pomaj46808 t1_jamqnx8 wrote

Calling them crybabies implies they're being sincere, this is 100% about pushing a "both sides" narrative to dampen support for Ukraine.

They're targeting the passively ignorant types who will tell themselves, "I'm against the war in general and it sounds like both sides are hurting civilians, supporting Ukraine just prolongs a war that's ultimately none of my business so I'm against my country giving them any more aid."


pomaj46808 t1_ja8vze9 wrote

A place can't maintain weirdness with any authenticity because weirdness is itself a temporary state. The more it tries, the more it's just a prepackaged experience crafted to meet an expectation. Then it's not weird, it's a product.

The weirdness you want is going to be where recent college grads are settling in and building up with their own efforts.


pomaj46808 t1_j2ypwm2 wrote

>Can you imagine if someone shot a person and then claimed that they didn't understand how to use a gun and so they accidentally killed a person and then proceeded to accidentally cover up the "accident"?

First, it depends on what they're charged with. Because if they're being charged with murder, they can absolutely argue they didn't understand how to use a gun. Generally, when charged with murder they need to prove you intended to kill. If I fire a gun at you and just meant to scare you but happened to nail you between the eyes, then in many if not most states, it's not murder.

Depending on the charges "mens rea" can be the difference between jail for life and time served with a fine.


pomaj46808 t1_j2yoxar wrote

>You don't need to understand crypto to be able to follow what he did.

No, not if the prosecutors guide the jury and tell their story well.

The prosecution will argue their side and the defense will poke holes and argue alternative narratives. One of which will likely be comparable to what he's been claiming in interviews.

The defense doesn't need to confuse the jury on what happened so much as convince them Sam was confused and arrogant but not acting criminally.


pomaj46808 t1_j2x61u6 wrote

It'll all comes down to whether or not they can convince jurors that he got in over his head about stuff he didn't understand and things fell apart because his friends took advantage of that fact.

The prosecution needs to get the jury to understand crypto finance enough to understand what actions Sam took constituted intentional fraud, and also convince a jury that the people testifying against him aren't just trying to save their own asses via plea deals.

The defense just needs to say, "I don't understand this stuff, you don't understand this stuff, and he didn't understand this stuff. He thought he did, and that led to him making major mistakes in clearly risky areas of finance. The people saying otherwise have every reason to lie."

They don't even need to flip the jury, just make that seem likely enough to get a better deal from the prosecution.