no shortage of outrage, what are they saying? to garrett s point, this guy, this whistle-blower is legend. we were calling out a lot of cybersecurity experts saying, what do you think of this guy, is there anything we can where can we look at this guy, we might say he s oversaying things? and people say if he s saying there s something there, there s something there. so twitter is in this position now where their chief of security, who is hired by jack dorsey, is calling all of this out. twitter is saying he s mischaracterizing it, he doesn t have the full story, that he is making kind of definitive statements. i would out the evidence. it is an uphill battle for them, i think. it sounds like it is the beginning of a lot more to come. donie, terrific reporting. thank you for breaking it here on new day this morning. garrett graff, christine romans, thank you as well. just revealed in court documents, a message from former
musk s motives were here? it seems like the effect of elon s musk to by twitter was to damage? it he certainly did that. there s not a lot of productive work going on inside twitter right now. all they are glued to the headlines of elon musk. the product hasn t been improving, and if he goes away, the share rates fall below the floor. we already know that. it s already a lot lower than what he promised to pay for. it is used as drastic distraction. the moment he put in the bid, the moment the star market started falling. that was all his wealth was, he changed his mind, he got cold feet, he wants to pull out, but it s not clear whether he has the legal ability to do that. i m [laughs] it just forced to buy a company for 44 billion dollars that you don t even want.
to damage? it he certainly did that. there s not a lot of productive work going on inside twitter right now. all they are glued to the headlines of elon musk. the product hasn t been improving, and if he goes away, the share rates fall below the floor. we already know that. it s already a lot lower than what he promised to pay for. it is used as drastic distraction. the moment he put in the bid, the moment the star market started falling. that was all his wealth was, he changed his mind, he got cold feet, he wants to pull out, but it s not clear whether he has the legal ability to do that. i m [laughs] it just forced to buy a company for 44 billion dollars that you don t even want. there are people rich enough works court can force you to by a company. elon musk is rich enough, he has that kind of money.
having this but we have to figure out how to navigate these very tough waters. but those republicans are saying is sort of crazy town. because is the answer crazy to crazy? absolutely not. we have a very different political rationale that republicans to. they can win elections because of how political systems structured. and they can do that by turning out their base. democrats have to convince people who are cynical about politics, who have not involved in it before, to turn out. we did that in 2018. we did that in 2020. we can t do it in a primary public and state. we have to have a hopeful inspirational, state, and it is a message of happy republicans. that is one thing, i think, is very clear at this point. this media environment, this you know, facebook, twitter, et cetera, focus on conflict. and so, we re gonna have to take it to republicans. i m not saying that democrats need to break the rules, or follow what republicans do. however, are they too careful. sometimes, it
he can go, and go, and go, when it comes to turning money at lawyers. it s not that where we want to do that, and perhaps, in the end, it s gonna be a game of chicken, particularly from a judge, steph. he put a loophole out of money on lawyers, but he has left money than he did, just a few weeks ago. when he put his bid in for the company, it was worth a lot more, twitter was worth a lot more. if it s all of this just a public, embarrassing game for him to negotiate a lower price? it seems like it probably is. i mean, there s really very little chance that this is, you know, based on some sort of grand philosophical purpose. and my experience with dealing with people who are in these kinds of companies to the tune of billions, with billions of dollars, they don t do anything unless it has multiple purposes. it seems here that this tactic has to do with driving down that price, you know, who can blink first in court kind of situation. he may very well get him the lower price he is l