David Sacks

And what would happen is every time we would debunk one of their accusations, they would just come back to us with a new one in every couple of weeks.

The only fixed point in their reporting was this idea that I had to have these conflicts of interest that were benefiting myself and my friends.

That you were self-dealing.

Yes, exactly.

So you guys know what I went through because I was LPs and some of your funds and you know that I divested them.

which you could argue was above and beyond the call of duty, but I was just trying to avoid any potential conflict.

And that I think is the central lie of this piece.

Not only is the piece not true, it's the anti-truth.

Because the truth is that I divested hundreds of millions of dollars of positions

in promising technology ventures at a substantial cost to my net worth.

So not only is this job not benefiting me, it's actually cost me a lot of money to serve.

But I did it because it's an honor to be asked by the president to serve, and it's something I wanted to do, and I thought I could make a difference.

So the whole premise here is just false.

And the New York Times, through its five months of investigations, knew this, but they just refused to budge on the premise of their story.

To your question here, if you look at one of the key paragraphs that, Jason, you mentioned, is when they try to mention that I have 449 investments tied to AI.

And they say their investigation uncovered this, and some of their reporters on podcasts have tried to portray themselves as Woodward and Bernstein here having uncovered these positions.

Yeah, how did they get this crazy list of companies, I wonder?

I disclosed them.

They didn't uncover them.

I disclosed them.