> People break laws all the time but don't think they did anything morally wrong. His trial proved he knew he was breaking the law for personal profit. His beh

> People break laws all the time but don't think they did anything morally wrong. His trial proved he knew he was breaking the law for personal profit. His behavior absolutely fits the definition of greed. your original argument is > I dont think it was greed. I think he legitimately thought he was doing the right thing, thought it was fun, and thought it was interesting. Again it's all in the trial and the mountains of evidences against him. Personal enrichment was the motive for the fraud, plain and simple. He even admitted the whole 'effective altruism' was a farce to get on the good side of the progressive elite and their media, as he was also funneling money to republicans but more discretely all for the same reasons: political connections. And it worked given the initial portrait left wing media made of him, "someone who got way over his head", they gave him the benefit of the doubt for a long time and he thought he could roll with that image which would get him off the hook... while he was intimidating his co-defendants by releasing personal informations about them... do you also deem the latter just "fun"?