Has Elon Musk stumbled into some scandalous truths about Twitter? The strange and hypocritical resistance to his fat buyout offer suggest some odd reasons

Sure enough, Elon Musk pulled the trigger, handed Twitter a fat offer of a buyout, and it's been nothing but bonkersville ever since.

According to CBS News:

Elon Musk is offering to buy Twitter for $43 billion, saying the social media company "needs to be transformed as a private company."
The billionaire and founder of electric car maker Tesla, who earlier this month disclosed he owns a 9.2% stake in Twitter, proposed in a regulatory filing on Thursday to buy all of the company's outstanding common stock for $54.20 per share.
"I invested in Twitter as I believe in its potential to be the platform for free speech around the globe, and I believe free speech is a societal imperative for a functioning democracy," he said in the filing. "However, since making my investment I now realize the company will neither thrive nor serve this societal imperative in its current form."

The market acted as one might expect of a company that has seen stagnant growth over recent months:

Twitter shares rose 3.6% to $47.49 in early trading. Shares in the social media platform, which was valued at $37 billion prior to Musk's offer, had declined by roughly a third over the prior year.

It prompted huffing and puffing from the likes of the Washington Post, owned by mega-billionaire Jeff Bezos, about Musk being a threat to democracy or something.

The blue-checks, meanwhile, completely beclowned themselves:

Best Blue Check meltdowns of the Elon Musk Twitter buyout

A 🧵/1

It prompted huffing and puffing from the likes of the Washington Post, owned by mega-billionaire Jeff Bezos, about Musk being a threat to democracy or something.
The blue-checks, meanwhile, completely beclowned themselves:

David Leavitt, the third bluecheck on that list, recall, is the one who tried to shake down a Target employee for an $89.99 toothbrush for a penny, called the police, and then used Twitter to doxx her when he didn't get what he wanted.

Here's the obvious problem on the surface:

The fear seems to be that Musk would change the current content moderation system. Mainly replacing the whim system (inherently political) with a system of transparent rules--the one thing Twitter, FB et al need but don't have. The fear is interesting. — Seth Mandel (@SethAMandel) April 14, 2022

Yesterday was a flagship day in corporate media. It was the day they were forced to explicitly state what has long been clear: they not only favor censorship but desperately crave and depend on it.

Even if Musk doesn't buy Twitter, never forget what yesterday revealed. — Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) April 15, 2022

Here's the weird stuff:

Saudi Arabia's Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, who owns roughly 5% of Twitter, tweeted that the bid significantly undervalues the company and that he will reject it.
Musk shot back in a tweet: "How much of Twitter does the Kingdom own, directly & indirectly? What are the Kingdom's views on journalistic freedom of speech?"

Saudi Arabia's richest man has a stake in Twitter? Bin Talal, recall, is the one that then-Mayor of New York Rudy Giuliani declined to take the check from in the rubble of 9/11, citing his insulting linkage of 9/11 to Palestinian grievances.

Why would he oppose more money on a stagnant asset? And why would there be so much pushback from the news cartels, which would probably benefit from more free speech and passing their articles around by users?

That’s always been my assumption. I think it’s part of the fascism we live under — government puts up seed money for a business, plus technical know-how. The company takes off, goes public, becomes mostly self-funding (may generate funds for additional black budget items) but the “public corporation” simply does what the Deep State wants and doesn’t really answer to stockholders. I see Twitter, Facebook, Google and others in this category. It’s just the government manipulating the public.

Last paragraph is interesting:

“Twitter shut down the president of the United States, which if it’s controlled by the government, while the elites take the profits, it means the government itself shut Trump down. What would be the implications of that, and how the heck could this scandal be corrected? It would show the extent of rot of the deep state that an entity so closely connected to the federal government could carry out that kind of coup. And that presents a Constitutional crisis. This kind of third-world behavior would have to be exposed by Musk — and Congress would need to stop it.”

If the board rejects his offer {which is 38% higher than Musk paid for his shares} he has multiple options.

As the largest shareholder, he could demand that they buy out his options at his offered price, and then the fur hits the fan.

Regardless of what the board does, the market has never seen this offer, in that a single person has the financial power to offer a premium offer, and he doesn't give a fat rat's ass that he makes or loses money on the deal.

They don't have enough "poison pills" to combat this situation.

They have no idea what his "plan B" really is, as it could be invest in parler or trump or start his own, or buy all the shares from individual investors {that will sell at a premium} or dump his shares and kill them in the market.

The board members have always been in the club, which means they are only in it to make money, and they have no idea how to deal with a guy that has the most money and doesn't give a shit about more money.

Their only solution is arkancide.

Musk has a food taster, but he better get two more and stay away from any parks.

Yes their last paragraph probably has the elite lefties who own and control Twitter et al, soiling their Depends as rapidly as they pull on a new pair.

Musk may well find out the truth of Twitter's claims to probity, too -- which would end the nonsense right there, and could, of course, expose Twitter to shareholder lawsuits as any corporate lie to the public would.

The other thing he may expose is scarier:

So here is the last paragraph that you cited!:

Twitter shut down the president of the United States, which if it's controlled by the government, while the elites take the profits, it means the government itself shut Trump down. What would be the implications of that, and how the heck could this scandal be corrected? It would show the extent of the rot of the deep state that an entity so closely connected to the federal government could carry out that kind of coup. And that presents a Constitutional crisis. This kind of third-world behavior would have to be exposed by Musk -- and Congress would need to stop it.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.