My read: Baker just got caught in a sting operation with two witnesses. NSA was all over this.
(media.greatawakening.win)
Comments (40)
sorted by:
I don't know how its even possible to keep Baker around. There is 0% chance Elon was unaware of who Baker is and wtf that dude has done. In spite of his assertions to the contrary today.
However, how is this a "sting operation" when it is not a criminal act to run interference on a voluntary disclosure? A workplace termination type of offense, yes. But what crime is committed here? I can't think of any.
Agreed. This is not criminal; however, Baker violated the attorney/client privilege . Musk is the client. Baker acted without his client’s consent. Also, Musk has the power to waive the A/C privilege for anything related to Twitter. I think there is more to come. Bigger booms inbound!
I hadn’t considered it from the attorney-client privilege angle. But Baker’s client is Twitter, not musk. Which is an important distinction. And he probably has always had autonomy to act where he sees fit. Also, that is more a fiduciary duty than privilege. So unless he has been given specific instructions and has defied them, I am not sure that this is the issue.
Additionally, I think Musk bought twitter’s assets, and formed a new corporation to put them in. Which means Musk might own this info, but any privilege belongs to the old twitter. This would make a good law school final exam in professional responsibility class. Would probably stump the prof.
Musk owns Twitter.
I am aware he owns it. But baker is employed by twitter. Twitter consists of more people than just Elon. Baker is general counsel to twitter the fictitious corporate entity. Not the owner of the fictitious corporate entity.
Privilege in attorney-client privilege belongs to the client, not the lawyer. It also applies to communications involving legal advice. Nothing more. In a civil context, for example, if you represent a person who was at fault in a car accident, and that person tells you a fact that he/she was indeed on their cell phone during the accident…that is not protected by attorney client privilege. If you are sent discovery asking if you were on your phone, it is unethical for the lawyer to allow the client to reply with a denial. You know as a lawyer this is false. And this admission is not protected by attorney client privilege.
That same scenario would change if the client asked the lawyer “what are the implications of me being on my phone at the time of the accident?” That communication is seeking legal advice and would be protected. Always remember that when you are talking to a lawyer, the only thing protected are communications seeking legal advice on a matter. Don’t tell your lawyer you were on the phone. Ask your lawyer what the implications would be. Good lawyers can read between the lines. And you can rest comfortably knowing you don’t have to rat yourself out and your lawyer doesn’t have to lie.
Part of that process however, is that you believe the person who gave you instructions, expressed or implied, has agency to do that. In a corporation, that means they are an officer and have the ability to bind the company into a contract. All that ends the instant you discover the person who gave you instructions no longer has agency to do so (or maybe never had agency to do so). No matter how you look at it, Baker had a responsibility to re-verify his situation and instructions with the new corporate officers once he became aware of the change in ownership. And the entire world was aware of the change of ownership of Twitter.
Obviously this would depend on the exact wording of the contract that Baker signed with the previous officers. But it is not as cut and dried as you imply.
He fired the board it's just elon
Just wish it was more organized but that's OK I have patience
How does one bring evidence into trial? I agree with you. The fact he hide stuff is showing panic, definitely part of the corruption.
If one sells a car to another and the one that sold it has a friend who steals the radio after it is sold.
Is that a crime? Is the information have value?
Lots of speculation. The fact is he got fired and hopefully down the road we see him spill the beans.
The note about 2 witnesses to the same overt act is a requirement for treason?
Destroying evidence in a potential criminal investigation.
I don' think this was an NSA thing. More of an internal company affair.
He was showing them what to look at. millions of documents and emails to search. Have the guy that knows what to hide show you where to look.
Oh yeah
Good take. „Look here!“
I’m curious about the wording elon used, he could have simply said “hes fired”
Hold up, I just had another brain fart: wasn’t Baker one of the guys that allegedly flipped in the whole Russia collusion hoax? Along with lisa page if I recall. Am I making this up out of thin air or was that totally a running theory?
i think he was
https://nypost.com/2022/12/03/twitter-files-reveal-james-baker-in-hunter-biden-laptop-scandal/
NSA? CMon man. Please. The entire government is corrupt. All of it. Half the Pentagon is stealing money let alone the Security State
NSA is military though and Q said that the military was the one area of government the Marxists hadn’t been able to fully infiltrate.
Half? Those are rookie numbers!
https://truthsocial.com/@PaulEglot/posts/109469003488152831
Speculation
lol
The same James Baker mentioned in Q drop 4153?
u/#q4153
My feeling is Twitter (right now) is a 100% military run operation. Musk didn't have 47+ Billion dollars to buy it, that money probably was given to him by the military out of the unprecedented 1.5 Trillion dollar budget Trump gave the military I think in 2018 and said something to the effect we might need this at a later date. Twitter was captured by the military.
NSA is doing nothing to save the nation. We’re years past the lame gathering evidence excuse.
If the public, including individuals in influential positions like Musk and project veritas expose enough then maybe something good will happen with enough public outcry, but the intelligence and military services are part of the cabal and totally ok with the elections being rigged.
oh what little we really know.
What you don't know you don't know must always be the prime.
We’ll see how things go once SCOTUS Case 22-380 hits. A lot will change quickly if it goes through.
If anyone has had some specific military experience and subsequently seen news coverage of said event the mismatch is obvious. What we’re told is all BS from both sides. Anonymous sources with inside information have brought only disappointment. They only want funding.