Musk actually buys Twitter.

shangrila

Well-known member
Well, perhaps I have misunderstood. In your earlier post, I took you saying:

in the context of the post you were replying to, was an argument that the lawyers did "deserve" to be screwed over, whilst I took the general phrasing and tone of your last post:

as suggesting you didn't approve of how hard "leftists" had "gone after" lawyers.

Since I'm confused though, for my own edification and clarity, what is your opinion on the validity of pushing for increased repercussions for lawyers who take on cases perceived as frivolous, politically motivated or vexatious?
Ah, the problem seems to be your chatbot level understanding of the relevant issues. The question of who the lawyers actually served as their client is an entirely legitimate question as to determine who ought to pay for their services. Lawyers that don't do their job for their actual clients don't get paid by said clients, suits regarding that are extremely common and normal, though like, say car crashes, the media typically wouldn't report on it unless they find it politically expedient.

Lawfare to harm lawyers that do actually do their jobs correctly for their actual clients because politics is an entirely separate issue. Which yes, the left regularly engages in, and retaliation in kind may be necessary to compel a truce. Other people have commented on that, I have not previously, and you confused the second with the first because of ignorance.
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
Well, perhaps I have misunderstood. In your earlier post, I took you saying:

in the context of the post you were replying to, was an argument that the lawyers did "deserve" to be screwed over, whilst I took the general phrasing and tone of your last post:

as suggesting you didn't approve of how hard "leftists" had "gone after" lawyers.

Since I'm confused though, for my own edification and clarity, what is your opinion on the validity of pushing for increased repercussions for lawyers who take on cases perceived as frivolous, politically motivated or vexatious?
Why should the Right accept lawfare against us, and then be expected to not turn around and fight back with it ourselves?

I mean, disregarding that the lawyers worked for individual members of the now ex-Twitter execs, and not the company itself, that means the ex-Twitter execs are the one's who should be paying these lawyers, not Musk.

This seems to have escaped you though, in your effort to poo-poo conservatives wanting to engage in lawfare of their own.
 

Megadeath

Well-known member
Ah, the problem seems to be your chatbot level understanding of the relevant issues. The question of who the lawyers actually served as their client is an entirely legitimate question as to determine who ought to pay for their services. Lawyers that don't do their job for their actual clients don't get paid by said clients, suits regarding that are extremely common and normal, though like, say car crashes, the media typically wouldn't report on it unless they find it politically expedient.

Lawfare to harm lawyers that do actually do their jobs correctly for their actual clients because politics is an entirely separate issue. Which yes, the left regularly engages in, and retaliation in kind may be necessary to compel a truce. Other people have commented on that, I have not previously, and you confused the second with the first because of ignorance.
Are you simply incapable of holding a conversation without insults? As to the actual substance, there is no question of who their clients were. They were retained by Twitter, Twitter were the ones who failed to pay, and it's Twitter they're suing. It's Twitter on all the paperwork. Now maybe you mean that they were acting at the bidding of Twitter senior management, rather than the company as a whole, but that is exactly how business works. It's literally the job of senior management to decide the goals and direction of the business. As for whether they did or didn't do the work they were hired for... Well, Musk dropped the case and refused to fight it on the grounds that he was unlikely to win. So, they achieved their objective. There really isn't any question about any of this. Which would be why I conflated your approval for that with other attempts at "Lawfare to harm lawyers that do actually do their jobs correctly for their actual clients" and don't see it as some entirely separate issue.

Why should the Right accept lawfare against us, and then be expected to not turn around and fight back with it ourselves?

I mean, disregarding that the lawyers worked for individual members of the now ex-Twitter execs, and not the company itself, that means the ex-Twitter execs are the one's who should be paying these lawyers, not Musk.

This seems to have escaped you though, in your effort to poo-poo conservatives wanting to engage in lawfare of their own.
Well... That's all just untrue. I never said anything about it being okay for one "side" and not the other. Certainly I didn't poo-poo conservatives wanting to engage in lawfare of their own." In fact, exactly the opposite. All I've said is that it should be considered acceptable for everyone, or unacceptable for everyone. The idea that it's bad when "the left" do it, but a grand old thing when the "right" does it, is simply blatant hypocrisy.

Also as said previously, the lawyers weren't retained by individuals. They were retained by Twitter, to do work for Twitter, Twitter failed to pay th, so they're suing Twitter.
 

shangrila

Well-known member
Are you simply incapable of holding a conversation without insults? As to the actual substance, there is no question of who their clients were. They were retained by Twitter, Twitter were the ones who failed to pay, and it's Twitter they're suing. It's Twitter on all the paperwork. Now maybe you mean that they were acting at the bidding of Twitter senior management, rather than the company as a whole, but that is exactly how business works. It's literally the job of senior management to decide the goals and direction of the business. As for whether they did or didn't do the work they were hired for... Well, Musk dropped the case and refused to fight it on the grounds that he was unlikely to win. So, they achieved their objective. There really isn't any question about any of this. Which would be why I conflated your approval for that with other attempts at "Lawfare to harm lawyers that do actually do their jobs correctly for their actual clients" and don't see it as some entirely separate issue.
Disputes happen all the time against senior management for not representing the interests of the corporation, attempting to reverse actions or pass on costs. Several against Elon Musk were hugely publicized by the media as a part of their hate train, so it's pretty hilarious for you to still fail to understand how things work. They go on, people calculate costs, claims get dropped or continued, completely as a matter of routine in the process of corporate management. Agency Law is literally an entire field, and a huge part of it is when the names on documents matter and when they don't. Which, you know, was my point in the first place, which might explain my insults towards your intelligence.

That does not make it lawfare as the Left practices it, like say pressuring Firms to fire attorneys representing the Wrong People by threatening other clients into stopping business, such as what happened to the attorneys who won the Bruen 2nd Amendment case.
 

Cherico

Well-known member

Agent23

Ни шагу назад!
Honestly he might have been better off just firing everyone and starting over from scratch.
Very hard considering ehdt a mess their architecture and code allegedly are and how they are still trying to clean up all the leftover problems, even with people that know the software and the system.

He should have thrown out anyone non-technical for certain, though.
 

PeaceMaker 03

Well-known member
There was also that other guy who recently tied himself to a tree and shot himself in the chest.


The Clinton presidential special advisor who signed in Epstein 7 times to meet Bill Clinton?

The guy who tied himself to an overhead tree branch then, shot himself in the chest with a shotgun, while tied to the tree, then disposed of the “suicide weapon” after he shot himself?

That is what is called a Clinton Arkansas Suicide.

Sounds like someone is trying up loose ends.
 

Agent23

Ни шагу назад!
In a prison cell.

If they were to arrest Musk on something, that's probably where they'd get him, too
Nah, too many deaths in prison from suicides are bound to get suspicious.

They'd make sure he dies in a plane crash or his Tesla's autopilot goes bweserk and smashes the car into something at 120+ km/h.
 

ATP

Well-known member
Nah, too many deaths in prison from suicides are bound to get suspicious.

They'd make sure he dies in a plane crash or his Tesla's autopilot goes bweserk and smashes the car into something at 120+ km/h.
Suspicious? so what? they think,that they could do anything now.Could they?
See in next issue ! ;)
 

DarthOne

☦️
Nah, too many deaths in prison from suicides are bound to get suspicious.

They'd make sure he dies in a plane crash or his Tesla's autopilot goes bweserk and smashes the car into something at 120+ km/h.
You assumes that matters when they’ve been doing this for a long time now and getting away with it too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATP

Users who are viewing this thread

Top