I_machinegun_Kelly
Posts 3
Comments16
I probably should have said "90% of the title allegation is just a confusion." I don't have much to say about the other accusations scattered through the post which aren't relevant to the legal claim. Some of these might be correct but if they aren't relevant to the core accusation they can be somewhat confusing in their own right, if not clearly demarcated, by further muddling things.
To be clear, I was saying that it would be dumb to have a signal group with GAP people where you discussed reimbursement for the same reason its dumb to plan a robbery on a bus. My issue was not signal, it was adding a bunch of random witnesses for no reason. In the same way, if I heard that a group of people planned a robbery, I would make the vague assumption they did not do so on a bus. Maybe they did, but what a stupid and pointless risk that was.
Your public accusation of EAs having committed a serious felony seems to rest on the assumption that SBF et al planned their crimes while sharing a bus with the GAP folks. Which, yeah, maybe, but I doubt it. Because why? In the absence of evidence it seems like a leap. In the presence of potential future evidence, it seems like a pointlessly premature accusation. In the presence of your alleged concern about EA's reputation, it seems like you are, without evidence, defaming EA loudly on a crowded bus.
I interpreted the signal group as being where the GAP people approved donations with the billionaires then told the billionaires where to send their money. (Like prodding one of the billionaires to donate to "woke shit for transactional purposes" when they didn't want to.) Why would it also involve coordinating reimbursement? I'm not saying it didn't, it just seems really stupid and unnecessary if it did. Also, there is no evidence for it.
Pointing out that we will have more evidence in 6 months seems to me to lean in the direction of not now making extremely serious accusations without it.
This post is 90% just a confusion about the difference between donor coordination and straw donors. Straw donors are when a donor is reimbursed so that it is never really their donation. If a couple of billionaire friends decide to coordinate their donations as a block, but with each covering a different part of the ideological spectrum, and they spend their OWN money, no problem. It seems as though GAP was in charge of finding donation opportunities and then recommending these to the correct billionaire donor based on ideology.
Why would that possibly mean GAP should suspect that these other donors were getting reimbursed? Why would they think it was fake and there was only one real donor? Its bizarre that even happened. Why would someone worth over a billion dollars seek reimbursement for $6 million donations? Like, just spend 0.6 percent of your own money, its nothing to you.
I also don't have insider knowledge on GAP, but I am acquaintances with Gabe and Michael. Well before any of this, Michael was living on $10,000 a year--in NYC--so that he could donate the rest. And even during this Gabe slept in a closet in a group house. These were old school hardcore hummus-and-stale-bread EAs. They had donated most of their income for years and years. What changed was making their donations to politicians instead of 501(c)(3)s. Of course this is baffling to politicos, hardcore EAs are baffling to everyone.
If the harm GAP committed was damaging EA's reputation, why are you making loud, confused, public accusations of criminal conduct against EAs? Seems like the harm you are alleging is you.
Edit: Fxed some typs.
I worked closely with Owen for several years. This was not my experience with him nor the experience of many others who worked with him. I found Owen to have "favorites" he treated well and others he treated very poorly. Including me. The pain he inflicted on me was not trivial and still bites.