5 ms·
"While there’s no suggestion in court papers that Wenig knew of the plot, prosecutors say his angry emails triggered the scheme, and they play a central role in
by nkingsy 5y ago
"While there’s no suggestion in court papers that Wenig knew of the plot, prosecutors say his angry emails triggered the scheme, and they play a central role in the narrative spelled out by the government.
"Take her down," Wenig is alleged to have written in response to a post by the blogger."
That would be the smoking gun, but who's alleging it? Article didn't say.
- da_chicken 5y ago"Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest? With a sword, ideally."
- cactus2093 5y agoIs that even a smoking gun? Surely that one text message is not enough to prove that he meant "harass and cyberstalk her" rather than "sue her for libel" or some other non-criminal action.
- nkingsy 5y agoI just know from my big Corp training manual that things like “crush” and “take down” should never be in corporate communication for legal reasons. From a “reasonable” perspective, there are two possibilities, both of which implicate the ceo. 1. “Take her down” was enough information, in which case he is at fault. 2. It wasn’t enough information, in which case further discussion was had offline. I am convinced beyond reasonable doubt that there is no option: 3. The employees thought it was enough information incorrectly and began a criminal conspiracy because they’re just so eager to please.
- pyuser583 5y agoBut enough information for what? Let’s say they had previous conversations about how to handle hostile media. Ideas included raising concerns with editors, pulling advertising, raising concerns with platforms/ISPs about “disinformation”, suing for libel, etc. So yes the CEO is implicated. He’s clearly in the decision chain - no doubt about it. But there’s nothing here about how much was deferred to subordinates. I guess that falls into the category of “offline discussion” - but that doesn’t mean anything nefarious.
- khazhoux 5y agoThere are plenty of legal interpretations of "take her down." E.g., file a hard-hitting lawsuit. I will give the CEO the benefit of the doubt that he did not mean: "Take a half-dozen people and engage in a massive, obsessive, batshit-crazy online and real-world cross-state harassment campaign."
- whatshisface 5y agoYou don't think it could have come out over coffee one day?
- khazhoux 5y agoI have to assume there was no evidence of that, or else he'd be charged too.
- whatshisface 5y agoWell, no evidence and benefit of the doubt are separate concepts. You can say that no record was made of it, and that it probably happened.
- to1y 5y agoIf there is no evidence what exactly are you giving benefit of the doubt for?
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago"... but who is alleging it? Article didn't say." Initially the Government alleged it. The Government secured criminal convictions. Now the Steiners' lawyers are alleging it in a civil case. Wenig is a named defendant. https://www.scapicchiolaw.com/pdf/Steiner.pdf https://www.scapicchiolaw.com/pdf/Steiner.pdf See pages 15 and 19.