New Yorker magazine does a fawning piece on Sam Bankman-Fried and his parents

If you want to see a quick, accurate snapshot of what's destroyed our poor nation, the New Yorker has it, in a long piece slobbering over Sam Bankman-Fried.

If you follow anything outside your local area that name should be familiar:  SBF is the son of two Stanford law professors, who the New Yorker tells us were huge pushers for "social justice, altruism and ethics.  (The significance of this will soon be apparent.)

What could possibly go wrong, eh?

As everyone surely knows, SBF founded FTX, which eventually sucked up $32 BILLION in investor cash.  The New Yorker piece is long but worth a read, because it unintentionally shows how FTX was able to vacuum up BILLIONS from everyone from huge investment funds to professional athletes to ordinary working stiffs:  See, duh founder (Sam BF) wuz, like, *totally* altruistic--and by total coincidence also a HUGE donor to the Democrat party.

Wow, who could have guessed that, eh?   

So, too long to summarize, but one vignette captures how much corruption is involved, in a single 'graf: 

After a New York judge set their son’s bail at a quarter of a Billion dollars, his parents pledged their home [earlier described as a "bungalow" on the campus of Stanford, worth maybe a million dollars] as security for his release. Two friends also guaranteed part of the bail: Andreas Paepcke, a computer scientist at Stanford, pledged six figures, as did Larry Kramer.

I know this will be hard for most liberals but let's try to take this apart mathematically:  A quarter of a billion dollars is how many millions?

Sure.  Obvious.  And a pledge of "six figures" is *at most* how much?

Sure.  Obvious.  So we have two family friends pledging six figures toward Sam's bail, and the million-dollar bungalow where his parents live.  So how much are we short of making the stated bail, eh?

Sure.  Obvious.  And if you're a really smaht liberal--like a Hahvahd grad--you got that number right wifout using a calculator, right?  So what's your answer?

If you said "He's just $247 MILLION short of the bail amount the biden/garland regime SAID they DEMANDED," you win a margarita.

But despite that VAST shortfall from the bail the sons of whores SAID he had to post, the biden/garland regime allowed him to get out on bail ANYWAY.  Cuz...reasons, citizen. 

What does that tell you?  (Other than "It's an exclusive club, and you and I aren't in it.")

If you're a Democrat you probably say "Dat perfectly fair, cuz my party lets accused muggers and carjackers and pipo who shoot someone walk out of jail duh same day wifout havin' to post no cash bail, so this just beez fair."

Can you say "Duh fix beez in," comrade?  Think you'd get to walk if you were $247 MILLION short of making your bail amount?

What's telling is that not a single outlet of the Lying Mainstream Media did that simple analysis--cuz if they had, everyone would instantly know the fix was in.  And since LOTS of working-class Americans lost money when FTX went under, that might cost the Dems a few tens of thousands of votes in 2024, eh?

Oooohhh, can't have that, eh?

Now: How does it happen that after prosecutors stated--in writing, so they can't later claim they never said it--that they wanted bail set at a quarter of a BILLION, and the judge agreed, and yet SBF's supporters only pledged a max of $3 million--how does he walk free, eh?

If you were accused of massive fraud, and the judge set your bail at, say, a million bucks, could you walk free after pledging one percent of the required sum?

I'll let y'all ponder that one for a minute.

The entire New Yorker article is an effort to explain why SBF and his parents will get virtually no punishment for their huge fraud.  And you may well wonder why the New Yorker would do that, since he defrauded so many ordinary Americans.

The answer is simple: SBF gave $40 million to the Dem party before the 2020 election.  So the liberals at the New Yorker have to show that this po', unfortunate (!) young man was NOT corrupt, but like, totally altruistic (a repeated theme in the story).  "His heart was in the right place, he just was too naive and trusting!"  Yeh, dat's duh ticket!

Bottom line: If you support the right party, and claim to be totally altruistic, and your parents are liberal Democrats who "teach law" at an elite university, push social justice, ethics and altruism, you can get away with absolutely anything.

Source: New Yorker magazine
 
https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.newyorker.com%2Fmagazine%2F2023%2F10%2F02%2Finside-sam-bankman-frieds-family-bubble