> They wouldn't accept his advice or help on how to make twitter better after he became a 9.1% shareholder.
They were happy for him to become a director. He balked as soon as it became clear that he'd have to pass the same background check as all the other directors. I wonder why that is?
> It's possible he was afraid of what discovery would reveal.
Like... his degrees being dodgy and having been an illegal overstayer in the 90s, which is a documented claim doing the rounds?
He also would have owed fiduciary duties to the TSLA stockholders if he were a director. I think this, and not the D&O questionnaire, was the primary reason he turned down the board seat. No more pumps and dump with TSLA stock or playing fast and loose with SEC filings triggered by stock accumulation.
They were happy for him to become a director. He balked as soon as it became clear that he'd have to pass the same background check as all the other directors. I wonder why that is?
> It's possible he was afraid of what discovery would reveal.
Like... his degrees being dodgy and having been an illegal overstayer in the 90s, which is a documented claim doing the rounds?