Twitter sues Elon Musk for backing out of Twitter 44 Billion dollar deal.

Status
Not open for further replies.
toast0 said:
So have the lawyers for Twitter, and they've said he was demanding information he wasn't entitled to. Obviously, Twitter's lawyers are biased, and so is Musk, but I'd bet their lawyers haven't been fined by anyone for untruthful statements, like Musk has (although, sure, the fine was accepted without admission of the allegations).

If you want to see the contract, it's publicly available here; section 6.4 is the part in question with regard to access to information.
Click to expand...
Which is one of the issues with a high-speed deal like this. If you want to see real deep and detailed information, that is going to require more time and negation and NDAs and such. Companies can't just violate their privacy policies and give out data to whoever. So if the prospective buyer wants access to user data, it could require jumping through some hoops. They might not even get to see it directly, it might have to be a third party who has some duty to keep things private.

Regardless it isn't something you can not include in the contract, and then pitch a fit about it later.

Now we'll see, maybe the court will agree with Musk, but I kinda doubt it.
 
wizzi01 said:
So, the way twitter counts its bots would be either of these three reasons?
(i) cause significant competitive harm to the Company or its Subsidiaries if the transactions contemplated by this Agreement are not consummated, (ii) violate applicable Law or the provisions of any agreement to which the Company or any of its Subsidiaries is a party, or (iii) jeopardize any attorney-client or other legal privilege.

I doubt it. They know there are more than 5% bots and don't want to show the real numbers. It would probably lead to some legal action against them for fudging numbers.
Click to expand...

No, they should share how they count bots and they did. "74. Cognizant of its own obligations under the merger agreement, Twitter proceeded with the May 13 diligence meeting, which lasted for about two hours. During this session, Twitter explained, among other things, that its spam estimation process entails daily sampling for a total set of approximately 9,000 accounts per quarter that are manually reviewed." From the Twitter complaint. Later, "78. On May 16, Agrawal Tweeted that Twitter’s 5% estimate is based on “multiple human reviews (in replicate) for thousands of accounts, that are sampled at random, consistently over time, from *accounts we count as mDAUs*.”"

What else could you want to know there? Maybe oh yeah, what are the 9000 accounts you sampled? That seems reasonable. Maybe how did you check if they're robots, that seems reasonable. Maybe can we see that specific data for those accounts --- some of that data might not be available because of privacy agreements with the users, perhaps, but otherwise, sure fine whatever.

What did Elon Musk complain about not getting access to? "83. On May 20, 2022, Musk’s team sent a request for Twitter’s “firehose” data — which is essentially a live-feed of data concerning activity (Tweeting, Retweeting, and “liking” Tweets, for example) associated with the public accounts on Twitter’s platform." Twitter claims that doesn't have a reasonable business purpose related to consummating the merger; I dunno, but I don't see how it relates to the bot checking. regardless "93. [...] On or about June 9, 2022, Musk’s counsel indicated that granting access to 30 days’ worth of historical firehose data would satisfy Musk’s request for the firehose data. So, on June 15, the company gave Musk’s team secure access to that raw data — about 49 tebibytes’ worth. It did so even though the merger agreement did not require the sharing of this information." And then Musk's team demanded more stuff (paragraph 94, including the sample set, which it seems like was given, but honestly the complaint isn't crystal clear on that. they say "97. Nonetheless, in a continuing effort at cooperation, Twitter agreed to provide Musk everything he now demanded regarding the firehose, including access to “100% of Tweets and favoriting activity.”"

Now of course, this is Twitter's side only. But I can't guess what Musk is expecting to get here, that's going to be relevant. Even if bots were a significantly larger portion of mDAU than Twitter says; it's probably only valid justification to get out of the deal if Twitter knew about it and covered it up. If their methodology was just flawed, whoops, people make mistakes. If Elon Musk wants to count bots with a different methodology, I'm sure there's lots of alternative methodologies, and you'll get lots of different numbers, but if the question is did Twitter lie to investors, the answer is probably not --- they told investors broadly how they were measuring, and if they followed those methods, then it's probably pretty close. There was something about their measuring mDAU as accounts vs people that came out in late April, but it's less than a 2% difference before and after, and there's no allegation that was intentional anyway.

auntjemima said:
You can pay companies to provide with 10, 20, 50k worth of followers. If they aren't botting, well fuck me, that's a lot of random people they convince to follow you.
Click to expand...
There's rampant bots on twitter, and everyone knows it, including Elon Musk before and after he agreed to buy it. Are those robotic followers counted in mDAU though... I'd guess probably not. I mean certainly in a real sense, they don't fit the definition of monetizable daily active users, cause Twitter can't monetize them; but also, they're not likely to match the behaviors that get an account marked as a mDAU. You've probably got to load an ad or something, and bots are gonna skip those. I've worked at popular service with lots of bots (unfortunately), and the vast majority of bot accounts are pretty clearly bot accounts on human review, and often skip things that would mark them as daily active in our measurements (and we weren't trying to monetize users, so our daily active count was not complex at all; it just wasn't something that most bots would do, because it wasn't important to the functionality they were providing).

Krenum said:
Now Twitter HAS to let the court know just how messed up their platform is.
Click to expand...

They don't necessarily need to. If Musk's team asks for discovery, Twitter can object that it's not relevant to the agreement, which it very well might not be, and then it's up to the court to decide if it's relevant before it requires the information to be produced. Of course, if they knew what they were looking for, they could have asked for it, and Twitter would have likely produced it already anyway.
 
Darunion said:
Might be an argument though, if lets say that company made 50K accounts and owns them all, maybe that does not define as bot? I know not every person is 1 account per person, some have a few, at what point is it too many? It is going to be a bill clinton in court kinda thing "well how do you define the word 'bot'?".
Click to expand...
Isn't that against twitter's ToS?
 
20220714_055650.jpg



Eat the Rich Popsicles actual frozen
treats.

https://blog.cheapism.com/eat-the-rich-popsicles-musk-bezos-gates-zuckerberg/
 
Thunderdolt said:
Literally nothing in this meme is correct.
1st frame: He couldn't (and still can't) buy Twitter. He had to get external help to secure the financing to do it.
2nd frame: Twitter disclosed this info before Elon even got high enough to make his offer. It's part of their standard regulated reporting, and it is public info. This has also been studied extensively and reported on extensively - all before he got high enough to make his offer. But none of that matters anyway because Elon waived his right to evaluate that when he signed an agreement his own lawyers drafted which waived his right to discovery.
3rd frame: Also incorrect. Twitter is suing him in order to get the $1 billion payment that he agreed to in the event he decided to back out.
4th frame: You got it: still false. Twitter will not have to disclose anything at all about bots.


They are not suing him to buy them out, they are suing him to get the $1 billion exit fee that Elon agreed to.

Here's my take on what happened:
1. Elon got high - very high. He was probably high for 3 days straight like he's talked about on podcasts. While high, he decided to impulse buy Twitter.
2. He was so high that he signed a bunch of agreements without legal review (he's also an ego maniac). One of those agreements was that he would skip the entire discovery phase and thus agree to buy Twitter sight unseen, buyer beware, as-is where-is, etc.
3. When he came back down, he realized this was all a huge mistake. Unfortunately, he signed on for a $1 billion penalty if he backed out. He's hoping that the bot thing (which he himself has used btw) will be his magic escape from responsibility.
4. He's hoping that the bot thing will be enough to get him out of it, and he's starting to get angry that the world hasn't just rolled over for him yet.
Click to expand...

Drugs are getting expensive these days!



It seems he knew the potential cost and his stock sale benefited him at least that much regardless of the outcome.
 
Here's a pretty good explanation of the situation from IRL Sim City advisor Devon Stone:



The TLDW of it is: It doesn't look good for Musk, the things he's alleging are probalby not relevant to the contract and sellers have a right to sue for specific performance (meaning forcing the execution of the deal) in Delaware. 14:25 is where he kinda sums it up.

As he notes, noting is certain in litigation, but it sounds like Twitter is in the much better position here. Musk was given the information he asked for, even though the contract doesn't really require it, and even if twitter's bot numbers are higher than what they calculated it really isn't material to the contract.
 
Sycraft said:
Here's a pretty good explanation of the situation from IRL Sim City advisor Devon Stone:



The TLDW of it is: It doesn't look good for Musk, the things he's alleging are probalby not relevant to the contract and sellers have a right to sue for specific performance (meaning forcing the execution of the deal) in Delaware. 14:25 is where he kinda sums it up.

As he notes, noting is certain in litigation, but it sounds like Twitter is in the much better position here. Musk was given the information he asked for, even though the contract doesn't really require it, and even if twitter's bot numbers are higher than what they calculated it really isn't material to the contract.
Click to expand...

IOW, he may have to go through with it and sue after the fact if the numbers were wrong, or else pay up?
 
Meeho said:
Link?

My prediction: Twitter will lose and Musk won't have to pay.
Click to expand...
Given the terms of the agreement my prediction is he will settle to pay a portion of the 1 billion; probably more than 100 million; though if i were twitter i'd push for the full 1 billion. He signed a silly agreement that basically doesn't give him an option of backing out or very much in the way of discovery. He could have done this due diligence before agreeing to purchase the company or put such in the contract but he chose not to... His reason for backing out is valuation but that is not a legit reason to back out and the proof will be found in the tweets ;)
 
Nobu said:
IOW, he may have to go through with it and sue after the fact if the numbers were wrong, or else pay up?
Click to expand...
He may not be able to sue after the fact. Basically, when you agree to buy something, particularly at the level of corporate mergers and acquisitions, you have to agree beforehand what matters. As Devon notes, you do due diligence before you ever sign a contract like this. Once you've agreed to go forward your options become much more limited. The contract doesn't give him a lot of outs. Also doesn't give a lot of room for later litigation, he can't really go after the twitter board members themselves. The bot issue was something he should have dealt with BEFORE he agreed to this, if it really mattered to him.

Goes double since he's on the public record of:

1) Saying he wants to buy twitter to "fix" the bot issue.

2) Pushing twitter to go through with the deal as fast as possible.

That would imply that he knew there was a bot problem, and that he was ok with it. The court doesn't really care if you made a bad deal, or a stupid deal, or one where you overpaid. They are if you made a deal, and if the circumstances are still substantially the same such that the deal should go through. Twitter will argue that they gave him bot numbers, and the ability to check those for himself and they aren't wrong. Further even if they ARE wrong, they aren't material to the contract signed so it doesn't matter and it should go through.

Now of course nobody can say for sure how the court will rule, if we already knew the outcome of a trial we wouldn't need to have it, but his legal analysis matches up with that of other legal analysists saying that things are not good for Musk. It also appears as though Musk might think so given that he is trying to fight back against a quick trial date. If he truly believed that he has strong evidence on his side, there would be no reason not to want a fast trial: Get it done, get a ruling that twitter can fuck off, and go on with shitposting. However, if he suspects that his position is NOT as strong as his shitposts suggest, then trying to delay and drag things out to hopefully push twitter in to settling would be the move to make... and what you do you know that's the move he's making.

you2 said:
Given the terms of the agreement my prediction is he will settle to pay a portion of the 1 billion; probably more than 100 million; though if i were twitter i'd push for the full 1 billion. He signed a silly agreement that basically doesn't give him an option of backing out or very much in the way of discovery. He could have done this due diligence before agreeing to purchase the company or put such in the contract but he chose not to... His reason for backing out is valuation but that is not a legit reason to back out and the proof will be found in the tweets ;)
Click to expand...

Oh no, he will be paying at LEAST a billion, probably more. Twitter isn't suing for the billion, they are suing for all $44 billion. Contracts on this level are the kind of thing you can't just back out of. The billion-dollar fee isn't like earnest money for a house, a "You can back out for any reason you want but then you owe this," it is a "You owe this if the deal falls apart," fee. Twitter is saying that he can't legally back out, they want the money, they want to force him to buy and yes, that IS something that can be forced particularly when it comes to corporate mergers and acquisitions.

So if he settles, it'll have to be for more than a billion. He may be able to offer them enough money to make it go away, or they may be willing to take a smaller buyout, but this isn't about the billion, that is pretty much the floor not the ceiling.

As I said before: Watch what you sign in contracts folks, they can have real consequences.
 
Meeho said:
That hack couldn't provide a good legal explanation if his life depended on it.
Click to expand...
Well then let's hear your legal credentials and your counterargument. Or, a link to someone who you think does provide a good explanation. Because it seems to me that actual lawyers/legal analysts are saying that Twitter has a strong case here, Musk rushed in to shit without doing what he should and providing evidence from the contract itself and legal filings as to why. Musk fanboys are saying "Lol Elon smart, Twitter dumb, Elon will win," and basing it off of Musk's tweets and their own feelings.
 
Sycraft said:
Well then let's hear your legal credentials and your counterargument. Or, a link to someone who you think does provide a good explanation. Because it seems to me that actual lawyers/legal analysts are saying that Twitter has a strong case here, Musk rushed in to shit without doing what he should and providing evidence from the contract itself and legal filings as to why. Musk fanboys are saying "Lol Elon smart, Twitter dumb, Elon will win," and basing it off of Musk's tweets and their own feelings.
Click to expand...
I don't have one because I'm not following this drama closely, but I've seen enough of his previous videos to know he's a good salesman and a very shitty lawyer.

Elon is a retard but he's not stupid. Twitter board, on the other hand, proved to be, well... We'll se how it turns out.
 
Thats like one of us paying a $1000 fine. Its enough to care about, but not enough to ruin anyone.
 
Meeho said:
Elon is a retard but he's not stupid. Twitter board, on the other hand, proved to be, well... We'll se how it turns out.
Click to expand...

Elon's cool when he's deep enough in the technical shit for it to be in his wheelhouse. But when he's opining about things from afar, he's at least as much of a moron as anyone else -- and a very loud one, at that.

Wat said:
Thats like one of us paying a $1000 fine. Its enough to care about, but not enough to ruin anyone.
Click to expand...
If Elon's forced to go through with the sale, but the numbers turn out to be bad enough that his financial partners get cold feet and he's forced to liquidate 5% of Tesla's market cap to cover it, it will be an absolute bloodbath in the market.
 
Meeho said:
I don't have one because I'm not following this drama closely, but I've seen enough of his previous videos to know he's a good salesman and a very shitty lawyer.
Click to expand...

What evidence do you have that he is a very shitty lawyer?
 
GoldenTiger said:
He already explained that.
Click to expand...
Not really. He's admitted he has no qualifications but just says he's "seen enough of his videos to know he's a shitty lawyer." So my question is what is the evidence of that? What in the videos shows he's a shitty lawyer? Saying he's a shitty lawyer because you've watched his videos, without further elucidation is along the lines of "THIS LOOKS SHOPPED. I CAN TELL FROM SOME OF THE PIXELS AND FROM SEEING QUITE A FEW SHOPS IN MY TIME."

I've watched quite a few of his videos, and he seems like he does a good job to me. His stuff is sourced, his explanations consistent, and I haven't seen a case of him having a major error. Also, he's well regarded by the couple of lawyers I know in real life. So, I'm curious as to what the evidence is that he's a shitty lawyer. Likewise, I'm interested in another take from a different lawyer, if this guy is so bad.
 
Sycraft said:
Not really. He's admitted he has no qualifications but just says he's "seen enough of his videos to know he's a shitty lawyer." So my question is what is the evidence of that? What in the videos shows he's a shitty lawyer? Saying he's a shitty lawyer because you've watched his videos, without further elucidation is along the lines of "THIS LOOKS SHOPPED. I CAN TELL FROM SOME OF THE PIXELS AND FROM SEEING QUITE A FEW SHOPS IN MY TIME."

I've watched quite a few of his videos, and he seems like he does a good job to me. His stuff is sourced, his explanations consistent, and I haven't seen a case of him having a major error. Also, he's well regarded by the couple of lawyers I know in real life. So, I'm curious as to what the evidence is that he's a shitty lawyer. Likewise, I'm interested in another take from a different lawyer, if this guy is so bad.
Click to expand...

QED




And, please, no more arguments from authority. The only qualification one needs to see how bad Legal Eagle's takes are is to be able to see, hear and have a minimum of critical thinking. Other lawyers did their analysis of his videos as well, if that's important to you.
 
Last edited:
Someone posted a Legal Eagle video on this stating Musk is screwed? Why would you ever follow anything that guy says? Legal Eagle is a moron with practically no legal experience, maybe a year of practice at most. Pretty much every single practicing lawyer will tear up any "analysis" he does because it's laughably terrible. He's nothing but a performer or actor.

If he says Musk is screwed then it most likely means Musk will come through this unscathed and triumphant.
 
SmokeRngs said:
Someone posted a Legal Eagle video on this stating Musk is screwed? Why would you ever follow anything that guy says? Legal Eagle is a moron with practically no legal experience, maybe a year of practice at most. Pretty much every single practicing lawyer will tear up any "analysis" he does because it's laughably terrible. He's nothing but a performer or actor.

If he says Musk is screwed then it most likely means Musk will come through this unscathed and triumphant.
Click to expand...
He seems to have done quite a bit in that year of practice. His bio.
 
SmokeRngs said:
Someone posted a Legal Eagle video on this stating Musk is screwed? Why would you ever follow anything that guy says? Legal Eagle is a moron with practically no legal experience, maybe a year of practice at most. Pretty much every single practicing lawyer will tear up any "analysis" he does because it's laughably terrible. He's nothing but a performer or actor.

If he says Musk is screwed then it most likely means Musk will come through this unscathed and triumphant.
Click to expand...
I'll trust the word of a seasoned lawyer (he got his JD in 2008) and Georgetown Law professor over the wishful thinking of a forum poster any day of the week.

Musk put his foot in it. I wouldn't say he's guaranteed to fail, but he gave Twitter more than a little ammunition for its lawsuit.
 
Aurelius said:
I'll trust the word of a seasoned lawyer (he got his JD in 2008) and Georgetown Law professor over the wishful thinking of a forum poster any day of the week.

Musk put his foot in it. I wouldn't say he's guaranteed to fail, but he gave Twitter more than a little ammunition for its lawsuit.
Click to expand...
 
John Ransom said:
Click to expand...

Sorry, not playing that game. Barnes is an experienced lawyer, but he's also heavily biased toward conservative viewpoints and lately has focused on 'stunt' representations that are more to burnish his reputation among the hardline right (Alex Jones, Kyle Rittenhouse, etc.) than to champion the downtrodden. Not that Stone is perfectly neutral, but he's a bastion of objectivity by comparison.
 
Aurelius said:
Sorry, not playing that game. Barnes is an experienced lawyer, but he's also heavily biased toward conservative viewpoints and lately has focused on 'stunt' representations that are more to burnish his reputation among the hardline right (Alex Jones, Kyle Rittenhouse, etc.) than to champion the downtrodden. Not that Stone is perfectly neutral, but he's a bastion of objectivity by comparison.
Click to expand...

That's not true, he has represented a number of black and minority women who were exploited by the prison system, pro-bono. Raped by guards, forced to give birth in prison cells, that level of depravity.

Just because Alex Jones is a conservative that doesn't mean he deserves civil rights violations. And Kyle Rittenhouse wasn't a prominent conservative, he was a child railroaded by the system.

Legal Eagle is a YouTuber. Robert Barnes is a practicing attorney who works with a YouTuber.
 
Aurelius said:
Nothing says "I have no actual argument" quite like responding with nothing but a GIF. Thanks for agreeing that my trust is well-placed.
Click to expand...
There was no argument to reply to, only an appeal to (proven bad) authority.

Aurelius said:
Sorry, not playing that game. Barnes is an experienced lawyer, but he's also heavily biased toward conservative viewpoints and lately has focused on 'stunt' representations that are more to burnish his reputation among the hardline right (Alex Jones, Kyle Rittenhouse, etc.) than to champion the downtrodden.
Click to expand...
LMAO, sure, Barnes longs for "hardline right" clout while neglecting his legal Robin Hood responsibilities.
And they say comedy is dead...

Not that Stone is perfectly neutral, but he's a bastion of objectivity by comparison.
Click to expand...
giphy (1).gif
 
Aurelius said:
Sorry, not playing that game. Barnes is an experienced lawyer, but he's also heavily biased toward conservative viewpoints and lately has focused on 'stunt' representations that are more to burnish his reputation among the hardline right (Alex Jones, Kyle Rittenhouse, etc.) than to champion the downtrodden. Not that Stone is perfectly neutral, but he's a bastion of objectivity by comparison.
Click to expand...
What game? As you say he's a very experienced lawyer, additionally he has specialization in tax law pointing out issues with legal eagles take on tax law, Which you can then take into consideration when you watch his other analysis, Your response is Barne's is biased? Sure he is, what does that have to do the the points?
He's also actually tried tax law.
please notice the guy right Infront of snipes.


Either of their biases don't really matter when it comes to this point:
Barnes has a drastically different take on the Musk case. I posted the second video to put both parties into context. Maybe it comes across differently to you, but to me it appears Barnes actually did his homework and LE read a news article and then researched what was said in the news article.
 
Axman said:
That's not true, he has represented a number of black and minority women who were exploited by the prison system, pro-bono. Raped by guards, forced to give birth in prison cells, that level of depravity.

Just because Alex Jones is a conservative that doesn't mean he deserves civil rights violations. And Kyle Rittenhouse wasn't a prominent conservative, he was a child railroaded by the system.

Legal Eagle is a YouTuber. Robert Barnes is a practicing attorney who works with a YouTuber.
Click to expand...
That you characterized things as you did makes clear you're not objective on this front, either, but I'm not going to delve further into the many problems with those characterizations of Alex Jones and Kyle Rittenhouse. Also, "some of his clients were Black!" doesn't erase his demonstrated hyper-conservative bias.

Devin Jones is an actively serving law professor that happens to have a YouTube channel. His career revolves around knowing the finer points of legal procedure and precedent. I'd trust him to research the viability of Musk's case. Barnes again does have experience, but Jones has more directly relevant experience and doesn't have nearly as large a chip on his shoulder.
 
Aurelius said:
Also, "some of his clients were Black!" doesn't erase his demonstrated hyper-conservative bias.
Click to expand...
What is that supposed to mean?

Devin Jones is an actively serving law professor that happens to have a YouTube channel. His career revolves around knowing the finer points of legal procedure and precedent. I'd trust him to research the viability of Musk's case. Barnes again does have experience, but Jones has more directly relevant experience and doesn't have nearly as large a chip on his shoulder.
Click to expand...
If anything was demonstrated the last several years, it's that outspoken law professors have the worst legal takes. Mr. Jones demonstrated it widely with his own videos.
 
Meeho said:
There was no argument to reply to, only an appeal to (proven bad) authority.
Click to expand...
But you didn't prove it was bad, just that Jones isn't flawless. Can you show that a significant portion of his opinions are incorrect? "He got it wrong once, therefore we can never trust what he says" is not a strong argument by itself. You need to show that his opinion was either a gross error (one that any competent lawyer would avoid) or reflective of problems with his

Appeals to authority are only fallacies if the connection is either arbitrary or not supported by the authority's track record. Jones is a considerably stronger source than Barnes because his career and expertise are more directly relevant to matters like these. I have yet to see evidence that Jones has a history of getting things wrong, and from what I've seen he typically gets things right.

Meeho said:
LMAO, sure, Barnes longs for "hardline right" clout while neglecting his legal Robin Hood responsibilities.
Click to expand...
Look at the cases Barnes has chosen lately. Look at his Twitter account, for goodness' sake. The man has an agenda and a clear preference for his high-profile cases in recent years. And how are Robin Hood responsibilities relevant when he's siding with Musk, the wealthiest person in the world?
 
Aurelius said:
That you characterized things as you did makes clear you're not objective on this front, either, but I'm not going to delve further into the many problems with those characterizations of Alex Jones and Kyle Rittenhouse. Also, "some of his clients were Black!" doesn't erase his demonstrated hyper-conservative bias.
Click to expand...

He's not hyper-conservative, he's a civil rights attorney. He's currently part a legal team fighting for meatpackers in a lawsuit against Tyson Foods. People say the same stuff about Viva, but he's kind of a leftie. Viva just asks questions, which, I guess makes him bad.

You can't say Barnes doesn't represent the downtrodden when he literally volunteers his time and resources for them. Stuff like that is why people like him, and defer to him. He's fought for people against the state and against mega-corporations and won, so his opinions in a case between one man versus a $50- $40- $30-billion company are relevant.

Even people who dislike or disagree with him should heed his words, because they have weight in court, legal and opinion.

And saying people don't deserve civil rights violations isn't a characterization. I invite you to the Rittenhouse thread in the Soapbox if you want to talk about that.

Aurelius said:
And how are Robin Hood responsibilities relevant when he's siding with Musk, the wealthiest person in the world?
Click to expand...

Rich people can be treated unfairly and face injustices, too. The fact that both Musk and Barnes are fighting for transparency and free speech online is somehow a bad thing I don't get.
 
Meeho said:
What is that supposed to mean?
Click to expand...
Axman was using the legal equivalent of "but some of my best friends are Black!" That is, using token support for minorities in an attempt to excuse lousy behavior. Barnes can't possibly be a biased, unreliable source because, hey, he occasionally represents dark-skinned people! Let me know when he's not throwing his weight behind anti-vaxxers and other debunked conspiracies and you might have a leg to stand on. Until then, I trust Jones far more than Barnes.

Meeho said:
If anything was demonstrated the last several years, it's that outspoken law professors have the worst legal takes. Mr. Jones demonstrated it widely with his own videos.
Click to expand...
Evidence in Jones' videos, please? If you're going to make a serious accusation like that, you need to back it up with more than just a "widely" claim. I don't need a comprehensive list — just show that there are numerous videos where he made serious mistakes (as in bad interpretations of law, not just cases that didn't end as expected).

Musk doesn't have an airtight case here; it doesn't take much to see that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top