You don't understand how laws work at an extremely basic level. If someone is operating in Canada as unlicensed hairdresser, they should not have to get a hairc

You don't understand how laws work at an extremely basic level. If someone is operating in Canada as unlicensed hairdresser, they should not have to get a haircutting licence for NY (or whatever US state has the mad US regulations) if they cut the hair of someone from NY in Canada. This attempt to apply national laws globally is an essential part of why the foreign policy of Western nations has been so bad. America First is an essential component of this as well, it is all the same thing. No, I don't veer off. As I explain, the issue is that people complain very specifically about campaign finance as a problem in itself and ignore the issues with elected prosecutors and politically-appointed judges which is also very unique to the US, and causes the same outcomes as campaign finance. I helpfully explained for you in my original comment that when people are unable to see the connection between these things, it is because they have their own political motivation. There is a defence for SBF, it is very easy: he did something that usually isn't prosecuted, the usual action would be a careful wind down that wouldn't destroy value (for the reasons here, billions of dollars was wasted because of the political context...again, people are very clear about SBF stealing money but only lawyers and consultants got FTX money), and a 30-year sentence makes absolutely no sense. I have no idea why you are saying lawyers defend them...lawyers brought this case, there are tens of lawyers who deposited millions into their bank account last year from this case, the problem is lawyers (specifically: politically-motivated prosecutors, politically-motivated regulators, and a bankruptcy system that is designed to maximise fee income for lawyers). You are the one saying that the income of lawyers need protection.