If this was in a a different context, maybe. But private dinner, and expressed in the hypothetical, it a bit of a stretch. This story is media hype for two rea

If this was in a a different context, maybe. But private dinner, and expressed in the hypothetical, it a bit of a stretch. This story is media hype for two reasons: (1) greed and ego of the press; and (2) greed and ego of the press. Buzzfeed looks good for breaking the story, and the comment is an existential threat to other journalists and their business models. Ego, here we are. I'd be more worried about this if their were some evidence that this was a view (1) meant to be expressed in public (or actually articulated to the public); or (2) articulated in confidence internally in a professional context (which means the intent was real, not just rhetorical; or (3) if other eye-witness testimony comes forth that unequivically supports that this was an actual threat mean to intimidate those actually present (seems unlikely...but lets see). Without that, this is just another internet shitstorm, manufactured by people who have something to gain financially or who are emotionally invested in maligning this individual or the company. I don't think you need to give anone the benefit of the doubt here, its more that the evidence doesn't really support the conclusions that are implied by the reporting (at least, yet).