The reason I was bringing it up was regarding how it was relevant to your point… First, I agree it’s about who can squash prosecution. That said, it’s a bit bi

The reason I was bringing it up was regarding how it was relevant to your point… First, I agree it’s about who can squash prosecution. That said, it’s a bit bigger than that. These funds were used to help elect people. Meaning, it was directly used to squash people who would prosecute SBF in the future. > Both parties take a ton of money, and some of it always turns out to be from dubious people. A lot of those dubious people go to jail. But this "SBF hasn't been arrested in the first 20 minutes so Democrats are corrupt" line is one I've seen as a talking point all over the US right. But it never comes with any perspective. That’s why who was funded matters, you can use it as a proxy for who is corrupt / who best aligns with a given interest. The US right doesn’t view it as “both parties” taking funds. The reason it’s a right wing talking point is it’s one party getting the money. The “uniparty” - ie the democrats & the republican leadership who appear to work against the republican base. That’s who’s getting the fund — not the republicans who are opposed to funding Ukraine, for instance. The republicans who more closely represent the base, did not get funds from SBF, that we know of. It’s also why the right doesn’t believe there will be any arrest(s). Who’s motivated? If it goes to trial / is investigated those in power will be named. If any arrest(s) are made, it would be similar to ghislaine maxwell - where she goes to prison for sex trafficking minors… but none of the recipients of those minors are charged or named.