Asklemmy

43893 readers

890 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

201

can anyone tell me the justification for putting Samuel Bankman-fried in prison for 25 years but Trump gets a fine? Is it federal vs. state? (lemmy.world)

submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

64 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 7 months ago* (last edited 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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 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.