- Ben “BitBoy” Armstrong has made insinuations about links between the Clintons and SBF.
- “The Democratic party certainly benefited from Sam’s money,” says the influencer.
- Armstrong also likens SBF to Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, calling him a two-faced poisonous operator.
Crypto Analyst BitBoy has made further claims about the politicians from the Democratic Party and Republican Party having ties with the convicted former owner of the fallen FTX exchange and Alameda Research. BitBoy goes on to share a few insights and tidbits from his investigation.
According to Crypto analyst Armstrong, money was provided to the Democratic Party in exorbitant amounts. He further added that there were financial item documents titled “Trump Lose.” Sam’s funds undoubtedly aided the Democratic party, according to him.
Armstrong also shares that some funds were provided to the Republican Party, mostly, unfortunately, through the whistleblower Ryan Salame. BitBoy revealed that if Bankman-Fried donated money to Republicans, “the media would have condemned him.”
Unfortunately according to BitBoy’s knowledge, none of the politicians on either side knew FTX was insolvent or that Bankman-Fried was a fraud when they took the money. He further went on to say:
How could you expect politicians who are clueless about crypto to know where the money was coming from? You shouldn’t. They understood the money was greasing the wheels for Sam to lobby, but that’s normal in politics.
Through his research, Armstrong further revealed that there just was not a great number of people who knew about this scam and its intricacies of it. “I know of 9 people definitely involved.”
The list of the 9 members BitBoy revealed crucial in pulling strings for Bankman-Fried were namely; Bankman-Fried himself, Caroline, Gary Wang, Constance Wang, Nishad Singh, Sam Trabucco, Dan Friedberg, Barbara Fried, and Joe Bankman. Armstrong mentioned other people such as Kevin O’Leary being loosely aware, and others like Amy/John Wu & Mark Wetjen probably aware of the scam.
In Armstrong’s opinion, “the point is this was not a super complex and large operation. It relied on the trust between the intimate players. The answer here is a clear and resounding no. There was no party interference. This was a sloppy operation, and SBF was a two-faced poisonous operator.”
Disclaimer: The information presented in this article is for informational and educational purposes only. The article does not constitute financial advice or advice of any kind. Coin Edition is not responsible for any losses incurred as a result of the utilization of content, products, or services mentioned. Readers are advised to exercise caution before taking any action related to the company.
