUSA: “ENGLISH MOTHERFUCKER DO YOU SPEAK IT?”
🧵15/Ω
(She didn’t actually say that; being a consummate professional she came nowhere nearing saying that. But the judge jumped in and basically said it, albeit in a more refined way befitting of a profession where a man literally named Learned Hand invented many of the rules.)
(She didn’t actually say that; being a consummate professional she came nowhere nearing saying that. But the judge jumped in and basically said it, albeit in a more refined way befitting of a profession where a man literally named Learned Hand invented many of the rules.)
🧵16/Ω
As an aside it is hard to see in the transcripts how good the lead prosecutor is. She’s an absolute machine, just lining up & knocking down damning questions in incredibly clear, direct language any 3rd grader could understand.
As an aside it is hard to see in the transcripts how good the lead prosecutor is. She’s an absolute machine, just lining up & knocking down damning questions in incredibly clear, direct language any 3rd grader could understand.
🧵17/Ω
It was all like this. AUSA would ask a simple question (“Did you open the North Dimension bank account to receive customer funds?”). SBF would discuss the nature of reality, the influence of the moons, and theosophy. AUSA would ask again “Did you open the bank account?”
It was all like this. AUSA would ask a simple question (“Did you open the North Dimension bank account to receive customer funds?”). SBF would discuss the nature of reality, the influence of the moons, and theosophy. AUSA would ask again “Did you open the bank account?”
🧵18/Ω
The bank account thing was kind of unique though, because SBF admitted that he didn’t even get Dan Friedberg’s approval. Oh, and he also admitted signing the document 1-3 years after he dated it, which is, you know, bank fraud.
The bank account thing was kind of unique though, because SBF admitted that he didn’t even get Dan Friedberg’s approval. Oh, and he also admitted signing the document 1-3 years after he dated it, which is, you know, bank fraud.
🧵19/Ω
SBF would also pontificate at length about his understanding of various documents like the terms of service “at the time, given the circumstances (and position of Jupiter vis a vis Mercury)”
At least once AUSA asked him “Did you ever read the document?”
SBF: “Well…”
SBF would also pontificate at length about his understanding of various documents like the terms of service “at the time, given the circumstances (and position of Jupiter vis a vis Mercury)”
At least once AUSA asked him “Did you ever read the document?”
SBF: “Well…”
🧵20/Ω
Exchange I (hopefully) wrote down verbatim:
AUSA: “Did you have conversations with your lawyers about the permissibility of spending customer money sent to Alameda's account?”
SBF: “I don’t recall contemporaneous conversations that were phrased that way."
Exchange I (hopefully) wrote down verbatim:
AUSA: “Did you have conversations with your lawyers about the permissibility of spending customer money sent to Alameda's account?”
SBF: “I don’t recall contemporaneous conversations that were phrased that way."
🧵21/Ω
SBF: “I wish I had though.”
(SBF expressed his wish that he had actually asked for the legal advice that was going to be core to his defense on several occasions.)
SBF: “I wish I had though.”
(SBF expressed his wish that he had actually asked for the legal advice that was going to be core to his defense on several occasions.)
🧵22/Ω
Other popular beginnings of “answers” from SBF:
- “I apologize, I wish I could give a better answer…”
- “We might have to go on a substantial digression here…”
- “Under certain conditions…”
- “As I understood it at the time…”
- “I wish I could tell you more…”
Other popular beginnings of “answers” from SBF:
- “I apologize, I wish I could give a better answer…”
- “We might have to go on a substantial digression here…”
- “Under certain conditions…”
- “As I understood it at the time…”
- “I wish I could tell you more…”
🧵23/Ω
Other highlights were AUSA asking SBF if he knew that Dan Friedberg had been criminally investigated or whether he specifically hired Friedberg bc Friedberg wouldn’t stop him from taking risks with customer assets. Unfortunately we didn’t get to hear the answer.
Other highlights were AUSA asking SBF if he knew that Dan Friedberg had been criminally investigated or whether he specifically hired Friedberg bc Friedberg wouldn’t stop him from taking risks with customer assets. Unfortunately we didn’t get to hear the answer.
🧵24/Ω
An extremely interesting moment was when AUSA asked “did you review the reports the govt provided to you about North Dimension?”
SBF answered “only some”.
Mark my words he will file his appeal on the grounds that he couldn't properly review docs bc he violated his bail.
An extremely interesting moment was when AUSA asked “did you review the reports the govt provided to you about North Dimension?”
SBF answered “only some”.
Mark my words he will file his appeal on the grounds that he couldn't properly review docs bc he violated his bail.
🧵25/Ω
I heard at least one lawyer commentating on the trial say SBF should absolutely not testify because he will never convince a jury of working class NYers that any of this makes sense & really all he will accomplish is making the judge think he's guilty.
I heard at least one lawyer commentating on the trial say SBF should absolutely not testify because he will never convince a jury of working class NYers that any of this makes sense & really all he will accomplish is making the judge think he's guilty.
🧵26/Ω
(to clarify: i wrote this tweet 👇 this way for dramatic effect. SBF's actual attempts to not answer this question were more "do you mean negative overall or negative on a per token basis?" and "do you mean at a particular point in time?")
(to clarify: i wrote this tweet 👇 this way for dramatic effect. SBF's actual attempts to not answer this question were more "do you mean negative overall or negative on a per token basis?" and "do you mean at a particular point in time?")
https://twitter.com/Cryptadamist/status/1717688569895002354
🧵27/Ω
Prosecutors helpfully projected a contemporaneous spreadsheet SBF had admitted reviewing at the time showing a negative $2.7 billion balance while he engaged in these prevarications.
The judge was not amused. Not even a little bit.
Prosecutors helpfully projected a contemporaneous spreadsheet SBF had admitted reviewing at the time showing a negative $2.7 billion balance while he engaged in these prevarications.
The judge was not amused. Not even a little bit.
🧵28/Ω
I failed to mention a few incredible moments but you can read them (verbatim!) in @innercitypress’s live tweet thread.
Moments like when SBF said it was ok for him to steal the money “with risk analysis”:
I failed to mention a few incredible moments but you can read them (verbatim!) in @innercitypress’s live tweet thread.
Moments like when SBF said it was ok for him to steal the money “with risk analysis”:
https://twitter.com/innercitypress/status/1717642948278382789
🧵29/Ω
Or that time SBF helpfully explained that no, he didn’t actually ask a 𝘭𝘢𝘸𝘺𝘦𝘳, but he did ask some bros at Three Arrows Capital, the hedge fund that blew up whose founder just got arrested.
Is there even a difference?
Or that time SBF helpfully explained that no, he didn’t actually ask a 𝘭𝘢𝘸𝘺𝘦𝘳, but he did ask some bros at Three Arrows Capital, the hedge fund that blew up whose founder just got arrested.
Is there even a difference?
https://twitter.com/innercitypress/status/1717643814918132153
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
