> Your point is that it's ok he's untrustworthy because lots of people in power are?

It's...weirdly a valid question. If Sam fibs as much as the next guy, we don't have a Sam problem. Focussing on him alon is, best case, a waste of resources. Worst case, it's distracting from real evil. If, on the other hand, as this reporting suggests, Sam is an outlier, then focussing on him does make sense.

No, it's that the entire ecosystem is rotten to the core, and it actively selects, rewards, and protects flawed personality types.

And when you're dealing with a potential existential threat, this is an existential problem.

Not sure where I said it's OK? Please point it out.

We have to deal with it. Or are you suggesting we should purchase a controlling interest and vote him off the board?