The WSJ Continues To Follow The Big Story
It's all about who's Bob O'Brien.
A month later, and I am still getting long email threads from the reporter there who is convinced that I am a sinister figure whose tendrils of influence make the markets dance to the tune of my choosing.
Am I making this up?
No. In today's exchange, which I agreed to keep confidential until the article breaks, among other things the WSJ admits in a very frank, obvious way to having obtained NCANS's banking records - a violation of federal law. Or if not having obtained them, of having viewed them - same difference. And that's just for starters.
Now, one might wonder aloud as to why the WSJ is up to these sorts of hijinks. I do. I wonder aloud why a prominent billionaire investor emailed me intuiting that he knew my real name a month ago, shortly after this reporter came on the scene and started digging. I wonder as to whether the WSJ's info network is so full of leaks that this guy, as well as presumably his network, can know the reporter's information virtually in real time - or whether the info is going the other way. I am filled with wonder at it all. And I ask him point blank to please clarify these points for me, as it simply confirms my fear for my safety due to people going to extraordinary, even felonious lengths, to figure out who I am.
I agreed to keep our exchanges private, which I have. I haven't committed felonies to obtain info, I haven't violated attorney client privelege, I haven't broken federal banking laws. So far I have behaved in what can only be described as an honorable fashion with a counterparty who has some explaining to do.
Now, I know, at the end of the day, that the WSJ will claim to have not known or understood that private banking records are illegally obtained if they are being forwarded to reporters. They will claim that journalistic privilege should insulate them from the repurcussions of what, to my untutored eye, appear to be egregious legal violations - that in fact journalistic privilege allows a reporter to obtain, use, and participate in violations of federal banking laws, etc.
The question is, do any of you not understand the difference? Is there some part that is unclear in this? If you received NCANS' banking records, would you have difficulty with this judgement call? How about attorney client priveleged communications? Would you have a hard time with that? Or would you figure that it's all good, to "get the story" - even if there is no story to really get?
People have been skeptical about my concerns over my personal safety. I can relate to that. It all seems a little far fetched, doesn't it? Then again, when you look at what has gone on in just the last week, which I promise you will become abundantly clear when I publish the email exchanges, perhaps my concerns will have seemed overly liberal. One thing is sure - an explanation is due.
Can't wait for the next installment.