The Twitter Files

[Anonymous]

Does Taibbi think he sounds smart, dunking on Jim Baker, of all people? Smh

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How dare the general counsel general counsel?!?!

Off with his head!!!

Why would anyone be surprised that the company's GC was reviewing these files before they were released to the public? It would be malpractice not to do that. If Taibbi was actually surprised to learn this, he is a moron.

[Anonymous]

^^^
+1 Not only did Elon not know who his general counsel was, he’s unfamiliar with what they’re supposed to do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does Taibbi think he sounds smart, dunking on Jim Baker, of all people? Smh

If it took Taibbi until this past weekend to realize that Twitter’s deputy general counsel might be participating in the document review, then he’s even more incompetent than I thought. Seriously, this kind of thing is journalism 101.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So Elon didn’t know who his general counsel was?

Apparently not, stable genius that he is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^^
+1 Not only did Elon not know who his general counsel was, he’s unfamiliar with what they’re supposed to do?

It is such a bad look for Musk to effectively publicly admit he has this poor of an understanding of basic corporate governance. The average RWNJ may not get it, but the investment community does.

[Anonymous]

I don’t think this is a disputed:

https://www.westernjournal.com/fbi-confirms-hunter-bidens-laptop-says-story-not-russian-disinformation-report/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^
+1 Not only did Elon not know who his general counsel was, he’s unfamiliar with what they’re supposed to do?

It is such a bad look for Musk to effectively publicly admit he has this poor of an understanding of basic corporate governance. The average RWNJ may not get it, but the investment community does.

What exactly is your understanding here? Sounds like to me a person would have an ethical obligation to bring to his bosses attention that this task will be run through others at the company due to his participation in said events. Good for Elon on firing him just for not doing the most basic step.

[Anonymous]

Which is more likely?

Elon had no idea that the person working as his General Counsel (after he fired the GC) was Jim Baker, who used to work for the FBI?

OR

Elon is pretending to have no idea so a million more conspiracy theories can be spun up about how Jim Baker (who's already a supporting actor in many other conspiracy theories) destroyed, deleted, or hid the super-explosive evidence that something nefarious was going on at Twitter

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^
+1 Not only did Elon not know who his general counsel was, he’s unfamiliar with what they’re supposed to do?

It is such a bad look for Musk to effectively publicly admit he has this poor of an understanding of basic corporate governance. The average RWNJ may not get it, but the investment community does.

What exactly is your understanding here? Sounds like to me a person would have an ethical obligation to bring to his bosses attention that this task will be run through others at the company due to his participation in said events. Good for Elon on firing him just for not doing the most basic step.

Ah, non-lawyers pretending they know how a GC department works. Or anything about legal ethics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Which is more likely?

Elon had no idea that the person working as his General Counsel (after he fired the GC) was Jim Baker, who used to work for the FBI?

OR

Elon is pretending to have no idea so a million more conspiracy theories can be spun up about how Jim Baker (who's already a supporting actor in many other conspiracy theories) destroyed, deleted, or hid the super-explosive evidence that something nefarious was going on at Twitter

I guess Musk really doesn’t care about that $44 billion. Must be nice.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think this is a disputed:

https://www.westernjournal.com/fbi-confirms-hunter-bidens-laptop-says-story-not-russian-disinformation-report/

Yes, it is disputed:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/hunter-biden-story-russian-disinfo-430276

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think this is a disputed:

https://www.westernjournal.com/fbi-confirms-hunter-bidens-laptop-says-story-not-russian-disinformation-report/

Everything the “Western Journal” publishes is disputed.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think this is a disputed:

https://www.westernjournal.com/fbi-confirms-hunter-bidens-laptop-says-story-not-russian-disinformation-report/

Everything the “Western Journal” publishes is disputed.

To be clear, Ratcliffe did say that the laptop was not Russian disinformation. However, Ratcliffe himself is not a credible source, despite the position he had.

[Anonymous]

It’s almost like Musk and the boys know if they just type out enough buzz words, it’s enough to spin up their base/followers.
It doesn’t even need to be coherent or logical.