Has anyone seen any REAL legal evidence that Elon purchased Twitter? SEC filings, Twitter prospectus, etc?
🧐 Research Wanted 🤔
My thinking is, it's very likely that President Trump signed the Insurrection Act; all enemies of the state (Foreign & Domestic) that interfered with our election process had their assets frozen or seized. Since the military "captured" the propaganda machinery C|A, FB|, etc Elon, Dorcy, Zuckerberg (and probably some MSM anchors) had their strings cut and are now forced to work for the good guys. They are just following orders and acting like figureheads.
We are on the offensive and WINNING!
Apologies to u/sleepydude. I didn't know that you did a similar post, but so far I don't see any discussion or evidence that actual Twitter shares changed hands legally.
That's fine, you brought up a good point. If Twitter was seized well before Elon took over, what we are seeing now may just be proof that the thing was a Government Run Asset all along. No paper trail on government assets, right? Can't risk letting foreign armies know what we are working with.
Even if there was a front stock for Twitter on the market, it doesn't prove either way whether the back-end is owned by the gubment. You get ahold of the Twitter brand, but not the Twitter asset chain?
When you buy a company, you have to buy the Brand as well as the Assets. Trademark lawyers will be aware of this, usually.
What if they only let Elon buy the Brand while the rest has just moved from one government agency to another? White Hats seizing assets behind the scenes using Elon as a front man to hide the offload of illicit materials sounds like a good plan, up until they get things squared away and can show just how crooked the whole sordid mess was.
The brand is typically listed as an asset on the accounting statements. Although it can be sold separately, it doesn't need to be: a stock acquisition would mean all assets including the brand and all associated trademarks and IP.
Thanks for clarifying. All I know is that a good many companies have been scammed when they bought the assets of a company only to realize the seller sneakily didn't give them the trademark.
Sometime brand image is more important than the backend infrastructure. I guess what I'm pondering is if the opposite can be true as well? If the backend was government-owned, then I can see a case for this angle.
It's all possible; all kinds of corporate shell games. But if you buy all the stock, you buy everything they own. If they outsourced the trademark or anything else, the buyer --- if they didn't notice --- missed out.
Great thinking. With the obvious SEC corruption, Blackrock, Vanguard and State Street owning just about everything, the brand and assets can be packaged and hidden in dozens of Exchange-Traded Funds (ETF).
The Twitter shares we see on the ticker can be completely fabricated and backed by our own laundered tax dollars spread out all over the planet to make it look more grass roots IF anyone bothered to peel the onion and follow the money.
If stockholders didn't get paid,they would be complaining....
They got paid; likely with our laundered tax dollars.