I'm not saying you're wrong in the aggregate, but can't you make a better argument? How can noting two people who went to jail for one reason be "all the proof you need"?
But the only time one of their in-group is sent to prison is when it hurts other rich and powerful.
Here are a handful from this year alone:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67034239/1/united-state...
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66964256/1/united-state...
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66760869/1/united-state...
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65767429/17/united-stat...
Minus all the other fraud convictions constantly being handed down in America, sure.
Having enough money to have the direct line to someone important in a political party is valuable. Enough prosecutors have a mind for future ambitions and understand that some battles just aren't worth fighting.
That doesn't make for straight up immunity, but it does change the calculus enough that so long as no one else really cares about your crime, they can let it slide or negotiate it down to something trivial.
This ignores the other side of the calculus: the political and career benefits of high-profile takedowns. I don't claim this balances across the power spectrum. But it's a far cry from the dystopia OP posits.