The most powerful person in Silicon Valley

(1of 2)

Billionaire Masayoshi Son–not Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, or Mark Zuckerberg–has the most audacious vision for an AI-powered utopia where machines control how we live. And he’s spending hundreds of billions of dollars to realize it. Are you ready to live in Masa World?

It’s a bright September morning in San Carlos, California, and Masayoshi Son, chairman of SoftBank, is throwing me off schedule. I’d come, as he had, to meet with the people he’s tapped to run the Vision Fund, his $100 billion bet on the future of, well, everything. After almost four decades of building SoftBank into a telecom conglomerate, Son, an inveterate dealmaker, launched this unprecedented venture two years ago to back startups that he believes are driving a new wave of digital upheaval. He has staked everything on its success–his company, his reputation, his fortune. We’d both arrived with the same basic question: Where is this massive vehicle heading? But because I wasn’t the one footing the 12-figure allowance, I understood that I’d be the one to wait. In the hubbub of Son’s visit, my 9 a.m. meeting gets rescheduled multiple times until it’s set for 4:30 p.m. When I finally arrive at the Vision Fund’s offices, just off California’s Highway 101, I’m struck by how mundane they are. Son is known for big, showy statements. He reportedly paid $117 million for a home in Woodside in 2013, the highest price ever in the U.S. This glass and concrete building, on the other hand, could be found in any part of suburban America. The room where I wait is spartan. There is an empty desk in one corner, and a conference table with a fake-wood veneer. I try to read the pale gray scribbles on a whiteboard, hoping they might shed light on what happens in this place, but the surface has been too well scrubbed. The interior glass walls of the conference room have been lined with a white, papery substance that turns anyone on the other side into apparitions.

Finally, Rajeev Misra, CEO of the entity overseeing the Vision Fund, rushes into the room, smiling broadly and apologizing profusely. Misra, who has flown in from London for these meetings, looks exhausted but jacked up, as if he’s gotten a shot of adrenaline. Son has this effect on people. It is an exceptionally busy day at the Vision Fund. Not only is the big boss in from Tokyo, but unbeknownst to me, the team is preparing to announce billions of dollars in new investments: a $1 billion round for Oyo, the Indian hospitality startup; $800 million split evenly between Compass and OpenDoor, two real estate disrupters; $100 million for Loggi, a Brazilian delivery startup. It also would lead a $3 billion round in Chinese startup ByteDance, which makes several popular news and entertainment apps, including TikTok. At the same time, Son and his partners are in the midst of launching a second $100 billion fund, with plans already underway to raise an additional $45 billion investment from Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia—the Vision Fund’s primary backer. Neither Misra nor I knew it then, but this relationship would soon get complicated.

“So what do you want to know?” Misra says, clapping his hands loudly. “You want the road map? I’ll start from 10,000 feet. . . .” On the surface, the story of the Vision Fund is about money. How could it not be? The numbers are eye-popping. The Vision Fund’s minimum investment in startups is $100 million, and in just over two years since its October 2016 debut, it’s committed more than $70 billion. Son, 61 years old, will also back companies he likes via SoftBank itself or other means: He’s put some $20 billion–and counting–into Uber and WeWork through a combination of financial instruments. (Son’s machinations have always been highly complex and it’s not worth getting lost in the minutiae; regardless of the means, the deals are at his behest.) His big-money bets agitate the venture capitalists who have long inhabited the dry stretch of lowlands between San Francisco and San Jose, a place where any fund over $1 billion was head-turning as recently as three years ago. Turns out, nobody likes competing with a bottomless-pocketed behemoth. “Have you seen the movie Ghostbusters? It’s like the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man tramping around,” one VC tells me before I visit SoftBank. Then he asks me to ask Misra the question everyone in town wants to know: Who is Son investing in next?

https://www.fastcompany.com/90285552/the-most-powerful-person-in-silicon-valley

>>4769716 (2 of 2)

The most powerful person in Silicon Valley, continued

https://www.fastcompany.com/90285552/the-most-powerful-person-in-silicon-valley

Judge rules Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes must answer watchdog's questions on Clinton email server, Benghazi

Former Obama administration officials must answer written questions under oath about the 2012 Benghazi terror attacks in Libya as part of a court-ordered discovery related to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s unauthorized email server, conservative watchdog Judicial Watch announced Tuesday. Despite objections from the Justice Department and State Department, United States District Judge Royce Lamberth ruled that discovery could commence examining Clinton’s use of the server. As a result, a group of nearly 10 top State Department and White House officials during the Obama administration will be deposed under oath as Judicial Watch seeks to uncover whether the 2012 Benghazi terror attacks in Libya was a factor in “keeping Mrs. Clinton’s email secret.”

“In a major victory for accountability, Judge Lamberth today authorized Judicial Watch to take discovery on whether the Clinton email system evaded FOIA and whether the Benghazi scandal was one reason for keeping Mrs. Clinton’s email secret,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement. “Today, Judicial Watch issued document requests and other discovery to the State Department about the Clinton email scandal. Next up, we will begin questioning key witnesses under oath.” Former national security adviser Susan Rice and former deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes are among those ex-officials required to answer questions related to the fallout of the Benghazi terror attack that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens. The questions will touch on Rice’s talking points that inaccurately described the terror attack as a “spontaneous” protest against an “anti-Islamic” video that had surfaced on the Internet.

Although the Justice Department and the State Department pushed back that the talking points shouldn’t be part of the discovery, Lamberth said Rice’s comments and the State Department’s knowledge of the terrorist attack “play an unavoidably central role in this case: information about the points’ development and content, as well as their discussion and dissemination before and after Rice’s appearances could reveal unsearched, relevant records; State’s role in the points’ content and development could shed light on Clinton’s motives for shielding her emails from FOIA requesters or on State’s reluctance to search her emails.”

The discovery period will conclude in 120 days, and Judicial Watch said that a post-discovery hearing will be held afterwards to determine whether Judicial Watch can depose Clinton, her former chief of staff Cheryl Mills, and others.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/judge-rules-susan-rice-ben-rhodes-must-answer-watchdogs-questions-on-clinton-email-server-benghazi

Senate ignores Trump, votes to consider bill reversing decision to lift Russia sanctions

The Senate voted Tuesday to take up legislation to reverse the Trump administration's decision to lift sanctions on three Russian companies, after several Republicans went against President Trump by backing it. Republicans joined Democrats to bring the measure up for debate just hours after Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin met privately with GOP lawmakers to convince them the sanctions should be lifted. The measure is ultimately destined for defeat later in the week because it must pass a 60-vote threshold, and the 60 votes aren't there. But the votes on Tuesday give Democrats at least a day of floor time to argue that the sanctions should remain in place.

Democrats demanded a vote on the resolution after the Treasury Department announced plans to drop sanctions on three Russian companies because they are no longer controlled by Oleg Deripaska. The Russian billionaire remains blacklisted by the U.S. because of his role in Russia's interference with the U.S. election in 2016. The Trump administration says it made the right decision because Deripaska was no longer on the board of the companies and because the sanctions were aimed at him, not the companies.

Mnuchin said the three companies had been listed only because of their connection to Deripaska, and he said career intelligence and Treasury officials agreed to lift the sanctions. “We put together an agreement that we think meets the laws and the requirements to delist them,” Mnuchin said.

But Democrats and some Republicans believe the sanctions should remain. On Tuesday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called up the resolution disapproving of the Trump administration's decision, which is allowed under the law that calls for the sanctions. Under that law, passage of the resolution by the House and Senate would reverse the Trump administration's decision. Schumer called the plan to lift sanctions a "kiss-up" to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., moved to block Schumer's effort, but the Senate rejected McConnell's effort in a 42-57 vote that saw several Republicans vote with Democrats. The Senate then voted 57-42 to take up the resolution. Republican leaders said before the vote that the sanctions should be lifted because the Russian companies agreed to downgrade Deripaska's role in how they operate. "They did follow the rules, they did the things we asked them to do, and under the sanctions law theoretically they ought to have the sanctions lifted," Senate Majority Whip John Thune, R-S.D., told the Washington Examiner. But others, such as Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., disagreed. Rubio told the Washington Examiner that while Deripaska's role seems to have been diminished, "I still think he retains operational control of the company."

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/senate-ignores-trump-votes-to-consider-bill-reversing-decision-to-lift-russia-sanctions

>>4770113

Wonder after this development if she will turn to a cooperating witness… (wishful thinking, kek)

>>4770276

I like it baker!