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.
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/
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/
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
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
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 wrote:
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 wrote:So Elon didn’t know who his general counsel was?
Anonymous wrote:Does Taibbi think he sounds smart, dunking on Jim Baker, of all people? Smh