Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Elon Musk SUBPOENAED Over Epstein Link?! Musk Calls This IDIOTIC" video.

  1. Because there is no reason on any level not to comply with the document request OR (better yet) challenge it in court via his lawyers. This wasn't personal.
    5
  2.  @DeanChavayez  In fact, the suit is against a bank he says he hates.
    3
  3. So have his lawyers challenge it.
    3
  4. ​​ @markislivingdeliberately  So like Brie said, his lawyers could challenge it it court. Or don't make it easy to serve him, fine. He can do that, too. The tweet was weird.
    2
  5. What conclusion do you mean?
    2
  6. How so? This wasn't personal until he made it personal. Have his lawyers challenge it in court, then tweet.
    2
  7. ​ @markislivingdeliberately  She said the opposite. She said to either comply with the subpoena or have his lawyers challenge it. It is not personal and he's making it high school girl gang personal.
    2
  8.  @DeanChavayez  So, being a billionaire, he can take a stand for privacy by sending in his lawyers to challenge the subpoena as overreach. No problem. I said that, as did Briahna. This tweet made no sense: if he hates Chase (who doesn't?), well, maybe he has evidence that will help hold them responsible in this case. The case is targetting Chase. Kim Iversen explained this well last night. But in any case, challenge the subpoena. No problem.
    2
  9.  @HughRGlen  That's not what "hit dog will holler" means; that was a reference to his tweet, which made little sense. If Musk hates Chase (and who doesn't?), then why wouldn't he agree to turn over documents that might reveal Chase acting unethically? On the other hand, if as a matter of principle he believes he should not be required to comply, he can send in his lawyers; he can afford a legal team. Or, he can do like that Google exec and hide from being served, I guess. Some reason you can't see through Musk?
    1
  10.  @HughRGlen  If Tesla stock had made me rich, I'd just say I like Elon because he made me rich. The Five Eyes style of boot-licking will never be my style.
    1
  11.  @markislivingdeliberately  Kim Iversen explained the logic of the subpoena very well on her show tonight. Which is funny, as she is not a lawyer.
    1
  12.  @HughRGlen  LOL, I just explained how she used it here. His tweet was the hollerin'. It doesn't mean obey the subpoena if you have nothing to hide. It also means challenge it where it counts -- in court, not the twitterverse. As for court, that's not hollerin'. He has every right to stand on principle.
    1
  13.  @HughRGlen  It means the lady protests too much.
    1
  14.  @HughRGlen  So that is not the same as obey the subpoena if you have nothing to hide. Brie is a lawyer and I honestly think she meant comply or challenge -- or even evade service if you can do so legally -- just don't tweet. If Musk hates Chase, he may still think the subpoena is shameless fishing, sure, but he should like the fact that Chase is not escaping scrutiny for once, assuming the action is legit.
    1
  15.  @HughRGlen  Well, there are a lot of times when I agree with her and think she should be a lot more careful in how she presents her point.
    1