Musk Destroys Twitter With New Reason Buyout Deal Was Terminated

Billionaire Elon Musk had his eye set on buying Twitter to transform it into a platform where people can practice freedom of speech without being censored by liberal overlords. But recent events and startling discoveries within the social media giant caused Musk to rethink his $44 billion.

Twitter executives not only violate personal freedoms but are also involved with questionable business practices. The deal’s termination brings to light the deception and unfair business practices the liberal media giant thought they could get away with.

ABC News reported that “In July, Musk backed out of the $44 billion sale agreement he made with Twitter. He did so because he said Twitter provided ‘false and misleading representations’ of multiple forms of user data including the quantity of ‘false or spam accounts’ on the social media platform. Twitter is working to force the deal, which values the company at a share price that is roughly 25% above this week’s value.”

Twitter was never in favor of the buyout. But with recent events coming to the surface, they want to try and force the deal through. The nasty liberals were caught violating business ethics and doing things to violate trust with system users, and now they want to get out from under the trouble by selling it off to Musk.

But the trouble for Twitter keeps on mounting. Musk and his team have discovered yet another reason to back out of buying Twitter.

ABC News reported that “Zatko, a hacker and the former head of security for Twitter, alleges multiple forms of misconduct at the social media company. In Monday’s letter, Musk’s counsel, law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, argued that if Zatko’s allegations against Twitter are correct, ‘the Musk Parties [have] the right to terminate the Merger Agreement.’ The letter singles out aspects of Zatko’s complaint including the allegations that Twitter is ‘uniquely vulnerable to systemic disruption’ and that ‘the platform is built in significant part on the misappropriation and infringement of third party intellectual property.’”

Zatko’s complaint still has to prove itself out, but the accusations he has made align perfectly with the problems already discovered deep within Twitter. The social media platform has violated several laws for a long time. Things were only discovered after Musk made the offer to buy them out. Their reluctance to accept the deal was nothing more than a nervous attempt to avoid being discovered.

The only thing the Twitter executives could claim was that Zatko and his accusations were false. They claim that Musk violated an agreement breach and should be forced to proceed with the deal. But they still have yet to explain the other discrepancies and apparent violations.

David Bernstein works with Goodwin Procter, LLP as someone who knows about mergers and business deals. He sees the new revelation from the whistleblower as part of a strategy to help Musk kill the deal. He thinks that the new issue silently admits that the initial reason to terminate the deal was too weak to win in court.

The five-day trial to decide the deal’s fate is supposed to occur in October. Twitter thugs would love to see the judge rule in their favor and force Musk to buy the company. The purchase would free them from having to answer for the violations they saw and committed while being in charge of the company. But Musk wants the deal killed because the executives lied to him and presented false information about the company.

Twitter has knowingly betrayed the trust of the American people by engaging in illegal censoring of its users. They have knowingly presented fake information about accounts and refuse to take action to protect user data from falling into the wrong hands.

The liberals in America think that they can live above the law and commit crimes. Their hypocrisy comes out every time as they try and force everyone else to be honest — obviously, something they cannot do themselves. And somehow, they want an honest and ethical man to own up to his agreement even though they have violated the trust and are not being honest in any way.