The amount of comments in here who think that SBF is going to walk away scot free is unbelievable. I guess it goes to show how low trust is in the legal system. It's going to be a legal fight all the way -- and SBF has few friends and doesn't have any money - he's likely going to prison or spend the rest of his life in a country where he can't be extradited to the US.
Go look at Bernie Madoff as an example of someone who defrauded a lot of people and was much more respected then SBF was. Think people - don't just whine like a bunch of petulant children how the game is rigged.
> I guess it goes to show how low trust is in the legal system.
I think it's more about trust in propaganda. Both parties take a ton of money, and some of it always turns out to be from dubious people. A lot of those dubious people go to jail. But this "SBF hasn't been arrested in the first 20 minutes so Democrats are corrupt" line is one I've seen as a talking point all over the US right. But it never comes with any perspective.
E.g., we could look at Elizabeth Holmes. As Wikipedia says, "The credibility of Theranos was attributed in part to Holmes's personal connections and ability to recruit the support of influential people, including Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, Jim Mattis, and Betsy DeVos, all of whom had served or would go on to serve as U.S. presidential cabinet officials." Republican cabinet officials, I should add. It was more than 2 years between Carreyrou's bombshell article and her indictment.
Do I believe that she got a lot of money and cred from cozying up to politically prominent individuals? Definitely. Do I believe that delayed the investigation? No, complex crimes, especially ones with intent requirements, require patient, careful investigations. And I don't even recall anybody saying that she wasn't immediately arrested because she was politically connected.
> I think it's more about trust in propaganda. Both parties take a ton of money, and some of it always turns out to be from dubious people. A lot of those dubious people go to jail. But this "SBF hasn't been arrested in the first 20 minutes so Democrats are corrupt" line is one I've seen as a talking point all over the US right. But it never comes with any perspective.
So much "news discourse" today comes from people who have lost their minds to partisan politics. With every news item, the only question they ask is "how does this prove that my side is 100% right and very unfairly treated".
It's not even the partisanship that is annoying about this, it's the straining for a connection. A lot of things don't have a meaningful connection to partisan politics, and trying to force it constantly leads to a lot of uninteresting noise.
It's as if there were millions of people constantly trying to relate everything happening in the world to Weird Al Yankovic. Except that would at least be funny.
They're not trying to understand the case or offer an opinion about it. The term "virtue signalling" refers to a similar category of speech, ie., signalling (vs communicating).
You can distinguish communication from signalling by the introduction of a hypothetical premise: suppose "The Issue" (eg., SBT) was discovered not to relate to "Identity" (eg., Left/Right, etc.), then would you/the-speaker still care?
If not, then what you're actually concerned about is the impact of this issue on your ingroup/outgroup game, not the issue itself.
Here, most either want to distance their identity from SBT, or associate it with their enemies.
I want to take your comment and frame it. Honestly, the state of public political discourse these days makes me want to become a hermit and live in the middle of nowhere, primarily because it is extremely rare to see any good faith arguments. Instead, you have each side already knowing their desired outcome, and the only mental work going into the argument is "how can I pretend this event proves my side." And folks can say what they want about looking at the past with rose-colored glasses, but the sheer amount of conspiratorial nonsense that gets play at high levels, where it really shouldn't, is so much worse now than in the pre-Internet days.
The thing that makes me particularly annoyed is when people's conspiracy theories don't make sense even if you believe all of their (usually false) points. I mean, if you believe that all politicians have 0 morals and only act in self interest, the idea that a politician who only cares about self interest would for some reason put their reputation on the line for SBF is insane. There is practically nobody, in public, sticking up for this villain, so even if a politician took money from him in the past, they have no reason to help him now. It's just totally logically inconsistent and makes absolutely no sense.
It’s worth noting that the “right” doesn’t consider these people you mention as the “right”. It’s the same reason Joe Biden will say “MAGA Republicans”. The Republican base is almost entirely different than the elected officials (same with most of the left btw).
I recommend the book “the new right” by michael malice
The right views much of their political leadership with contempt. They equally view them as the “enemy”, perhaps more-so.
When people hear “he donated to both parties” what the people on the right here is “they donated to my enemies”. The “MAGA Republicans” mostly are concerned about illegal immigration, off shoring of jobs, corruption, globalism, etc. Republican leadership and SBF openly worked against their interest. It’s colloquially called the “uniparty” for a reason
I'm using the term "the US right" here in the fashion of political scientists, especially non-American ones. I understand that the US right, which has for decades spent a lot of time pursuing orthodoxy (see, e.g., "RINO", or the the way there is no longer a pro-choice wing of the Republican Party), has a lot of internecine fighting over who is truly within the tribal boundaries. But I think none of that is relevant to my point. Whether you think somebody is "the right" or not doesn't map well onto who might be able to squash a prosecution for political reasons. Being a cabinet member is a more useful proxy.
The reason I was bringing it up was regarding how it was relevant to your point…
First, I agree it’s about who can squash prosecution. That said, it’s a bit bigger than that. These funds were used to help elect people. Meaning, it was directly used to squash people who would prosecute SBF in the future.
> Both parties take a ton of money, and some of it always turns out to be from dubious people. A lot of those dubious people go to jail. But this "SBF hasn't been arrested in the first 20 minutes so Democrats are corrupt" line is one I've seen as a talking point all over the US right. But it never comes with any perspective.
That’s why who was funded matters, you can use it as a proxy for who is corrupt / who best aligns with a given interest.
The US right doesn’t view it as “both parties” taking funds. The reason it’s a right wing talking point is it’s one party getting the money. The “uniparty” - ie the democrats & the republican leadership who appear to work against the republican base. That’s who’s getting the fund — not the republicans who are opposed to funding Ukraine, for instance. The republicans who more closely represent the base, did not get funds from SBF, that we know of.
It’s also why the right doesn’t believe there will be any arrest(s). Who’s motivated? If it goes to trial / is investigated those in power will be named.
If any arrest(s) are made, it would be similar to ghislaine maxwell - where she goes to prison for sex trafficking minors… but none of the recipients of those minors are charged or named.
People believe (rightly!) that law follows power. I think the Epstein trial and general incuriosity about who among the rich and powerful had committed great crimes led many to this realization. It’s not supposed to be true in a society with rule of law but it does appear to be at least somewhat true in our society.
People notice the kid-gloves treatment he’s been getting in the media (and from congress!!). And people assume that power is not against him, and so people are pessimistic.
I don’t think any of this is unreasonable, although it is incompatible with many beliefs that people often hold dear.
Sure, eventually, after decades went by and a cut and dry criminal case got dismissed because he was an alleged intelligence asset. But because of public scrutiny, largely because a dissident president named Donald Trump talked about the Epstein island issues on live television in a bid to damage his political opponents, he did eventually go to prison.
If it hadn't been politically expedient for a billionaire to attack him for political points, it never would have been an issue of public concern, and Epstein would still be trafficking children for sexual abuse. Everyone knew about Epstein for years and he was personally exempted from the consequences of his actions. While Epstein is now gone, there are going to be dozens of other well connected child sex traffickers similarly generating blackmail on politicians just like Epstein and Maxwell did, and they will continue to evade the criminal justice system.
Most importantly, the feds seized all of Epstein's files and CDs and that was the last thing we heard of any of it. Zero people have been punished for raping children. The only person to get materially punished for it is Richard Stallman, who only spoke in defense of one of the alleged rapists who visited the island. Nobody else has seen an ounce of heat. No lost jobs. No criminal charges.
There's a lot of conspiracy theory in there. All this stuff about intelligence assets and blackmail and murder to keep him quiet is all too exciting in a made-for-tv kind of way. How do we know he wasn't just some rich dude who wanted to bang underage chicks and thought he could get away with it? It seems like the occam's razor answer.
I didn't say intelligence asset, I said alleged intelligence asset. This isn't conspiracy theory, it the reason stated by the prosecutor for why he let him plea to a no-time deal instead of going with charges that fit his crimes.
> Acosta informed the Trump presidential transition team that he offered a lenient plea deal because he was told that Epstein "belonged to intelligence", was "above his pay grade," and to "leave it alone".
It is possible that he didn't belong to intelligence -- but still got people within the DOJ to assert falsely that he was so that he could be exempt from the consequences of his crimes. It just goes to show the core of my post's assertions, that Epstein was exempt from the normal criminal process for decades due to his position as a prominent child sex trafficker.
Seems like the more relevant paragraph from the Acosta article is this one:
> Acosta has variously stated that he was not directly involved in the unusual agreement, that prosecutors determined it to be the best available solution, and that he "was unduly pressured by Epstein's heavy-hitting lawyers." He also has argued the prosecution team believed conviction by trial in federal court was unlikely, and an agreement would therefore be the best way to put an end to Epstein's exploitation of underage girls.
Any conversation with Trump's presidential transition team happened 8 years after the plea agreement. Maybe Acosta is just trying to make himself look better. I wouldn't read too much into that.
I would concur that it is possible that it is only Acosta making the claim that Jeffrey Epstein belonged to intelligence. If this is true, it is still a materially relevant agent of the Department of Justice making the claim that Epstein belonged to intelligence and using that claim to justify his no-time plea deal. Even if the only person doing so is Acosta, the claim is still true.
Which, to me, takes this outside the realm of "conspiracy theory" and into the realm of what the DOJ prosecutor is lying about.
> and an agreement would therefore be the best way to put an end to Epstein's exploitation of underage girls.
If this were actually the motivation instead of sweeping it under the rug, he could have still been sentenced to prison (plea agreements are just paper making recommendations to a judge -- the judge can sentence however they wish) and also heavily publicizing that he at least has been convicted of child sexual exploitation instead of quietly resolving it with no punishment in shadows and secrecy. We know that Epstein was certainly engaging in pimping after -- even hosting Bill Gates at a mansion known to be a site of thinly veiled prostitution labeled as massage therapy.
Also Elizabeth Holmes and Sonny Balwani, who were just convicted in the last year. And Martin Shkreli and any number of other high-profile white-collar criminals in the last decade. The system is deeply flawed, but there is a threshold above which highly public, blatantly obvious crimes do get prosecuted (provided you’re not the President, anyways).
This is a great article about the difference between Madoff and SBF, and also why the wheels of justice turn very slowly on financial crimes. Worth a read, for sure.
To your point. Madoff gave himself up. He confessed to his crimes and didn't even want an out. He more or less gave up defending himself in a meaningful way.
> The amount of comments in here who think that SBF is going to walk away scot free is unbelievable. I guess it goes to show how low trust is in the legal system.
I think it's history that shows this and builds this low trust. The 2008-2009 housing and economic crisis had effectively no prosecutions that came to fruition. Bury things in sufficient complexity, and it's easy to get away with it. The thing about Elizabeth Holmes is that she wasn't actually wealthy or powerful. That's why she's going to prison, which to be clear, I agree with but I also think a lot of financial criminals belong in prison. Sam Bankman-Fried is in that same boat, but he does seem to have some strange connections that are a little more engrained than the board members Holmes had. So we'll see. I think he'll be prosecuted and likely go to jail, but I also see it maybe just not happening. I just wish we'd see the same reckoning for other fraudsters who are bit better in hiding their malfeasances.
> The 2008-2009 housing and economic crisis had effectively no prosecutions that came to fruition.
Because it was not a crime at that point to bet against common sense.
> Bury things in sufficient complexity, and it's easy to get away with it.
Yes, but that's why there's the whole system of independent government institutions, staffed by specialists, and they are supposed to understand the complex aspects of economy/society, recommend specific actions, warn legislators, publish summary statistics, ask for better tools, etc.
And as is tradition these institutions are themselves used as political tools, are suffering from regulatory capture, are underfunded, and ineffective.
Just as the SEC was "asleep" the FDA/FTC was too.
*But* it's very important to not forget that, even though everyone wants magically better institutions, just making laws stricter and other "brute force" solutions don't lead to better institutions, they lead to more government control over society, which is rarely a net positive.
.
.
.
> I just wish we'd see the same reckoning for other fraudsters who are bit better in hiding their malfeasances.
Yeah, but that's mostly consumer protection. Which is soooo laughably missing nowadays. Amazon gets away with filling the planet with junk. People already don't want to spend effort on safety if it would come at the cost of some individualism.
> I think it's history that shows this and builds this low trust. The 2008-2009 housing and economic crisis had effectively no prosecutions that came to fruition
They must have been busy prosecuting and seazing assets from thousands of debtees.
I feel that faith really is a component of things getting better in society. No matter how bad things are, we collectively have to believe and expect them to get better, in order for us to figure a way out of bad situations and in order to hold leaders accountable in the long term.
It grates on me like no other when people not only make observations, but give off nihilistic hopelessness of anything ever possibly having an alternate outcome.
To view corruption or inequality as "just the way things are" is to permit it and tacitly support it.
Take 2: Some of these comments could be bad-faith nation-state trolls on a broader mission to undermine American citizens' faith in government, but I don't think HN has been targeted as much as say, reddit.
> The amount of comments in here who think that SBF is going to walk away scot free is unbelievable.
Well, it depends on what example you want to compare SBF to.
Maybe this will be like Bernie Madoff, and SBF will die in jail.
Or maybe this will be like the 2008 financial crisis, with barely any punishment and most of the people who caused the crash gifted billions of dollars of taxpayers' money.
Maybe it will be like Elizabeth Holmes, and SBF will get 10 years in jail.
Or maybe it will be like the Panama Papers and Paradise Papers, where there appear to be substantial crimes revealed, and yet somehow nobody gets prosecuted.
Maybe it will be like George Floyd, and stealing $20 is enough to get someone killed on the spot, let alone a billion dollars.
Or maybe, like Ghislaine Maxwell was prosecuted for trafficking minors to have sex with... nobody, apparently... it'll turn out any evidence of other people's involvement has somehow vanished in a puff of smoke.
Maybe it will be like Enron's Kenneth Lay, and he'll be found guilty and face a big jail sentence.
Or maybe, like the Bhopal disaster or the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the corporation will pay some money but despite corporations being comprised of nothing except people, somehow no people will face any punishment.
My intuition is SBF won't manage to avoid prosecution - He hasn't managed to spread the blame thinly enough, he isn't a prince, and $70 million in donations don't make you into Scooter Libby. But in the American justice system, it can really go either way.
Madoff admitted to his crimes (once his family turned him in I believe) which made that go much faster. It will likely take years for DOJ to build a case. From what I've read they tend to be very meticulous once they believe they have a case that is winnable.
I think he and/or others will likely be in federal prison at some point but it will take a lot longer than the hot-take-minute culture of the internet would like. He also has no source of income (right?) to keep greasing the legislative wheels (aka political donations) to get laws/rules written in his companies favor as far as regulations go.
"Scott free" is maybe a bit strong, but it's totally plausible that he'll walk away with a slap on the wrist. White collar crime is famous for leading to leniency.
"Scott free" is way too strong. Like, a whole extra T strong. It should be scot free.
All that said, I'm not sure how this will play out. He cozied up to the right people, but so did Epstein, and he... definitely did not get away scot free.
> but so did Epstein, and he... definitely did not get away scot free
Not a big conspiracy fan, but in the case of Epstein, he very obviously made a mistake in compiling files of incriminating evidence on the rich and powerful who'd used his 'services'.
I'd say he was expected to disappear in case of problems, in one way or another. And it's at least possible that when he didn't do it himself, he was 'helped' on his way.
> The amount of comments in here who think that SBF is going to walk away scott free is unbelievable. I guess it goes to show how low trust is in the legal system.
It's more that it reinforces the priors of the people making the accusation. People can "celebrate" the potential non-prosecution since it sits as evidence for the corruption of the government folks want to believe is there.
And the test will be when Bankman-Fried ultimately is prosecuted, none of these folks will celebrate the actual event as evidence of justice being done. It will be "too late", or "too little", or there will be another whataboutist argument about something that should be happening instead or in addition. (Edit: or more likely and horrifyingly circular, by removing agency from the government and claiming credit: "He was only prosecuted because The People demanded it!").
So many things are different. Two things are that Madoff, unlike SBF, admitted to fraud as his company blew up. Also SBF's relationship with the Bahamas is certainly a complicating matter that will only serve to help him as he delays the inevitable arrest.
Yes because the people running human societies have traditionally been transparent and fair until 2008.
Conspiracy thinking is not new, the mobilization and scale of social media allows the "othering" of people to reach a level we haven't seen since the second world war. And that's frightening.
Yes, all the same people gathering in smokey rooms making purposeful crime and mistake, one after the other. The same people that did Iraq decided to kill Epstein and push COVID vaccines.
I think that the skeptical people would disagree with this statement, especially since the only source to that is SBF himself.
There is about $3.3 billion in loans to himself and an entity that he controls (Paper Bird) that is still unaccounted for. 3 billion dollars can buy a lot of friends.
It is the same mindless angry mob sentiment that has existed through the ages, from the crucifixion of Jesus to the burning of witches to the lynchings through the American South.
People bray for blood and deem the government corrupt and ineffective if it is not immediately provided.
I believe SBF is exactly a case that will be end up thrown away. Despite donations and connections. No more money coming in and he is on top of too much media. Useful idiot that can be cut.
SBF was the second-biggest donor to the Dems in the 2022 midterm elections. Not only does he have friends, he also has a cadre of politicians who will look terrible in the case that their major supporter ends up rotting in prison. It is unsurprising that some people believe he could walk.
Madoff donated a ton of money to Democrats. Elizabeth Holmes literally hosted a fundraiser for Hilary Clinton. Both ended up in jail.
On the other hand, pardons under Republican presidents tend to be a who's who of white-collar criminal shitbags. If I'm doing crimes, I know who I'm donating to! Just look at this list!
While I agree Trump did pardon a large number of shitbags, so did Clinton. Marc Rich? And Trump even pardoned Rod Blagojevich a powerful and horribly corrupt Democrat. So much for the swamp draining I guess.
The corruption of the powerful apparently transcends party lines. Almost like these lines are a diversion and distraction for the little people.
As a Chicagoan, I struggle to call Rod anything more than a stupid asshole and a total opportunist (notice how he got on Trump's radar because his wife was going on Fox News and calling Democrats evil).
Marc Rich was bullshit though. Absolutely disgraceful. That being said, I'd still rather cast my net with Republicans though if I'm trying to get out of jail for white collar crime. Clinton had n=1 and was famous for not commuting crimes. Trump basically legalized white collar crimes for his friends. Even Bush let some real pieces of shit off.
Your theory is that the people are so very corrupt that they are taking money to betray their country, but so loyal that they'll defend a guy who won't be able to do anything for them ever again?
It just doesn't make sense. SBF is already notorious and will be for a long time. Whether or not he's convicted in the US, that's already guaranteed, especially since other countries may go after him. The best thing Democrats (or Republicans if they took his money) can do for themselves is to very publicly get him to face justice. Which is why you see the chair of the House Financial Services Committee inviting him to come talk in front of Congress. Corrupt or not, their best line of action is to demonstrate independence and grease his slide to a long prison sentence.
Even the most cynical (possibly accurate) take is that politicians only care about getting elected. How would defending a confirmed bankrupt scammer help anyone get elected? He doesn’t have any money or power left
All the more reason why politicians won't throw him a lifeline. They gain nothing at this point by defending or supporting him.
It's not entirely the same, but we saw this with the Elizabeth Holmes case. The powerful people that supported her early on became her biggest detractors when the shit hit the fan. Their reputation was tarnished by association. They severed all support and publicly decried her as a fraud. We're already seeing the same [1] with SBF.
He also donated a ton to Republicans. He was trying to buy crypto regulation. Those people aren't his friends. If anything they see him as an embarrassment/liability now.
$235,000 out of nearly $40,000,000 isn’t “a ton”. It’s barely enough to even register - but it does make the media narrative sound better as he goes down in flames to be able to say he donated to both parties.
According to SBF, so potentially unreliable source:
> “I donated to both parties. I donated about the same amount to both parties,” Bankman-Fried told the crypto commentator and citizen journalist Tiffany Fong.
> “All my Republican donations were dark,” he said, referring to political donations that are not publicly disclosed. “The reason was not for regulatory reasons, it’s because reporters freak the fuck out if you donate to Republicans. They’re all super liberal, and I didn’t want to have that fight.”
This isn't terribly different from the pattern we see with a lot of tech companies where direct employee donations often favor Democrats but donations to PACs which then support candidates have the opposite trend (varying in degree based on the industry and balance of power where the company's interests lie).
At this point it would be naive to take at face value anything SBF said about his money. Financially speaking, he appears to be the world's biggest liar of 2022.
> direct employee donations often favor Democrats but donations to PACs which then support candidates
Rather than speculating, we could alternatively choose to look at some numbers:
I’m aware that he publicly donated to Democratic PACs. I was just trying to illustrate that there’s considerable precedent for someone being strategic about which donations they think will be unpopular with their friends, customers, employees, etc.
Given that he basically ran a money laundering machine this is extremely plausible - the amounts which various people reportedly embezzled would be plenty to fund a ton of PAC spending and it’ll take forensic accountants years to figure out whether that happened.
His co-CEO donated $24 million to Republicans. Not that I think any of this has any relevancy. It's just more tribalism and distraction. I'm a bit sad that it's so prevalent on a site that values honest and open debate.
Hold your horses sir. Both of those links cite the same not-reliable source: a comment [0] made by Sam Bankman-Fried in a conversation with crypto YouTuber Tiffany Fong.
Much of his financial support was to Democrats in primaries -- so it was literally spent against democrats as much as it was in support of them. Over 1/4 of his 2022 giving was to a single candidate in Oregon (Carrick Flynn) who was running against a well-liked Democrat incumbent (Andrea Salinas). Flynn lost, SBF spent nearly $1,000/vote in that primary, and basically garnered zero 'power' from that spending. If anything he antagonized the actual power brokers by diverting their resources to support a candidate that otherwise would have won without intervention.
A prominent new donor gets is responsible for a massive financial collapse and likely fraud, resulting in major losses for retail investors. Options are:
1. Claim ignorance of shady practices and disown donor.
2. Pull strings to avoid a real prosecution, and claim the guy did nothing wrong.
People really think politicians are going to choose option 2?
I'd also like to hear skeptics explain how he's going to continue donating. Because politicians have a lot more to gain by keeping past donations and throwing him to the wolves.
We'll see, but I think the more likely outcome is that the recipients of the donations will realise it's more harmful to stick their neck out for him than it is to just step away. To be honest I don't even who all the recipients of his donations are and what they could possibly do to aid him, people are acting like he's basically bought the US justice system and is basically as good as acquitted.
This. As a friend who's had more than his fair share of dealing with politicians in countries far more corrupt than the US likes to say, you can buy people, but you can't make sure they stay bought.
This is a Dec 2 tweet from Representative Maxine Waters, Chairwoman of the House Financial Services Committee:
".@SBF_FTX, we appreciate that you've been candid in your discussions about what happened at #FTX. Your willingness to talk to the public will help the company's customers, investors, and others. To that end, we would welcome your participation in our hearing on the 13th."
It’s not like he’s a guy who’s been on the political scene for decades. He just popped up in the last couple of cycles, and his money is gone, so he’s easily replaced.
Plus, whether he goes to prison or not, he’s made every politician who took money from him look terrible, so whatever “friends” he may have bought have little to gain from sticking with him.
I assume people believe claims like this with zero evidence because it is convenient and alleviates any cognitive dissonance (re: Democrats being for the little guy and not just as 'corrupt' as Republicans). If SBF did donate the large amounts of money he claims he did as "dark money", surely he could prove this.
> If SBF did donate the large amounts of money he claims he did as "dark money", surely he could prove this.
To what end? Selectively believing what SBF says is a Rorschach test. If it was something that goes against your your politics "Oh, he is obviously lying" while simultaneously "He is running his mouth and confessing his crimes unforced".
It's particularly notsble because those who disbelieve SBF spending dark money agree with his reasoning dor doing so. I his own words, he said most journalists/media folk are on the left, and he wanted journalists to like him, so he publicly donated to the Dems and made dark money donations to Republicans. He also specifically mentioned Citizens United for enabling this.
To the end that people might actually have to accept the claim as true rather than 'believing' in it or not.
Granted, he doesn't owe anyone any sort of proof of his claims. You can make as many assumptions as you want about what it says about the people who believe or disbelieve the claim, the fact remains it's unsubstantiated, just an idea he threw out in an interview. And just like I am not owed proof of the claim, he's not owed my belief in it.
> If it was something that goes against your your politics "Oh, he is obviously lying" while simultaneously "He is running his mouth and confessing his crimes unforced".
Why do you feel coming up with a strawman argument is appropriate here? Is it just to point out that my disbelief in his dark money claim must mean that I also adhere to these two contradictory quotes, therefore I'm an idiot who believes contradictory things? Great argument. And maybe others have said this, but I didn't. I've said nothing about SBF "confessing" crimes, and as far as I can tell, he's trying to play dumb and pin the blame on other hated figures like Caroline Ellison, and he has not confessed to anything.
At least, this is how I read your comment. It may not be a generous interpretation, I apologize for that, but at least I'll acknowledge it. Posting an example of contradictory statements in direct response to my comment (as an of illustration of the silliness of people who agree with my position) is, I think, even less generous.
So he's lying about giving to the GOP ... why exactly? What would he get out of saying this?
If you listen to the interviews he's given you can tell when he's being reaally careful with his wording so if he's later caught he can wriggle out of any accusations of lying. And you can tell that there are some questions where he was really uncomfortable and didn't want to give any answer. But when they're talking about the donations, it's very light, breezy, matter of fact and importantly the justification is simple and believable. He uses some really far-fetched reasons to excuse some of the other stuff what happened - and that's obviously causing raised eyebrows - but I don't buy that he's lying about this.
I also don't understand the fixation on this specific thing, it feels like people don't actually have any curiosity about the FTX bankruptcy and just want to score a few points for their side in the game of politics.
> If SBF did donate the large amounts of money he claims he did as "dark money", surely he could prove this.
Yes, I'm sure someone who carefully managed their massive fraud/theft empire to conceal movement of funds, to the point of making sure the corporations involved didn't keep records of who their employees were, what their job duties were, what bank accounts they controlled, etc., would have no reason to avoid providing supporting documentation of political donations that were deliberately made in a way which doesn’t require reporting, because there is no way such documentation would also reveal previously concealed parts of the mechanisms of the crimes he has committed.
My only take is that he can prevent prevent Fox & hard right from further making him to be a democratic super donor and try and paint the entire democratic party/system as corrupt.
He's been very careful and cagey about those other claims though - things like saying he didn't implement an FTX/Alameda backdoor (deliberately avoiding the more important issue of whether one existed and whether he used it) and saying he didn't try to commit fraud (sure he didn't try, but he succeeded on a rather impressive scale).
I would wager anyone in academia right now wouldn’t touch this with a ten foot pole for the risk to their own well standing. He is a pariah at this point.
Go look at Bernie Madoff as an example of someone who defrauded a lot of people and was much more respected then SBF was. Think people - don't just whine like a bunch of petulant children how the game is rigged.
edit: Scott to scot