I apologize if I misunderstood your original comment. I read it as you saying SBF hedged his bets by giving equally to both sides so they both are just as guilty here.

In my original response I was pretty clear I was specifically saying we only have SBFs word that he donated equally. I mean that is the sentence I wrote. You responded by insulting me, implying I do crack, and saying the article has the proof from the prosecutor. Which is funny because the article does not contain a single piece of evidence that shows he donated equally to both sides. I guess maybe you didn't actually read my first comment and were just chomping at the bit to be able to insult me and call me a drug user?

You then accuse me of spreading partisan fud when in fact that is exactly what I pointed out you doing. The idea that he donated equally to both sides (which is how I interpreted your first post and clearly listed as the thing I called out in my response) is partisan fud.

As for you last point. Yes the fact that he donated 2x times as much to the left than the right is absolutely relevant to his behavior. Its completely reasonable to assume he donated to the people he though would be able to help him in the future.