Hacker News Reader

> Him being the second largest donor to the Democratic Party will really test the rule of law. Does it apply to the powerful? We’ll see.

Bernie Madoff was a large donor to the Democrats and it didn't help him one bit. I see no reason to believe that the situation will be any different regarding SBF, if he is indeed culpable.

Bernie Madoff got away with it for 40 years BECAUSE he was making money for the powerful, not despite it.

> Him being the second largest donor to the Democratic Party will really test the rule of law. Does it apply to the powerful? We’ll see.

Past money only gives you leverage as long as people believe there are potentially plenty more in the future to get.

Given how he stole customer funds to prop up Alameda, fraud is far more likely than clueless

>He really thought FTX US was solvent less than 24 hours before declaring bankruptcy

No, he SAID he did.

I don't know if you know this, but people can... lie!!!! u_u

While I also caught that wording mistake, the checksum in the next sentence--which includes "either he's a fraud"--indicates sillysaurusx does understand this and simply worded that first sentence awkwardly (so there's no need to get quite so intense).