My read: Baker just got caught in a sting operation with two witnesses. NSA was all over this.
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (40)
sorted by:
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