4 ms·

The lack of a breakdown into which got how much is a either a journalistic failure, or deliberate obfuscation.

• dragonwriter 4y ago
  Well, its “deliberate obfuscation” by the DoJ, who did the investigation, and hasn’t released the details beyond what is in the indictment (the majority is dark money donations, so even figuring out in CC-1 and CC-2 are [which people have done with a fair degree of confidence] and tracing their publicly-disclosed donations [which they probably have done] won’t get you anywhere close to the answer.) And, I guess, a “journalistic failure” to compromise sensitive criminal investigation material.
  • ChickenNugger 4y ago
    Political donations are a matter of public record for a reason. So yes, it's a either a journalistic failure or deliberate obfuscation.
    • dragonwriter 4y ago
      > Political donations are a matter of public record Dark money donations aren’t, that’s why they are called “dark money”. > So yes, it’s a either a journalistic failure or deliberate obfuscation. Right. The whole purpose was deliberate obfuscation by SBF, and there is continued (though routine in a criminal investigation) obfuscation by the DoJ, which has filed charges based on its penetration of SBF’s obfuscation, but not provided breakdowns by party publicly. The non-dark money portions could be approximately pieced together from public info using the (likely correct) conclusions as to who CC-1 and CC-2 are and their public donations during the time in question (not perfect, because its possible that each also made donations that were not part of the SBF scam in the same time period), but that doesn’t really help since it doesn’t account for the dark money portion.