DOJ Faces Questions After Effectively Preventing Bankman-Fried From Testifying In Congress

The arrest of Sam Bankman-Fried yesterday was sudden and unexpected in light of Bankman-Fried’s plan to testify before Congress. As a criminal defense attorney, my reaction to the arrest last night remains unchanged: this is the first time that I can recall where prosecutors moved aggressively to stop a defendant from making self-incriminating statements.

His testimony would have been entirely admissible and likely devastating at trial.

I previously wrote how Bankman-Fried was doing harm to his case by speaking in the media and to Congress. So why would the Justice Department move to stop the self-inflicted damage? You have a major target who was about to voluntarily testify for hours.

Justice Department Faces Questions After Effectively Preventing Bankman-Fried From Testifying In Congress

That is ordinarily a dream for prosecutors, but the Justice Department moved quickly to prevent that from happening. At that stage, Bankman-Fried was not charged or in custody. He was not protected by Miranda or other constitutional rules from self-incriminating statements.

Now,
I know lots of folks are frothing at the mouth over another highly politically motivated 'legal' proceeding.
And ,
I know that the perpetrators 'friend list' included extremely visible political players of note.
But,
someone thinks this is another one of those "We can fool all of the people all of time" scenarios.

There are those who could engender a frank and honest conversation about this at the DOJ ... they won't.

Therein lies the problem.

a reply to: Maxmars

After seeing how the Justice Department worked with Social Media, and Mainstream Media to coverup Biden family crimes, help Biden get elected, and damage Trump/Republicans, it's even clearer that the entire agency is corrupt, and must be rebuilt.

It's more than likely the only reason they had him arrested was because he was talking freely.
When I look at him and his girlfriend, they don't look all that sharp and their handlers know it.

a reply to: Maxmars

You'd think now that in friendly custody he would still have an opportunity to present video testimony. The bahamas already said they have every intention of extraditing him. So if scheduled for something as important as a congressional testimony you'd think it would actually happened more so now than before arrest.

a reply to: RickyD

You make an excellent point! But then..., these are politicians we are talking about... they don't have an unplanned and non-committee driven thought in their heads. Now that the DOJ is directly in between the testimony and the public, we might never know ...

Congress hearing would've been softballs anyway... dead end...

a reply to: TheNextPhase2030

Considering how he is now 'lawyered up' it is not even a possibility.

It may seem unlikely that a congressional inquiry would have revealed anything, but the opportunity for the possibility of fruitful questioning is now officially squandered. Given up without even a whimper of an objection?