I also believe Musk paid $0 for Twitter, refer to EO 13818 "Trump’s Executive Order 13818 Seizes Assets of ANYONE Involved in Human Rights Abuse or Corruption" https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/DCPD-201700923
Twitter was allegedly involved in private accounts and trafficking. Human rights abuse or corruption assets are allowed to be seized, this would include stocks, businesses, properties, arts, artefacts etc.
To think about, not me telling anyone that is what happened or is happening now but it stands to reason that assets are seized if found guilty, which would suggest that trials for some of the higher ups have already happened.
Largest contractor for military, known entity, has money, has a large voice. As I say its connecting dots that make logical sense rather than verified truth.
Because it's not them doing the selling.
I also believe Musk paid $0 for Twitter, refer to EO 13818 "Trump’s Executive Order 13818 Seizes Assets of ANYONE Involved in Human Rights Abuse or Corruption" https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/DCPD-201700923
Twitter was allegedly involved in private accounts and trafficking. Human rights abuse or corruption assets are allowed to be seized, this would include stocks, businesses, properties, arts, artefacts etc.
To think about, not me telling anyone that is what happened or is happening now but it stands to reason that assets are seized if found guilty, which would suggest that trials for some of the higher ups have already happened.
So Twitter was just given to Musk, free of charge?
Why Musk, then? Why not you or me or my friend Fred down the street?
Largest contractor for military, known entity, has money, has a large voice. As I say its connecting dots that make logical sense rather than verified truth.
What does having large military contracts have to do with running Twitter?
So those with the most money and influence should run Twitter?
None of that makes any logical sense to me.