Hacker News Reader

Comment by gjsman-1000 | Hacker News Reader

You forget he was also the 2nd largest donor to the Democratic Party last year, and allegedly gave plenty to Republicans as "dark money" (though he only said that after the Democratic donations came out, so it could be a lie to save face).

If you won your election with SBF funds, it undermines the will to prosecute, or to view him as the conman he is instead of a stupid young guy.

For that reason, don't be surprised when Democratic Party leaders send out apologetic messages like this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33836009

View on HN

I keep seeing comments like this on HN and it's disappointing. His co-CEO donated $20 million to Republican causes as well. There is no conspiracy here. It isn't even proper to say that there's the normal favoritism shown to business that donate to both parties. There's no evidence of any favoritism at all yet and comments like these just play into the tribalism that's greatly damaged the US over the last few decades.

I see mostly Dem and Dem-leaning celebrities been talking up crypto, and a conservative side more educated and knowledgeable about dysfunction in the financial sector as a whole. So even without any stats on the donations, it seems fairly logical to suggest party favoritism is at play.

Conspiracy theorists of any variety argue that their conclusions are fairly logical.

And it's completely illogical to assume no conspiracy in this case?

Logic isn’t the issue here.

You’re trying to apply logic to articles you’ve read on the internet. This isn’t like you read a cake recipe on the internet and then tried it out in your kitchen. Or read an article about some web framework and tried it out by making a blog. Or read about mathematical topology and tried it out on some problem you’ve been working on.

I'm applying logic based on my actual experiences with corruption, you're obviously taking some other approach to come up with an opinion.

Maybe, if only maybe, you should make political donations illegal. That would pretty much solve it for the legal part of business. But money is free speech whatever that may mean (I know what it means legally, you can still ban it).

Genuinely ludicrous to say that cryptocurrency has historically been talked up by Democrats; similarly, Republicans have historically been vastly more trusting of the financial industry

I mean ludicrous that since 2009 it's Democratic thinking to bail out the banks, sweep inflation concerns under the rug, spend more money, funding unprofitable tech companies etc. I never said Republicans aren't in on the deal, just that it's obvious one side leading the charge on those things.

> I mean ludicrous that since 2009 it's Democratic thinking to bail out the banks, sweep inflation concerns under the rug,

Again, more ludicrous tribalism. The Great Recession bailout was all orchestrated under Bush. Trump famously was hounding Powell to lower rates before the pandemic, which would have had even more disastrous inflation consequences, just to make the stock market go up.

I think your mistake is to look at bought-and-paid-for politicians, I'm talking about the general public. My guess is you don't know many republican voters and therefore unqualified to to make the comparison. Most democrats I know think the bailout "paid for itself" lol

Ignoring the factual errors in your post, it's really not addressing the point on cryptocurrencies.

It's an opinion about democratic thinking, and a general assessment in correlating level of education in finance/econ to party bases. I have no idea what "facts" you are referring to. Just wow.

The bank bailout was 2008, proposed and lobbied for by the Bush administration. It passed the House with support from 45% of Republicans and the Senate with support from 69% of Republicans. Generally considered bipartisan, it almost certainly saved the financial industry. It's not clear what you mean by "a general assessment in correlating level of education in finance/econ to party bases".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_Stabilizati...

https://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll681.xml

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/110-2008/s213

Yep, and so began the golden age of fraud we now experience, and the backdrop for this SBF story. 100% agree that the bailout was bi-partisan and necessary though.

Don't trust impressions from the news media

He was also the 3rd largest donor to the Republican Party, or so he claims: https://www.businessinsider.com/sam-bankman-fried-says-hes-t...

Convenient that there are no records.....

Thanks, Citizens United.

He claims many things, but as we have learned, it's best not to believe what he claims.

Being a donor doesn't save you from being arrested, see Madoff https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/12/madoff-and-company-...

If donations is a factor, it would be more logical for politicians to consider the likelihood of future donations rather than past ones. In fact, if the chance of future donations is close to zero, there is a certain appeal in making an example of SBF to "prove" that donations do not matter in this way.

(I'm still mulling whether they do or not; just commenting on the game theory.)

I think the argument would be that said second largest donor would have beans to spill if they get arrested.

>there is a certain appeal in making an example

No politician wants to make an example of any white collar crime for they are all criminals themselves and they fear someone making an example of them

You forget the example the politicians want to make to other future donors.

If you let him hang because he doesn't have more money to give you, nobody else is going to give you anything.

On the other hand it's not good when they embarrass you, regardless of how much they might have put in. If you make it clear that being hung out to dry will be the punishment for embarrassment, maybe you'll get fewer of those donations.

No, I’m not forgetting that. You’re ignoring my comment.

SBF was a donor to those politicians, but a conspirator with the attorney general. Whole other level of involvement.

The US can put in an extradition request and it will be handled…by the same attorney general who is in on it.

Re: your link, getting SBT to testify would be a win, especially if he was physically travels to the US to do so, where he could be arrested. The general legal strategy when under threat is to say nothing that can be used against you.

This ignores the parent comment. Whether or not members of the democratic party want to throw him in jail is irrelevant since they are not able to so long as he is in a different country. If he can convince the bahamas not to prosecute, nothing else really matters.

The US has an extradition treaty with the Bahamas.

It adds a few more steps.

It's a good rule of thumb that if you are hacking you should target victims in another country other than your own. I think the Netherlands (say) could get you extradited from the US, but it is a lot of work and the whole process of investigation leading up to to that extradition is going to be slowed down since the police won't be able to use the same powers they could do if you were in their jurisdiction. Most likely they'll go prosecute some easier case and only go after you if the results of your hack are particularly larger, visible and embarrassing.

Even better, escape to England, appeal against the conditions of the US prison system:

"In January 2021, a British judge ruled Australian-born Assange should not be extradited, saying his mental health meant he would be at risk of suicide if convicted and held in a maximum security prison.

But that decision was overturned after an appeal by U.S. authorities who gave a package of assurances, including a pledge he could be transferred to Australia to serve any sentence."

https://www.reuters.com/world/julian-assange-appeals-europea...

@LegitShady It delayed his extradition for years while court cases and appeals worked out - and, if it goes through, he'll escape to an Australian prison instead of an American one. Worked as well as it could compared to alternatives.

in other words, it doesn't work

In particular, the US police won't be able to just show up at FTX's headquarters with a search warrant.

Congress doesn't control the justice department and cannot bring charges... Maxine really has nothing to do with it.

Yeah, but they can't just go there and arrest him. Right now, the US and the bahamas seem to be in dispute over where to hold the bankruptcy. So there's some territorial beef. It's entirely in the hands of the Bahamas to arrest him and turn him over, if they decide to turn him over at all. In any case, it's common for extradition to take months or even years.

Being a prospective future donor is what gets you special treatment, not being a past donor. SBF is not going to be making big donations to anyone anytime soon, so all his donations will get him nothing.

He got high on his own supply and put too much into the scheme. He can't exactly threaten to stop donating if he has no money to spare for it. Absent that, the PR value of being able to frame it as fighting corrupt business practices is enormous.

What do you base this on?

Even if we're assuming political corruption is in play, what drives improper political favors is the potential for future money. SBF is broke and will be for many years to come. If anything, politicians will be lining up to throw him under the bus because they've got all they money they're going to get from him and there's political capital to be had from him going to jail.

Which specific prosecutors do you think won election with SBF funds that you think should be already after him?

> If you won your election with SBF funds, it undermines the will to prosecute

This reasoning doesn't make sense to me, they already accepted and spent the money, if anything that's an incentive to prosecute in order to cultivate a perception of distance from his wrongdoing.

Wouldn't those open contributions not encourage any implicated Dems to go hard on him, as a measure of self-preservation to prove to the electorate they weren't being bought (whether or not that was the original intention)?

Depends on the message they want to send to future potential donors.

Yeah good thinking - man figuring out the politician meta is really kinda tough

Why would he donate to both parties?

Many (but not all) corporations and wealthy people donate to both political parties because it gives them access and influence, generally with the idea of furthering their own specific goals as opposed to advancing a broad policy agenda.

ah. thanks. do we know if SBF leaned one way or the other politically?

All we know is he was very into misplacing other people's money.

To get friendly with politicians on both parties?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com