David Sachs

So every government employee, whether you're a full-time or SG, files disclosures with the government.

And my ethics letters basically contained these pages and pages of all these different

Now, in that ethics letter, they said that I had divested, I had initiated or completed divestment of over 99% of the positions that could pose a conflict for AI.

It's in there.

This is where I think, again, they were very deceptive.

It was the OGE, the Office of Government Ethics, the career civil servants, the lawyers, the accountants at OGE who approved that letter and all the contents of that letter, who reviewed all those disclosures.

And they're the ones who concluded that I did not have any conflicts.

So really what the New York Times is beef is with the career civil servants at OGE.

So on the blind trust,

So it's kind of funny.

One of the New York Times reporters was talking about this on a podcast, which is where I think Newsom picked it up from.

My ethics lawyer, who teaches a course on conflicts of interest at Harvard, said that that reporter should really take his course because he would actually learn something about the conflicts laws.

The blind trust idea is rarely used.

And in my case, it would not have worked because I have minor children.

You can only use a blind trust to have your kids be beneficiaries if they're adults.

That's the way the conflict laws work.

So it just wasn't even applicable in my case.

And what I did instead of creating a blind trust is I divested the positions that OGE said were a conflict.

At a discount to their fair market value in the case of my LP interest and all these funds, I divested almost 100 funds that I had invested in, venture funds, things like that, angel funds, at roughly a 50% discount to their fair market value because- That's insane.

Because, well, they're private investments, right?