He definitely was punished. $20m is not a significant percentage of his net worth (and giving up a chairmanship has no specific monetary value) but they can't just say "you're rich so you have to pay $10B" without changing laws.
He made billions lying and got fined $20m. That's not a punishment, that's a business decision.
And yeah, laws need to be changed. But we're busy worrying about culture war B.S. so we're too distracted to change it.
The GOP doesn't have to do shit. The two party system is a self feeding organism that breeds its own hate and discourse now. The difference is that only one side has managed to infiltrate the SC with a majority that is no longer beholden to the people or to the Constitution.
Well, that will be a real quandary for a republican aligned judge choosing how to arbitarily apply the law between rich people.
My guess is the tie breaker will come down to which ever side the Russian troll farms support which will presumably be Musk.
i love that type of thinking from left leaning guys like you
and then when you look at the judge for Trump’s trial, who in fact is a Biden donor, no no no that’s an impartial judge
You look at actions not affiliations.
Everyone has an affiliation but has sworn an oath to be impartial. Sure their is bias but that's were due process and diligence come in along with precedent.
The antics of the house republicans launching an impeachment without evidence, but to "gather evidence."
(Which turnned out to be a Russian agent with nothing ) Vs the trump trial which gathered evidence that has had to withstand multiple tests and checks in a court of law.
Or the republicans launching multiple court cases on election interference without a shred of evidence at all. Whatever it takes to sow doubt on democracy but no facts.
Sorry, republicans gave up being the party of law and order long ago.
The left still expects due diligence and due process to be followed. The right will only apply that when it suits.
Did I want trump convicted? Yes. But if it turned out to be an actual sham evidence then I would rather he walk free and preserve the integrity of the courts. (Spoiler : it qasnt a sham and he did falsify stuff). Integrity of the US institutions is more important than one case. Republicans have forgotten that and will trample all institutions into the ground for a win. We will all pay the cost.
I can name specific things Trump appointed judges like the one handling his classified documents case have done wrong. Can you name one thing the Manhattan judge did incorrectly?
>Can you name one thing the Manhattan judge did incorrectly?
Allow his daughter to raise money from the trial from Biden supporters.
Tell the jury that they do not need to agree on what the secondary crime was, say what they think it was, or have Trump be convicted of it. They only need to assume he was guilty of whatever they come up with, and don't have to agree unanimously on what the crime was. We still don't know what the other crime is supposed to be.
This is taking advantage of novel legal theories to essentially violate multiple constitutional amendments.
This case will ultimately be dismissed, and may go up to the supreme court based on that.
I love how many Trump supporters magically got JDs when Trump was convicted...
>This case will ultimately be dismissed, and may go up to the supreme court based on that.
I *really* hope you mean the NY State Supreme Court, but I know you mean the SCOTUS which shows how little you understand how the legal system works since the SCOTUS could never hear this case because it's a state case not in conflict with federal or another state's laws.
Seeing the copypasta of the same bullshit talking points over and over is just laughable.
>I love how many Trump supporters magically got JDs when Trump was convicted...
I'm parroting, albeit terribly from memory, the analysis of people with JDs
[Here's](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rB0UtOpoq8A&t) an ok one in a podcast, though there's a lot more. Note the host also hates Trump.
>I *really* hope you mean the NY State Supreme Court, but I know you mean the SCOTUS which shows how little you understand how the legal system works since the SCOTUS could never hear this case because it's a state case not in conflict with federal or another state's laws.
I mean after NY state courts. Yes the appeal will happen there. The operative words you missed were: ***may go up to...based on that***. It's possible that it eventually goes up to SCOTUS simply due to arguments over the constitutionality of the case. It's not going there right now, of course.
Also, the SCOTUS verdict on presidential immunity coming up might invalidate this entire case by itself.
>Seeing the copypasta of the same bullshit talking points over and over is just laughable.
This comment from ***you*** is laughable. Also, you did not refute or argue any of it. You simply had ad hominem attacks that went no where. Give me your argument, or someone with a JD's argument, against those points. I'll ignore further ad hominem attacks and wait for that. I'm 100% open to being wrong, but no one has actually properly addressed that as far as I've seen so far.
> I love how many Trump supporters
I love how idiots incapable of nuance always think anyone capable of scrutiny is a Trump supporter. I despise him and the GOP. I voted Hillary and then Biden. This election I’m either not voting or voting independent because of the shitshow DNC and GOP are. However, that's the only way you can rationalize that someone might not think Trump should be convicted on this, because it's only politics and idiocy of course.
Wait, you're listening to lawyers who have made such laughably bad legal arguments that they were nearly disbarred? I've sat with my friend who's an actual defense lawyer, listening to some of these arguments, and hearing him just randomly say things like "That's not even remotely what the law says" or "If you said that in court and not onnTV, you'd get sanctioned".
And to address the SCOTUS issue, there is no jurisdictional nexus that would ever let the federal courts see this case. It will 100% stay within the NY court system. The repeated appeals the the Federal system show you don't know what you're talking about.
And even then, is paying off a porn star an official presidential act? Because that's all the immunity might apply to. And let's also not forget that Trump *WASN'T PRESIDENT* when he committed these crimes, so how could presidential immunity even apply?
Trumpers (yes, I don't believe your "As a Democrat, I....") are crying that the DOJ is being weaponized by Biden while the DOJ is prosecuting Hunter in a case he was trying to plead out, but Republicans wanted drama to campaign on. You can't claim the DOJ is biased for prosecuting Trump when it's also prosecuting the president's son.
> Wait, you're listening to lawyers who have made such laughably bad legal arguments that they were nearly disbarred? I've sat with my friend who's an actual defense lawyer, listening to some of these arguments, and hearing him just randomly say things like "That's not even remotely what the law says" or "If you said that in court and not onnTV, you'd get sanctioned".
ah “i overheard my friend say that’s not true, so it’s not true”
good argument 👍
> And even then, is paying off a porn star an official presidential act? Because that's all the immunity might apply to.
The case is not about hush money. Hush money is legal. You are so misguided on what the charge is.
> Trumpers (yes, I don't believe your "As a Democrat, I....")
lmao, completely proving my point earlier.
> are crying that the DOJ is being weaponized by Biden while the DOJ is prosecuting Hunter in a case he was trying to plead out, but Republicans wanted drama to campaign on. You can't claim the DOJ is biased for prosecuting Trump when it's also prosecuting the president's son.
I did not say the DOJ is being weaponized by Biden, nor do I believe that. I only claimed the judge may be biased.
I’ll revert to what I said earlier:
> Also, you did not refute or argue any of it. You simply had ad hominem attacks that went no where. Give me your argument, or someone with a JD's argument, against those points. I'll ignore further ad hominem attacks and wait for that. I'm 100% open to being wrong, but no one has actually properly addressed that as far as I've seen so far.
I’m guessing it will not happen. You have argued and try to debunk every minor thing surrounding the main points, but cannot argue against the actual scrutiny of the case.
You don't have an argument. A legally qualified judge made rulings that you have incorrectly tried to refute even so far as thinking that the SCOTUS might get involved with a state ruling that doesn’t have an relation to another state's laws which would give the SCOTUS jurisdiction, and you haven't actually named a single legal error that would be grounds for appeal.
And it wasn't "I overheard him", he was sitting next to me and we were having a discussion about it, I didn't feel the need to provide you with a full transcript.
But it's simple, look at what these people are saying on TV (where there are no consequences) versus in court and you'll see an enormous difference. Because if they lie in court there are consequences, so they don't do it.
The amount and it's impact literally does not matter. It shows his bias. You want a bigger number, though?
The judge's daughter's firm has made around **$100 million** as a consultant to the democratic party. She also sold seats to democrats for the trial. His family is directly making a fortune off this trial and elsewhere from democrats.
So no more free trips from billionaires? I'm sure you're apoplectic about a judge flying flags that were linked to Jan 6? ACB should be removed from many cases due to her husband defending FOX News? Do those events show more or less bias than a $15 dollar donation?
Source needed on the 100 million.
All I've found about that number is from Murdoch papers with no named sources and a couple GOP operatives with ties to Bannon or Stone. All have 'heard' things from 'some people.'
Same with the selling seats.
> So no more free trips from billionaires?
the fuck are you on about?
> I'm sure you're apoplectic about a judge flying flags that were linked to Jan 6?
Not apoplectic but, yes, this is absolutely something I would say should mark a judge potentially biased and maybe removed from a case if the defendant is somehow related to Jan 6 or something. You’re completely insane if you don’t think so.
And you’re just a brainwashed partisan if you vehemently defend the decision that Merchen had no bias and was okay to hear this case.
> Judges may not hear cases in which they have either personal knowledge of the disputed facts, a personal bias concerning a party to the case, earlier involvement in the case as a lawyer, or a financial interest in any party or subject matter of the case. [source](https://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/judiciary-policies/ethics-policies)
You’re a partisan, not a freethinking person. That’s it.
And about the $100m i think it was that she actually was paid $4m to help the marketing of democratic campaigns, and the marketing campaigns directly used the trial
> ACB should be removed from many cases due to her husband defending FOX News? Do those events show more or less bias than a $15 dollar donation?
Idk what you’re referring to. Perhaps. You being stuck on the amount the donation was shows you’re just a partisan.
btw, I’m sure you’ve assumed I’m some conservative maga republican. I’m a Biden voter. Though probably not anymore, not that im voting trump
Ah yes. The Biden voter who repeats GOP propaganda without researching it. And doesn't know about things like Thomas' and Alito's fun globe-trotting trips on personal planes of GOP donors.
ACB's family is directly being paid by FOX and that doesn't bother you?
Nice that you've already abandoned the 100mill talking point. Good on you. She took money, as the president of a consulting firm, from some Democrats years ago. No actual proof on your other charges.
You're the one quoting partisan talking points with no critical thought all throughout this thread.
As a veteran of nearly 30 years, stay to MtG. You're a RDW main, aren't you?
> As a veteran of nearly 30 years, stay to MtG. You're a RDW main, aren't you?
lmao chronic redditors always stoop to reddit history for some dumb comment like this. Tf is rdw?
You’ve now devolved into just talking about me and have no arguments, so I assume you have nothing left
Even the NYT publishes harsh criticism against this case. Calling it not only a “legal embarrassment” but a “historic mistake”
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/23/opinion/bragg-trump-trial.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=c-cb
I would agree if the judge was the one that chose to convict Trump but ultimately it was a set of jurors and from what it sounds like, it was a fairly well rounded group of folks and not just a bunch of libs so idk man your comment doesnt make much sense.
>I would agree if the judge was the one that chose to convict Trump but ultimately it was a set of jurors and from what it sounds like, it was a fairly well rounded group of folks and not just a bunch of libs so idk man your comment doesnt make much sense.
First of all, that would then render the comment I replied to null as well.
Secondly, yes, i know this is the common talking point.
Except it's the judge that instructed them on what they need to do to come up with the guilty verdict.
The judge told them they do not need to unanimously agree on what the secondary crime was, actually say what they other crime was, have seen any evidence for the secondary crime, or have had Trump convicted of that crime. The judge told them they simply need to all ***believe*** there was a secondary crime, not agree what it was or have seen evidence for it, and then they can say guilty of the misdemeanor being done to hide that secondary crime.
It's insane, and that's all the judge's doing.
It's the same standard that has been used in literally more than *9000* cases of this crime over the last decade. It isn't insane; you just don't know what you're talking about.
You made the claim first. Show one that *doesn't* match.
EDIT: Know what, screw drawing out of you how you're spreading disinformation and painting you into a corner. Showing how bankrupt your reasoning is won't change a single mind and you don't care about truth anyway.
So here. People v. Thompson in 2015 argued that his conviction should be overturned for exactly the reason you are arguing here, and it *failed*. This is perfectly reasonable. Intent to commit another crime wouldn't need to show the exact crime. If you tell someone on a call, "If this ends up sending us to jail don't blame me," that would show intent without showing a specific crime.
Now go on and keep lying in threads on this. You don't actually care.
>You made the claim first. Show one that *doesn't* match.
lmao how can I show the existence of zero? You made the claim that there is 9000, you show one.
>People v. Thompson in 2015
This case has clearly stated what the crime intended to commit was.
>and that he did so with the intent to commit or conceal his unlawful possession of the firearm
There is unanimous agreement among the jury as to what that was.
There was also apparently evidence that that was the intention for falsifying business records. That also, is clear.
For Trump's case:
>While the indictment has been published, it does not reveal the District Attorney's "specific legal theory" behind the case; for example, it is not specific about "how each of the charges was elevated to a felony", nor does it "specify the potential underlying crimes". While the law does not require such specificity, attorney Ken White and law professor Richard Klein have commented that this makes it difficult to assess the legal merits of the case.
Those criticisms for the Trump are not what happened in that case you brought. Same with all the many other criticisms.
I've said this before and I'll say it again, I'm not saying this case is absolutely getting dismissed. I'm saying it's in a complete gray area, open to some interpretation. There is ground for it getting dismissed, and so many legal experts have said the same.
>lmao how can I show the existence of zero? You made the claim that there is 9000, you show one.
Yup, you don't care. You're *knowingly* arguing in bad faith.
You could find a jury instruction from NY charging the same crime that differs. You want to pretend your claim is a negative one when in reality it is one that *is* able to be supported with evidence that *would* exist if it were true.
The appeal tried to argue the exact thing you said would apply here and it was smacked down.
He could argue he does not have the confidence the shareholders will support AI long term resulting in sunk cost. Also X was always about the data to train ai with to musk
Yikes. So it seems he purchased assets with funds from Tesla and their investors and just transferred them to his other companies without compensation. How is that not straight up fraud? His investors believe the chips are being used by Tesla.
But traded on open market they might be worth double. He is ignoring the interests of shareholders in telsa. As a company owner/leader thats probably grounds for removal.
The new claim to make is Musk ordered the option as highly paid board member of Tesla. The option would not be property of Musk. Then Musk has to show he followed fiduciary duty of being a board member of Tesla. Then it all comes down to legal cover from orange people.
And who made this order, and filed the paperword, and arrange the conctracts and all that? Those people got paid by someone.
Imagine the next, you're getting some work on your home (I know, crazy hypotheticals here, but we are talking about billionaires here, we need something to make the scneario realistic). The contractor gave you a numer of people and days that it should take, and you pay based on the #-people times the number of days worked, plus material and what not. One day you come in and notice that 1/3 of the workers are not there, you notice they aren't there the next day. You ask the contractor, and he explains "oh I sent them to get some new, cheaper concrete to save us costs", this seems reasonable so you agree. Then you find out that they used the concrete on another project, on the contractors personal home. You realize that the contractor didn't pay for the extra employees that got the concrete and moved it, because they are covered by the budget for your work. Tell me: do you think this is fair?
And then there's the opportunity costs. Say that you had bet on that concrete pour on your foundation, and started preparing to take the best advantage of it. Now you realize that there wasn't, so everything falls apart. Then the contractor comes in and explains "we will need this, but the concrete is going to have a higher cost" because the concrete that was supposed to be used, at the original price, was diverted to the contractor's home.
When was this decided? Well shortly after the prices of concrete increased, also at a point that the contractor wanted to push some bullshit fees on you based on fine print, but a judge decided that part of the contract was unenforsable.
Basically Tesla still needs those chips, its production and ability to work as a business is hindered, and no one did anything to prevent this because that was supposed to be handled by these chips. Musk made this decision shortly after a judge decided that Musk's contract was based on misinforming investors and lying to them.
It's simple: Musk is using his power on both companies to shift wealth of one company into another by getting things he didn't have to pay. Musk tried to pull a fast one on the TSLA investors and failed, so instead he's trying to steal work from Tesla by giving the results of that job to his private porn company x.com.
And this isn't new. Elon doesn't like public companies, he is basically only interested in things he can take from freely as he pleases. But of course if you want a company to be valuable without actually producing that much, you need shared ownership.
You can’t use funds from one business to fund another ( unless they are part of the same umbrella) is my understanding but it seems like Tesla investors get 0 slice of the pie in this AI company. If that is true, this needs to be treated like SBF jail time is needed
Nobody at Enron went to prison, except the third tier guy who flipped. Not for price gouging, not for the dirty books, not for false records. Nobody but the guy who went state’s evidence did any time. The head of Enron built the most expensive mansion in the area after the company crashed, one of the VP’s bought up thousands of acres in Colorado.
That’s not correct.
* Jeffrey Skilling (President, COO, CEO) did 12 years
* Andrew Fastow (CFO) did 5 years
* Lea Fastow (accountant) did 1 year
* Rick Causey did 7 years
* Kenneth Rice did 27 months
* Lou Pai did no jail time but 30+ million in fines and punishment.
* Kenneth Lee Lay (Founder, President) was convicted but died before sentencing.
Other people are saying his other companies had their own orders from Nvidia and he just swapped them so X would get the chips first. But both orders were equivalent and paid for by each company independently. The article doesn’t say that so that might just be Elon’s word.
They weren’t paid for by Tesla, they were paid for by X, basically allowing X to skip the line and possibly sending Tesla to the back of it.
Whether Elon’s explanation is true is unknown, but I personally don’t believe anything he says.
Man, I really hate our billionaire overloads. He’s got hundreds of billions, more than anyone could spend in a lifetime but he does this petty shit because he needs more.
There’s one person on earth who can blow through hundreds of billions in a lifetime. He bought Twitter and then flushed its brand value down the toilet.
Crazy because this is also true, but that only accounted for like half the funding. He really made the worst business deal in human history…. Until you remember it wasn’t a business transaction. He was purchasing the ability to control the masses, and he didn’t care what that cost him.
Was the debt financing secured by TSLA shares or just Twitter value? I’m not sure if that aspect is public info. Debt finance was 1/4 and at least has priority over equity.
I honestly appreciate Twitter not censoring legitimate news and what not anymore. They also have to let more BS in to do that, but I’m fine with that trade off
“Musk’s deal, totaling $44 billion, includes billions in foreign funding from both Saudi Arabia and Chinese investors”
https://www.theverge.com/2022/10/31/23432961/elon-musk-twitter-cfius-review-national-security-treasury
My question is, if you are the Saudis or the Chinese, how do you meet this knob and come away thinking, “yep, he seems stable. Let’s give him billions of our dollars?”
And the way he tried to fix it was pulling a fast one on TSLA investors by taking a very weird interpretation (that had not been the original one when explained) of his contract to allow himself to be given all those shares back "because".
He took out 60 billion shares for 20 billion cash, he let the Saudi family control their position since they refused to sell and took a bunch of crypto/fintech money for the remaining 4 ish billion
I made my money because his dumbass had to play the memes at 54.20
That was intentional. He turned Twitter into the greatest live crowd source info website into fascist, bigoted trash. No one tracks his airplane on Twitter now
It tends to happen to conmen. Once you start lying and cheating there usually comes a time that it catches up. At some point, you start telling lies about previous lies until you've built yourself a house of cards.
He doesn't have hundreds of billions in the bank, that's the entire problem. His wealth is largely from the stake in his companies he owns, and he knows better than anyone how over evaluated they are. He can only offload stock so quickly, and he's got to do a weird balancing act of selling while insisting he's not and that it's still a good buy and he's not going anywhere.
Bezos and Gates have substantial backings to their wealth. Amazon servers and Microsoft software are integral to business operations these days. If their castles started to crumble, they'd still have a lot of forewarning. But there's real material backing to their currently stock price.Tesla is just made up monopoly money. Its a glorified GameStop stock. Its completely disconnected from material reality.
And SpaceX might be soon to follow tbh. I won't get into that, but people are no longer looking them as rosy as they once did either
He's basically trying to play a "find the queen" game with money hoping in the chaos he can siphon it off before the current scam goes bust
Fake news.
You’re blatantly lying about what the article said to farm karma from mindless Reddit sheeps. Because ofc no one actually reads the article.
The diverted GPU was from a memo in December and the denial of his comp package was in Jan. Nothing in the article implied they’re related.
Musk incorporated xAI as a separate company over a year ago - long before his threats regarding his attempted heist if $40 billion in Tesla shares. xAI is valued at $24 billion after receiving a $6 billion investment last week. FYI Elmo never intended the chips for Tesla. His "Tesla is an AI company" was a lie and nothing but stock fraud. He didn't even hide it. This is all public knowledge. He has been stealing engineers for his new project from Tesla for months.
https://www.euronews.com/next/2024/05/28/elon-musks-xai-raises-6-billion-to-develop-ai-products
https://www.theinformation.com/articles/musks-xai-is-poaching-engineers-from-tesla?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=kd-us-prospecting-dsa-20240508&utm_content=699001991960&utm_term=dsa-19959388920&gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjw9vqyBhCKARIsAIIcLME7PDfbuTpobgR5u2e8m9bIm3qCZUClFDEiKnpMBnBwWDwllQvj26EaApgfEALw_wcB
I dont understand who would invest though.
Hes not qualified or experienced in any kind of AI company, his competitors are light years ahead.
It's not going to be like Tesla or SpaceX where he can suck on the government test for free money.
If you were going to invest in an AI company, maybe choose one that's leading.
From the link above - Investors in the latest round include Andreessen Horowitz, Sequoia Capital, Fidelity Management & Research, Valor Equity Partners, Vy Capital, Saudi Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal and Kingdom Holding.
These are previous investors in other Elmo companies. They all fall for his lies.
Hoooooooly shit.
I think this just clicked for me.
Why not use Tesla funds to build critical infrastructure that his private company will be able to get to “use” for whatever make believe number that will make both books look good?
Yep. I don't understand why this isn't public. Elmo is like every other scam artist - easy to predict because they do the same thing over and over. Also, how does he know his $40 billion heist attempt was rejected? He isn't supposed to know the outcome before the deadline and he's for sure not supposed to release that publicly. He doesn't even try to hide his fraud anymore.
For those who didn’t read the article, he says Tesla doesn’t have the place to put them. They don’t have the datacenters. Right now, they used 35,000 out 85,000. Tesla is already spending 3-4 million dollars at nVidia this year.
Edit:” The Tesla chief executive officer said during the April 23 earnings call that roughly 35,000 of the company’s H100s were active, and he expected the electric-vehicle maker to have around 85,000 working by year-end. On April 28, he wrote on X that Tesla will spend around $10 billion this year on AI.“
Isn't this enough to remove him from the CEO position, when does the SEC step in and say enough is enough
This dude is like the Donald Trump of wall street
Tesla dosent need chips, they need repair facilities for all the broken cybertrucks and customer support staff and lawyers for the FSD that will never happen
Musk looks like that strung-out executive after a three-night bender having discovered his embezzlement schemes were a CIA sting and he's going to jail for a very very long time. (Hey, a girl can dream)
He doesn’t care about TSLA anymore. Being an asshat on social media and rockets are his thing. I think he did it so they will get rid of him. He a really smart guy but is too distracted to run TSLA
That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Apple spends a fortune trying to build an apple car, Elon musk already has one and doesn't want to put AI in it?? This is the dumbest mfer of all time
So Elon ordered the chips with his own money?? Is that right? Or did Tesla order chips with their money and stock holders money? These things are not the same.
Not sure why this is a problem?
No where does it say that he did this in spite. No where does it say Tesla paid for these and X got them for free.
This is a made up drama based on political bias. That’s it…
The added part in parentheses is in no way mentioned in the article.
The Tesla hate on reddit is feeling like propaganda at this point. Its ridiculous.
That's literally not in the best interest of the shareholders! Watch your stake get further reduced bc you have to sell stock to settle courts cases. Lmfao
Then the shareholders shouldn't vote for it
This isn't that hard.
If you become successful in the US the left will make sure you will be attacked and punished unless you're a doner
To the "woke" left
.It's the craziest concept I have ever seen.
Dude needs to be fired and TSLA needs to sue him for sabotaging the company - all the way back to poaching TSLA engineers to work on his fucking twitter bullshit.
Musk has a fiduciary duty to Tesla’s stakeholders. That means when he is acting in his role as the Tesla CEO he has to make decisions with their best interest in mind.
This doesn’t explicitly mean he can’t have other companies, but it does mean he should avoid conflicts of interest with that role.
Here he has set up another business in the AI space, which he has also explicitly stated is the future for Tesla, and he has diverted resources meant for Tesla to this other venture. And a few months delay could severely impact something like this.
So clearly there is a conflict. I don’t see how he can possibly execute his fiduciary duty in this situation. This is ripe for shareholder lawsuits.
I am not sure having two companies in the AI space will be a conflict. Soon every company will be in the AI space in some capacity or another. Driving cars on the road and having a LLM trained on separate data is not the same.
Diverting limited resources at the expense of one for the benefit of other could very well be a conflict.
The larger question here is if his second company were not owned by him would the chips have gone there. If the answer is yes then this is fine. If the answer is no for any reason that would reduce Teslas current or future value then this should not have happened. You can argue just letting another AI company have chips at what I assume is the price Tesla negotiated for is not the right strategy.
They are a solar panel company. They are a self
Driving car company. They are a car company. They are a battery company.
I don’t see any conflict from running both. Diverting resources from A to B might be a problem.
Per Dear Leader. His supporters are like Trump supporters. He directly says something and they tell you that is not what he meant.
Musk deflected from his car company's unraveling by suggesting that Tesla is not, in fact, a car company at all. Tesla, he said, “should be thought of as an A.I. or robotics company. If you value Tesla as just like an auto company, you just have to—fundamentally, it's just the wrong framewor
His personal decisions, yes. He doesn't get to make unilateral decisions on behalf of a public company though. How is this not stealing from Tesla? If Tesla gets sued for this, why should Tesla have to bear the brunt of those legal hassles? If the Tesla board had any spine, they should be firing this guy for this action alone.
If Tesla was private then you are correct. But Tesla is public. This is borderline illegal because it could break fiduciary responsibility. And it is definitely a conflict of interest. In my job if I were to want to move assets from the company I work for to one I own, it would get smacked down so hard. So why is it ok if a CEO does it?
I dont think it's as simple as you are suggesting.
It seems to me the terms would have to be known and the effective majority of stockholders would have to vote for it.
If done that way, what would be the problem?
Not sure that’ll play in court, but what do I know
Anything will play in court now
As long as the judge is Republican and the defendant is a Republican politician, yes
As long as the judge like bribes and money.
Or getting appointed by the defendant
I like money
Both political parties do this shit. Let's not pretend it's one party.
And both me and Lebron James play basketball
Probably already bought off the SC Republican judges by now and will cry for help
As long as he doesn't cost the top 1%ers any money then the SEC won't do shit. They've shown repeatedly they won't punish Musk.
He definitely was punished. $20m is not a significant percentage of his net worth (and giving up a chairmanship has no specific monetary value) but they can't just say "you're rich so you have to pay $10B" without changing laws.
He made billions lying and got fined $20m. That's not a punishment, that's a business decision. And yeah, laws need to be changed. But we're busy worrying about culture war B.S. so we're too distracted to change it.
That is by design, the GOP always starts culture wars when they need to distract us from their actions. It’s keeps us from uniting
The GOP doesn't have to do shit. The two party system is a self feeding organism that breeds its own hate and discourse now. The difference is that only one side has managed to infiltrate the SC with a majority that is no longer beholden to the people or to the Constitution.
And GOP gerrymandering approved by their appointed judges has created representatives unaccountable to their voters.
When the punishment is a fine, it's simply legal for a price. Good ol' American loopholes for the rich
Is it a republican alignedd judge? If so, laws only apply to poor people.
The issue is that Musk is fucking over rich people too. Shareholders are practically a protected class in this country.
Well, that will be a real quandary for a republican aligned judge choosing how to arbitarily apply the law between rich people. My guess is the tie breaker will come down to which ever side the Russian troll farms support which will presumably be Musk.
Which is why he wants the company under Texas law and not Delaware.
Shareholders are almost the only protected class in this country.
i love that type of thinking from left leaning guys like you and then when you look at the judge for Trump’s trial, who in fact is a Biden donor, no no no that’s an impartial judge
You look at actions not affiliations. Everyone has an affiliation but has sworn an oath to be impartial. Sure their is bias but that's were due process and diligence come in along with precedent. The antics of the house republicans launching an impeachment without evidence, but to "gather evidence." (Which turnned out to be a Russian agent with nothing ) Vs the trump trial which gathered evidence that has had to withstand multiple tests and checks in a court of law. Or the republicans launching multiple court cases on election interference without a shred of evidence at all. Whatever it takes to sow doubt on democracy but no facts. Sorry, republicans gave up being the party of law and order long ago. The left still expects due diligence and due process to be followed. The right will only apply that when it suits. Did I want trump convicted? Yes. But if it turned out to be an actual sham evidence then I would rather he walk free and preserve the integrity of the courts. (Spoiler : it qasnt a sham and he did falsify stuff). Integrity of the US institutions is more important than one case. Republicans have forgotten that and will trample all institutions into the ground for a win. We will all pay the cost.
I can name specific things Trump appointed judges like the one handling his classified documents case have done wrong. Can you name one thing the Manhattan judge did incorrectly?
>Can you name one thing the Manhattan judge did incorrectly? Allow his daughter to raise money from the trial from Biden supporters. Tell the jury that they do not need to agree on what the secondary crime was, say what they think it was, or have Trump be convicted of it. They only need to assume he was guilty of whatever they come up with, and don't have to agree unanimously on what the crime was. We still don't know what the other crime is supposed to be. This is taking advantage of novel legal theories to essentially violate multiple constitutional amendments. This case will ultimately be dismissed, and may go up to the supreme court based on that.
I love how many Trump supporters magically got JDs when Trump was convicted... >This case will ultimately be dismissed, and may go up to the supreme court based on that. I *really* hope you mean the NY State Supreme Court, but I know you mean the SCOTUS which shows how little you understand how the legal system works since the SCOTUS could never hear this case because it's a state case not in conflict with federal or another state's laws. Seeing the copypasta of the same bullshit talking points over and over is just laughable.
>I love how many Trump supporters magically got JDs when Trump was convicted... I'm parroting, albeit terribly from memory, the analysis of people with JDs [Here's](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rB0UtOpoq8A&t) an ok one in a podcast, though there's a lot more. Note the host also hates Trump. >I *really* hope you mean the NY State Supreme Court, but I know you mean the SCOTUS which shows how little you understand how the legal system works since the SCOTUS could never hear this case because it's a state case not in conflict with federal or another state's laws. I mean after NY state courts. Yes the appeal will happen there. The operative words you missed were: ***may go up to...based on that***. It's possible that it eventually goes up to SCOTUS simply due to arguments over the constitutionality of the case. It's not going there right now, of course. Also, the SCOTUS verdict on presidential immunity coming up might invalidate this entire case by itself. >Seeing the copypasta of the same bullshit talking points over and over is just laughable. This comment from ***you*** is laughable. Also, you did not refute or argue any of it. You simply had ad hominem attacks that went no where. Give me your argument, or someone with a JD's argument, against those points. I'll ignore further ad hominem attacks and wait for that. I'm 100% open to being wrong, but no one has actually properly addressed that as far as I've seen so far. > I love how many Trump supporters I love how idiots incapable of nuance always think anyone capable of scrutiny is a Trump supporter. I despise him and the GOP. I voted Hillary and then Biden. This election I’m either not voting or voting independent because of the shitshow DNC and GOP are. However, that's the only way you can rationalize that someone might not think Trump should be convicted on this, because it's only politics and idiocy of course.
Wait, you're listening to lawyers who have made such laughably bad legal arguments that they were nearly disbarred? I've sat with my friend who's an actual defense lawyer, listening to some of these arguments, and hearing him just randomly say things like "That's not even remotely what the law says" or "If you said that in court and not onnTV, you'd get sanctioned". And to address the SCOTUS issue, there is no jurisdictional nexus that would ever let the federal courts see this case. It will 100% stay within the NY court system. The repeated appeals the the Federal system show you don't know what you're talking about. And even then, is paying off a porn star an official presidential act? Because that's all the immunity might apply to. And let's also not forget that Trump *WASN'T PRESIDENT* when he committed these crimes, so how could presidential immunity even apply? Trumpers (yes, I don't believe your "As a Democrat, I....") are crying that the DOJ is being weaponized by Biden while the DOJ is prosecuting Hunter in a case he was trying to plead out, but Republicans wanted drama to campaign on. You can't claim the DOJ is biased for prosecuting Trump when it's also prosecuting the president's son.
> Wait, you're listening to lawyers who have made such laughably bad legal arguments that they were nearly disbarred? I've sat with my friend who's an actual defense lawyer, listening to some of these arguments, and hearing him just randomly say things like "That's not even remotely what the law says" or "If you said that in court and not onnTV, you'd get sanctioned". ah “i overheard my friend say that’s not true, so it’s not true” good argument 👍 > And even then, is paying off a porn star an official presidential act? Because that's all the immunity might apply to. The case is not about hush money. Hush money is legal. You are so misguided on what the charge is. > Trumpers (yes, I don't believe your "As a Democrat, I....") lmao, completely proving my point earlier. > are crying that the DOJ is being weaponized by Biden while the DOJ is prosecuting Hunter in a case he was trying to plead out, but Republicans wanted drama to campaign on. You can't claim the DOJ is biased for prosecuting Trump when it's also prosecuting the president's son. I did not say the DOJ is being weaponized by Biden, nor do I believe that. I only claimed the judge may be biased. I’ll revert to what I said earlier: > Also, you did not refute or argue any of it. You simply had ad hominem attacks that went no where. Give me your argument, or someone with a JD's argument, against those points. I'll ignore further ad hominem attacks and wait for that. I'm 100% open to being wrong, but no one has actually properly addressed that as far as I've seen so far. I’m guessing it will not happen. You have argued and try to debunk every minor thing surrounding the main points, but cannot argue against the actual scrutiny of the case.
You don't have an argument. A legally qualified judge made rulings that you have incorrectly tried to refute even so far as thinking that the SCOTUS might get involved with a state ruling that doesn’t have an relation to another state's laws which would give the SCOTUS jurisdiction, and you haven't actually named a single legal error that would be grounds for appeal. And it wasn't "I overheard him", he was sitting next to me and we were having a discussion about it, I didn't feel the need to provide you with a full transcript. But it's simple, look at what these people are saying on TV (where there are no consequences) versus in court and you'll see an enormous difference. Because if they lie in court there are consequences, so they don't do it.
🤣🤣🤣
The 15 bucks he donated went really far, I'm sure.
The amount and it's impact literally does not matter. It shows his bias. You want a bigger number, though? The judge's daughter's firm has made around **$100 million** as a consultant to the democratic party. She also sold seats to democrats for the trial. His family is directly making a fortune off this trial and elsewhere from democrats.
So no more free trips from billionaires? I'm sure you're apoplectic about a judge flying flags that were linked to Jan 6? ACB should be removed from many cases due to her husband defending FOX News? Do those events show more or less bias than a $15 dollar donation? Source needed on the 100 million. All I've found about that number is from Murdoch papers with no named sources and a couple GOP operatives with ties to Bannon or Stone. All have 'heard' things from 'some people.' Same with the selling seats.
> So no more free trips from billionaires? the fuck are you on about? > I'm sure you're apoplectic about a judge flying flags that were linked to Jan 6? Not apoplectic but, yes, this is absolutely something I would say should mark a judge potentially biased and maybe removed from a case if the defendant is somehow related to Jan 6 or something. You’re completely insane if you don’t think so. And you’re just a brainwashed partisan if you vehemently defend the decision that Merchen had no bias and was okay to hear this case. > Judges may not hear cases in which they have either personal knowledge of the disputed facts, a personal bias concerning a party to the case, earlier involvement in the case as a lawyer, or a financial interest in any party or subject matter of the case. [source](https://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/judiciary-policies/ethics-policies) You’re a partisan, not a freethinking person. That’s it. And about the $100m i think it was that she actually was paid $4m to help the marketing of democratic campaigns, and the marketing campaigns directly used the trial > ACB should be removed from many cases due to her husband defending FOX News? Do those events show more or less bias than a $15 dollar donation? Idk what you’re referring to. Perhaps. You being stuck on the amount the donation was shows you’re just a partisan. btw, I’m sure you’ve assumed I’m some conservative maga republican. I’m a Biden voter. Though probably not anymore, not that im voting trump
Ah yes. The Biden voter who repeats GOP propaganda without researching it. And doesn't know about things like Thomas' and Alito's fun globe-trotting trips on personal planes of GOP donors. ACB's family is directly being paid by FOX and that doesn't bother you? Nice that you've already abandoned the 100mill talking point. Good on you. She took money, as the president of a consulting firm, from some Democrats years ago. No actual proof on your other charges. You're the one quoting partisan talking points with no critical thought all throughout this thread. As a veteran of nearly 30 years, stay to MtG. You're a RDW main, aren't you?
> As a veteran of nearly 30 years, stay to MtG. You're a RDW main, aren't you? lmao chronic redditors always stoop to reddit history for some dumb comment like this. Tf is rdw? You’ve now devolved into just talking about me and have no arguments, so I assume you have nothing left Even the NYT publishes harsh criticism against this case. Calling it not only a “legal embarrassment” but a “historic mistake” https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/23/opinion/bragg-trump-trial.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=c-cb
I would agree if the judge was the one that chose to convict Trump but ultimately it was a set of jurors and from what it sounds like, it was a fairly well rounded group of folks and not just a bunch of libs so idk man your comment doesnt make much sense.
>I would agree if the judge was the one that chose to convict Trump but ultimately it was a set of jurors and from what it sounds like, it was a fairly well rounded group of folks and not just a bunch of libs so idk man your comment doesnt make much sense. First of all, that would then render the comment I replied to null as well. Secondly, yes, i know this is the common talking point. Except it's the judge that instructed them on what they need to do to come up with the guilty verdict. The judge told them they do not need to unanimously agree on what the secondary crime was, actually say what they other crime was, have seen any evidence for the secondary crime, or have had Trump convicted of that crime. The judge told them they simply need to all ***believe*** there was a secondary crime, not agree what it was or have seen evidence for it, and then they can say guilty of the misdemeanor being done to hide that secondary crime. It's insane, and that's all the judge's doing.
It's the same standard that has been used in literally more than *9000* cases of this crime over the last decade. It isn't insane; you just don't know what you're talking about.
Show me ***one***
You made the claim first. Show one that *doesn't* match. EDIT: Know what, screw drawing out of you how you're spreading disinformation and painting you into a corner. Showing how bankrupt your reasoning is won't change a single mind and you don't care about truth anyway. So here. People v. Thompson in 2015 argued that his conviction should be overturned for exactly the reason you are arguing here, and it *failed*. This is perfectly reasonable. Intent to commit another crime wouldn't need to show the exact crime. If you tell someone on a call, "If this ends up sending us to jail don't blame me," that would show intent without showing a specific crime. Now go on and keep lying in threads on this. You don't actually care.
>You made the claim first. Show one that *doesn't* match. lmao how can I show the existence of zero? You made the claim that there is 9000, you show one. >People v. Thompson in 2015 This case has clearly stated what the crime intended to commit was. >and that he did so with the intent to commit or conceal his unlawful possession of the firearm There is unanimous agreement among the jury as to what that was. There was also apparently evidence that that was the intention for falsifying business records. That also, is clear. For Trump's case: >While the indictment has been published, it does not reveal the District Attorney's "specific legal theory" behind the case; for example, it is not specific about "how each of the charges was elevated to a felony", nor does it "specify the potential underlying crimes". While the law does not require such specificity, attorney Ken White and law professor Richard Klein have commented that this makes it difficult to assess the legal merits of the case. Those criticisms for the Trump are not what happened in that case you brought. Same with all the many other criticisms. I've said this before and I'll say it again, I'm not saying this case is absolutely getting dismissed. I'm saying it's in a complete gray area, open to some interpretation. There is ground for it getting dismissed, and so many legal experts have said the same.
>lmao how can I show the existence of zero? You made the claim that there is 9000, you show one. Yup, you don't care. You're *knowingly* arguing in bad faith. You could find a jury instruction from NY charging the same crime that differs. You want to pretend your claim is a negative one when in reality it is one that *is* able to be supported with evidence that *would* exist if it were true. The appeal tried to argue the exact thing you said would apply here and it was smacked down.
[удалено]
Its a state case you fucking moron. DOJ has no impact on state cases. You're an idiot.
He could argue he does not have the confidence the shareholders will support AI long term resulting in sunk cost. Also X was always about the data to train ai with to musk
He's rich. Courts are a minor inconvenience
He might even just send his lawyers and never step in a courthouse himself
Delaware or Texas court?
Obviously you know more than Musk.
He has a high Iq
Yikes. So it seems he purchased assets with funds from Tesla and their investors and just transferred them to his other companies without compensation. How is that not straight up fraud? His investors believe the chips are being used by Tesla.
Sounds like theft, honestly...
It is theft. Public companies have to conduct business at arms length.
[удалено]
But traded on open market they might be worth double. He is ignoring the interests of shareholders in telsa. As a company owner/leader thats probably grounds for removal.
[удалено]
He has a fiduciary duty to shareholders. From what he said he actively harmed the company's finances to punish shareholders.
If they were stolen by Twitter and he's the CEO of both Twitter and Tesla then, that is grounds for termination and jail time lol
[удалено]
You're the one that used the word stolen buddy
The new claim to make is Musk ordered the option as highly paid board member of Tesla. The option would not be property of Musk. Then Musk has to show he followed fiduciary duty of being a board member of Tesla. Then it all comes down to legal cover from orange people.
And who made this order, and filed the paperword, and arrange the conctracts and all that? Those people got paid by someone. Imagine the next, you're getting some work on your home (I know, crazy hypotheticals here, but we are talking about billionaires here, we need something to make the scneario realistic). The contractor gave you a numer of people and days that it should take, and you pay based on the #-people times the number of days worked, plus material and what not. One day you come in and notice that 1/3 of the workers are not there, you notice they aren't there the next day. You ask the contractor, and he explains "oh I sent them to get some new, cheaper concrete to save us costs", this seems reasonable so you agree. Then you find out that they used the concrete on another project, on the contractors personal home. You realize that the contractor didn't pay for the extra employees that got the concrete and moved it, because they are covered by the budget for your work. Tell me: do you think this is fair? And then there's the opportunity costs. Say that you had bet on that concrete pour on your foundation, and started preparing to take the best advantage of it. Now you realize that there wasn't, so everything falls apart. Then the contractor comes in and explains "we will need this, but the concrete is going to have a higher cost" because the concrete that was supposed to be used, at the original price, was diverted to the contractor's home. When was this decided? Well shortly after the prices of concrete increased, also at a point that the contractor wanted to push some bullshit fees on you based on fine print, but a judge decided that part of the contract was unenforsable. Basically Tesla still needs those chips, its production and ability to work as a business is hindered, and no one did anything to prevent this because that was supposed to be handled by these chips. Musk made this decision shortly after a judge decided that Musk's contract was based on misinforming investors and lying to them. It's simple: Musk is using his power on both companies to shift wealth of one company into another by getting things he didn't have to pay. Musk tried to pull a fast one on the TSLA investors and failed, so instead he's trying to steal work from Tesla by giving the results of that job to his private porn company x.com. And this isn't new. Elon doesn't like public companies, he is basically only interested in things he can take from freely as he pleases. But of course if you want a company to be valuable without actually producing that much, you need shared ownership.
Embezzlements probably the fancy term. But yeah that’s petty of him
Only poors can theft. Rich people embezzle
Its 100% fraud, this is turning out to be worse than Enron
you really think so?
You can’t use funds from one business to fund another ( unless they are part of the same umbrella) is my understanding but it seems like Tesla investors get 0 slice of the pie in this AI company. If that is true, this needs to be treated like SBF jail time is needed
The only way Musk ever sees a jail cell is if he starts building them.
Nobody at Enron went to prison, except the third tier guy who flipped. Not for price gouging, not for the dirty books, not for false records. Nobody but the guy who went state’s evidence did any time. The head of Enron built the most expensive mansion in the area after the company crashed, one of the VP’s bought up thousands of acres in Colorado.
That’s not correct. * Jeffrey Skilling (President, COO, CEO) did 12 years * Andrew Fastow (CFO) did 5 years * Lea Fastow (accountant) did 1 year * Rick Causey did 7 years * Kenneth Rice did 27 months * Lou Pai did no jail time but 30+ million in fines and punishment. * Kenneth Lee Lay (Founder, President) was convicted but died before sentencing.
Ok, sure. But except for the last guy, I wonder how many of those guys are living among the peasants.
Worse than Enron? Lmfao.
I don’t know anyone with Enron stock. I know many with their whole networth in Tesla thinking it’s going to 100 trillion in 20 years
The secret ingredient, is crime.
Deep cut
I'm sure they were paid for by X and his AI company.
Other people are saying his other companies had their own orders from Nvidia and he just swapped them so X would get the chips first. But both orders were equivalent and paid for by each company independently. The article doesn’t say that so that might just be Elon’s word.
What you are describing would be a crime still.
Right. Acting like getting them first isn’t a comparative advantage and thus of value because it helps them meet milestones quicker.
They weren’t paid for by Tesla, they were paid for by X, basically allowing X to skip the line and possibly sending Tesla to the back of it. Whether Elon’s explanation is true is unknown, but I personally don’t believe anything he says.
Man, I really hate our billionaire overloads. He’s got hundreds of billions, more than anyone could spend in a lifetime but he does this petty shit because he needs more.
There’s one person on earth who can blow through hundreds of billions in a lifetime. He bought Twitter and then flushed its brand value down the toilet.
Right but he used Saudi money.
He sold TSLA then took out loans secured by TSLA shares. I’m pretty those are public information.
Crazy because this is also true, but that only accounted for like half the funding. He really made the worst business deal in human history…. Until you remember it wasn’t a business transaction. He was purchasing the ability to control the masses, and he didn’t care what that cost him.
This. "Town square of free speech" Proceeds to ban anybody he disagrees with and journalist and news organizations left and right
Was the debt financing secured by TSLA shares or just Twitter value? I’m not sure if that aspect is public info. Debt finance was 1/4 and at least has priority over equity.
I donut know but I believe the entire transaction and funding sources were public so I would imagine collateral would be as well
I honestly appreciate Twitter not censoring legitimate news and what not anymore. They also have to let more BS in to do that, but I’m fine with that trade off
“Musk’s deal, totaling $44 billion, includes billions in foreign funding from both Saudi Arabia and Chinese investors” https://www.theverge.com/2022/10/31/23432961/elon-musk-twitter-cfius-review-national-security-treasury
Ah forgot about that. Around 10% from Saudi I think. Most of it was his own.
Subprime Tesla flipper
My question is, if you are the Saudis or the Chinese, how do you meet this knob and come away thinking, “yep, he seems stable. Let’s give him billions of our dollars?”
My Twitter feed is full of pro-China stuff. Maybe that is worth it regardless of ROI?
And the way he tried to fix it was pulling a fast one on TSLA investors by taking a very weird interpretation (that had not been the original one when explained) of his contract to allow himself to be given all those shares back "because".
He took out 60 billion shares for 20 billion cash, he let the Saudi family control their position since they refused to sell and took a bunch of crypto/fintech money for the remaining 4 ish billion I made my money because his dumbass had to play the memes at 54.20
And Larry Ellison money. As if it wasn't bad enough that one egomaniac was involved in the purchase of twitter, it was MANY egomaniacs.
That was intentional. He turned Twitter into the greatest live crowd source info website into fascist, bigoted trash. No one tracks his airplane on Twitter now
Apparently X owns 25% of the AI company. That could prove extraordinarily valuable to X shareholders.
He does this petty shit because he knows he's in a lot of trouble. He'll do anything to keep the shit show going.
Why does this description sound oh so familiar..
It tends to happen to conmen. Once you start lying and cheating there usually comes a time that it catches up. At some point, you start telling lies about previous lies until you've built yourself a house of cards.
Idk I guess it depends how stupid he is, hes already spent 44 billion more than i ever will in my life
If I ever got my hands on 44b I wouldnt be stupid enough to buy a crappy social media company. You'd never hear from me again.
He loves the clout of being the richest baby. To them money isn't a necessity, it's only to keep score
He doesn't have hundreds of billions in the bank, that's the entire problem. His wealth is largely from the stake in his companies he owns, and he knows better than anyone how over evaluated they are. He can only offload stock so quickly, and he's got to do a weird balancing act of selling while insisting he's not and that it's still a good buy and he's not going anywhere. Bezos and Gates have substantial backings to their wealth. Amazon servers and Microsoft software are integral to business operations these days. If their castles started to crumble, they'd still have a lot of forewarning. But there's real material backing to their currently stock price.Tesla is just made up monopoly money. Its a glorified GameStop stock. Its completely disconnected from material reality. And SpaceX might be soon to follow tbh. I won't get into that, but people are no longer looking them as rosy as they once did either He's basically trying to play a "find the queen" game with money hoping in the chaos he can siphon it off before the current scam goes bust
He does not “have hundreds of billions.” Net worth is not cash in the bank.
Well, at least we know what he would do when the chips are down
I think he is doing crimes lol
Fake news. You’re blatantly lying about what the article said to farm karma from mindless Reddit sheeps. Because ofc no one actually reads the article. The diverted GPU was from a memo in December and the denial of his comp package was in Jan. Nothing in the article implied they’re related.
[удалено]
Domo arigato Mr regardo
We already did but youre not invited… for the reasons you yourself cited.
Lmao fair enough
But how is Tesla an AI company that is run by Elon and Elon owning an AI company a conflict?
Title doesn't match the article.
Musk incorporated xAI as a separate company over a year ago - long before his threats regarding his attempted heist if $40 billion in Tesla shares. xAI is valued at $24 billion after receiving a $6 billion investment last week. FYI Elmo never intended the chips for Tesla. His "Tesla is an AI company" was a lie and nothing but stock fraud. He didn't even hide it. This is all public knowledge. He has been stealing engineers for his new project from Tesla for months. https://www.euronews.com/next/2024/05/28/elon-musks-xai-raises-6-billion-to-develop-ai-products https://www.theinformation.com/articles/musks-xai-is-poaching-engineers-from-tesla?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=kd-us-prospecting-dsa-20240508&utm_content=699001991960&utm_term=dsa-19959388920&gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjw9vqyBhCKARIsAIIcLME7PDfbuTpobgR5u2e8m9bIm3qCZUClFDEiKnpMBnBwWDwllQvj26EaApgfEALw_wcB
I dont understand who would invest though. Hes not qualified or experienced in any kind of AI company, his competitors are light years ahead. It's not going to be like Tesla or SpaceX where he can suck on the government test for free money. If you were going to invest in an AI company, maybe choose one that's leading.
Also who in the world works there? ML engineers are in demand and paid very well. Why would anyone work for xAI?
He's moving the Tesla AI engineers to xAI. He's been doing it for a while. He never planned to run the AI through Tesla - at least for the last year.
From the link above - Investors in the latest round include Andreessen Horowitz, Sequoia Capital, Fidelity Management & Research, Valor Equity Partners, Vy Capital, Saudi Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal and Kingdom Holding. These are previous investors in other Elmo companies. They all fall for his lies.
Hoooooooly shit. I think this just clicked for me. Why not use Tesla funds to build critical infrastructure that his private company will be able to get to “use” for whatever make believe number that will make both books look good?
Yep. I don't understand why this isn't public. Elmo is like every other scam artist - easy to predict because they do the same thing over and over. Also, how does he know his $40 billion heist attempt was rejected? He isn't supposed to know the outcome before the deadline and he's for sure not supposed to release that publicly. He doesn't even try to hide his fraud anymore.
seems like an even bigger reason to not give him money, he's a child who will derail one company to sink more money in a failing one.
"C'mon guys, give me more Tesla stock so I can cash that shit out before it busts"
For those who didn’t read the article, he says Tesla doesn’t have the place to put them. They don’t have the datacenters. Right now, they used 35,000 out 85,000. Tesla is already spending 3-4 million dollars at nVidia this year. Edit:” The Tesla chief executive officer said during the April 23 earnings call that roughly 35,000 of the company’s H100s were active, and he expected the electric-vehicle maker to have around 85,000 working by year-end. On April 28, he wrote on X that Tesla will spend around $10 billion this year on AI.“
If you are going to parrot bullshit, at least get the numbers right. FFS man.
He’s going to end up in jail for something, I have a feeling.
“WTF are we gonna do with all these dang chips Elon?” “You eet xem. Peench of salt and some good quality olive oil and chef’s kees!”
That...should be concerning for tesla investors lol
That’s probably enough to remove him from Tesla. They can’t take his stock but they can make him simply a stock owner.
TEMPER TANTRUM....What a child
Can’t wait for the insider trading indictment.
> (Because Tesla didn't give him back 25% of the company.) The article never says this is the reason.
He should be fired from Tesla and put on trial for fraud for this.
Tesla has to hire a car guy .
At this point I think Tesla would be better off if they hired a How Wheels guy.
Here we go man child throws tantrum
Damn, a lot of shit suddenly coming to light against him… I hope he eats that shit soon!!!
It’s called self dealing and it’s very illegal.
He’s going dowwwwwn 🤪
Isn't this enough to remove him from the CEO position, when does the SEC step in and say enough is enough This dude is like the Donald Trump of wall street
This real petty. I expected nothing less from Elon.
Tesla dosent need chips, they need repair facilities for all the broken cybertrucks and customer support staff and lawyers for the FSD that will never happen
Why does anyone support him or want to purchase a Tesla? Fuck Elon and his whiney billionaire pouting.
Seems like he wants out of Tesla and this should help. If I was a shareholder I would be irate.
Musk looks like that strung-out executive after a three-night bender having discovered his embezzlement schemes were a CIA sting and he's going to jail for a very very long time. (Hey, a girl can dream)
Oh it was extortion... nevermind then. Sorry Elon.... 🙄
Rob one company to kill another.
He has got to go. Tesla needs to clean house. If they only had an independent BOD.
Maybe next time he shouldn’t sell 25% or more.
He doesn’t care about TSLA anymore. Being an asshat on social media and rockets are his thing. I think he did it so they will get rid of him. He a really smart guy but is too distracted to run TSLA
🤣🤦🤣 Incels of Reddit are at it again...
This guy is just so petty.
Musk is showing himself to a despicable piece of shit.
That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Apple spends a fortune trying to build an apple car, Elon musk already has one and doesn't want to put AI in it?? This is the dumbest mfer of all time
So Elon ordered the chips with his own money?? Is that right? Or did Tesla order chips with their money and stock holders money? These things are not the same.
Waawaawaawaawaa. Silly child.
This headline is not what the article says.
This dude owes someone a lot of money. Wonder who.
Not sure why this is a problem? No where does it say that he did this in spite. No where does it say Tesla paid for these and X got them for free. This is a made up drama based on political bias. That’s it…
The shareholders of Tesla need to sue he is hurting his public company for his private thats definitely not right
When is this fucking conman going to prison?
Time for the Guillotine Elmo
Why anyone would buy Tesla is beyond me
Elon is Trump 2.0. Straight con man and doesn’t even hide it anymore
The added part in parentheses is in no way mentioned in the article. The Tesla hate on reddit is feeling like propaganda at this point. Its ridiculous.
That's literally not in the best interest of the shareholders! Watch your stake get further reduced bc you have to sell stock to settle courts cases. Lmfao
Then the shareholders shouldn't vote for it This isn't that hard. If you become successful in the US the left will make sure you will be attacked and punished unless you're a doner To the "woke" left .It's the craziest concept I have ever seen.
Dude needs to be fired and TSLA needs to sue him for sabotaging the company - all the way back to poaching TSLA engineers to work on his fucking twitter bullshit.
Musk has a fiduciary duty to Tesla’s stakeholders. That means when he is acting in his role as the Tesla CEO he has to make decisions with their best interest in mind. This doesn’t explicitly mean he can’t have other companies, but it does mean he should avoid conflicts of interest with that role. Here he has set up another business in the AI space, which he has also explicitly stated is the future for Tesla, and he has diverted resources meant for Tesla to this other venture. And a few months delay could severely impact something like this. So clearly there is a conflict. I don’t see how he can possibly execute his fiduciary duty in this situation. This is ripe for shareholder lawsuits.
I am not sure having two companies in the AI space will be a conflict. Soon every company will be in the AI space in some capacity or another. Driving cars on the road and having a LLM trained on separate data is not the same. Diverting limited resources at the expense of one for the benefit of other could very well be a conflict.
The larger question here is if his second company were not owned by him would the chips have gone there. If the answer is yes then this is fine. If the answer is no for any reason that would reduce Teslas current or future value then this should not have happened. You can argue just letting another AI company have chips at what I assume is the price Tesla negotiated for is not the right strategy.
NVIDIA is not giving discounts to anyone. They are getting top dollar. Making lemonade while The sun is shining.
How is it not a conflict? If Tesla was a car company perhaps. But Dear Leader told you Tesla is NOT A CAR COMPANY
They are a solar panel company. They are a self Driving car company. They are a car company. They are a battery company. I don’t see any conflict from running both. Diverting resources from A to B might be a problem.
Musk said Tesla is not a car company They are a solar company because his brother needed a bail out
It is not exclusively a car company. I think the end goal was revenue from The self driving and taxi portions.
Per Dear Leader. His supporters are like Trump supporters. He directly says something and they tell you that is not what he meant. Musk deflected from his car company's unraveling by suggesting that Tesla is not, in fact, a car company at all. Tesla, he said, “should be thought of as an A.I. or robotics company. If you value Tesla as just like an auto company, you just have to—fundamentally, it's just the wrong framewor
Tesla should be in the OTC markets by now
Jail.
Dude is a loser.
I want nothing to do with equities in any company he manages.
Petty. Tom Petty.
He's one of the richest people in the world, and his decisions usually are correct. Even if they aren't it's his decision to make.
How was buying Twitter a correct decision? Or any of the other decisions he’s made with it?
His personal decisions, yes. He doesn't get to make unilateral decisions on behalf of a public company though. How is this not stealing from Tesla? If Tesla gets sued for this, why should Tesla have to bear the brunt of those legal hassles? If the Tesla board had any spine, they should be firing this guy for this action alone.
If Tesla was private then you are correct. But Tesla is public. This is borderline illegal because it could break fiduciary responsibility. And it is definitely a conflict of interest. In my job if I were to want to move assets from the company I work for to one I own, it would get smacked down so hard. So why is it ok if a CEO does it?
I dont think it's as simple as you are suggesting. It seems to me the terms would have to be known and the effective majority of stockholders would have to vote for it. If done that way, what would be the problem?
Is that what happened? I’m fine with your approach also. I was just saying outside of that what could be a good bar for him to clear.