Interesting analogy. The NYT began publishing legitimately scathing articles about Enron and effectively accusing outright fraud in January 2002 [1]. Contrast

Interesting analogy. The NYT began publishing legitimately scathing articles about Enron and effectively accusing outright fraud in January 2002 [1]. Contrast to the kid-gloves puff-piece the NYT published about SBF recently. If we take the NYT as a bellwether for what the "elite" and well-connected want known, it's quite clear that the treatment is very, very different between the two collapse stories. My personal feeling is that SBF is not permanently safe. Like Epstein, occasionally you have to sacrifice one of your own to sate the appetite of the masses and to quell the tendency of conspiracy theories to be demonstrated correct. Depending on how uncontrollable narratives evolve on this story, it's possible they'll need to throw him under the bus. For the moment, however, it's clear they're treating this as Not-Enron. He's safe for now. We'll see. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/28/us/enron-s-many-strands-early-scrutiny-10-months-ago-questions-enron-came-went-with.html https://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/28/us/enron-s-many-strands-e...