Three Cups of Deceit

The book details a series of ethical breaches that made me wonder if there was an internal struggle or just greed at play. How do we reconcile admiration for someone with their flaws revealed so clearly?

The reporting was thorough but also subjective at times. I’m curious if others felt swayed by certain accounts or if the evidence was convincing enough for everyone.

The way the book juxtaposes his public image with behind-the-scenes revelations really emphasized the contrast. Was this contrast effective for others in highlighting the discrepancy?