Something Smells Really “Fishy” With this Sam Bankman-Fried Arrest, Folks…

Once again, “amazing timing” has helped the Dems out. Just like how COVID happened to hit right when Dems needed to wipe out Trump’s amazing economy, and right before a US election, which made mail-in ballots a thing. Yes, all of that was a coincidence, right? A coinky dink that worked out beautifully for Dems. And here we are again, with more “perfect timing” for the Democrats. This time, the Dem donor at the center of a major financial scandal, poised to bring the entire party to its knees, was just arrested right before he was set to testify before Congress.

And now, he can’t testify.

Yep, perfect timing…

It’s so odd, and this smells so fishy, that even Jonathan Turley thinks something is up.

Jonathan Turley reported that 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.

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.

Indeed, some of us had already warned that he was causing himself considerable damage in making such statements. This was a defendant with a large legal team facing possible criminal charges who seemed eager to speak about his actions and motivations. Most prosecutors would sit back, make popcorn, and watch this unfold.

The curious move led many to question whether the Biden Administration was eager to prevent questions on Bankman-Fried’s political contributions and associations. He was the second highest donor to Democratic causes in the last election cycle.  His mother, a law professor at Stanford also heads a major Democratic campaign fund.

It is also possible that the Justice Department simply wanted to show the public that it was moving aggressively despite his close Democratic ties. It may have secured sufficient evidence (including possible cooperating witnesses) to satisfy the basis for charges and an extradition request. Moreover, the charges are likely to make some Democratic figures uncomfortable as this matter enters the criminal process.

Yet, that still does not explain why the Justice Department would not want to hear a full account from Bankman-Fried before effectively shutting him down as a criminal defendant. This is the first time that I can recall where the prosecutors, rather than defense counsel, moved effectively to muzzle a defendant.

Whatever the motivation, the timing of the charges effectively stopped the windfall of information coming from Bankman-Fried.

Well, I think we all know why don’t we? This was yet another gigantic Democrat money-laundering scheme with ties to Ukraine, and God knows what else.