A prominent new donor gets is responsible for a massive financial collapse and likely fraud, resulting in major losses for retail investors. Options are:
1. Claim ignorance of shady practices and disown donor.
2. Pull strings to avoid a real prosecution, and claim the guy did nothing wrong.
People really think politicians are going to choose option 2?
I'd also like to hear skeptics explain how he's going to continue donating. Because politicians have a lot more to gain by keeping past donations and throwing him to the wolves.
1. Claim ignorance of shady practices and disown donor.
2. Pull strings to avoid a real prosecution, and claim the guy did nothing wrong.
People really think politicians are going to choose option 2?