The racket is that billionaire Bezos gives money to retired Admiral McRaven, who donates it to disabled veterans? That is NOT a racket, and it can't be. If anyt

The racket is that billionaire Bezos gives money to retired Admiral McRaven, who donates it to disabled veterans? That is NOT a racket, and it can't be. If anything, the racket is how Bezos makes his money (Amazon, low taxes) not how he gives it away. And the Washington Post should not depend on hand-outs from Bezos (the "missing" $100 mio). Can't he see that's the worst position for a newspaper to be in... for example from his own personal journey at The Intercept, or maybe by following what's happening to Twitter? A sustainable business model is better than being beholden to bread crumbs falling from the table. Furthermore, the $50/$100 million split isn't explained well either. I see a lof of mad fury here, but not good storytelling or a good choice of stories. I think the other parts of the article – Bill not given Slack access, a hold-up on the member list and the UN vote story – are much more relevant. I wish the author best of luck, but I think he'll need it.