[bscphil]

I think the thing that confuses a lot of people is that if he's actually savvy, why on earth has he agreed to do so many damaging interviews? He's either (a) naive in at least some respects, (b) actually doesn't care about his legal liability - what he told the NYT today, or (c) is playing some sort of long game where he parlays his apparent innocence into a shorter prison sentence. But I think a lot of savvy people don't see (c) working out for him.

[JumpCrisscross]

> why on earth has he agreed to do so many damaging interviews

It seems to be working, at least on some margins. Even here he has his defenders.

[hnews_account_1]

I think the interviews are a misstep. He’s taking too much meth to think clearly even though he was once obviously a very smart person. The insistence on innocence reminds me of a small child shouting indignantly that they didn’t do anything even if you catch them absolutely red handed. They also totally believe it in the moment and refashion their world view and their truths around that statement.

An adult - in general - will recognize when the jig is up and take it on the chin. Or just lawyer up if they think they can get away with it despite being culpable. This is a 30 year old who thinks he knows better than his lawyers (assuming his lawyer didn’t actually advise him to go to interviews and claim he did it against their advice for some reason). I’ve yet to meet a 30 year old that stupid. It’s the gradient between 25 and 30. You understand the world so fast that a 25 year old seems like a child if they insist they’ll go at it without lawyers.

[unionpivo]

Because he thinks, that he can get away with it, thanks to political donations.

After all unlike Holmes and Madoff he didn't steal from the rich.

[dmix]

Huh? A ton of rich people got burned by this. Probably way more than Madoff or Holmes ever dealt with.