No one is justifying any behavior, criminal activity is criminal activity and the money needs to be out of politics in general. My comment is only calling out the commenter for making an obviously biased statement without even taking half a second to see if it's even conceivably true.
The argument falls apart because two examples were quick to find? If all you can complain about is that it was too easy to find two examples to counteract the commenters clearly partisan and facetious claim then it sounds like you're grasping at straws.
Please enlighten us on how we should have spent more than 10 seconds to understand that there are actually no republican donors engaged in criminal activity and the commenter was just making a factual statement we obviously don't understand.