wasn't answering the question because he doesn't want to say yes, but also because he didn't want to say no. They both would be bad for him politically. So Aaron Rupar's, I guess I'll call it an opinion, that good reading comprehension would suggest that his avoiding of the question is a pretty strong signal of which way he would go. And on that I would say that's a fair opinion, but it needs to be clearly an opinion because I'm not quite there. But I could see how he'd say it.

So if Aaron presented this as purely his opinion of what the other guy's opinion was, I'd be okay with that. So I'm trying to be fair here because I have criticized Aaron Rupar for editing or for tweeting videos that were edited to be misleading. This is not one of those. This is one in which he said exactly what he thought. And if you really take the time to deal with the exact words he used, I'm okay with it. You know, I disagreed with it on first exposure, but I think I would allow that his opinion is within the bounds of reasonable opinions even if wrong.

Well, have you all wondered if Elon Musk had a secret plan that was not really revealed to you about Twitter? Has that ever occurred to you as like, I feel like there's something missing, right? And I think we just found out what it was. So Elon Musk retweeted a meme or tweeted it. And the meme was four pictures of Elon Musk with four fake quotes, right? So it's not what he actually said. It was like, you know, lining up with on the Locals platform. You can see the meme because they can paste it in the comments. So it's going by right now. But so I'll just read what the meme said.

The first panel said, they said I couldn't buy Twitter. The second one says, now they wouldn't disclose the bot information. Then they wouldn't disclose it. He goes, now they want to force me to buy Twitter in court. So far that's what's happened, right? That just describes what happened. And the fourth one says, now they have to disclose bot info in court. What? What? Seriously? If they sue him to complete the deal, will he have — will that give him enough, let's say purchase — well, that's a misleading word in this case — will that give him enough traction that legally he can get their bot information through discovery?

But the question is, the discovery has to be relevant to the question, right? I don't know if the discovery would be relevant enough to the question. Would it? Because I think you could argue that that's not the point. If Twitter were to argue that it doesn't matter what the reality is, it only matters what contract you signed, and I think they would, then I don't know if they would have to give them that information. Would they? His claim is that they didn't provide it. But what if they just don't provide it again because what if they give the court the same thing they gave Elon Musk because they say that's all they have?

Now the court could put people on — they could put them under oath and say, is that really all you have? You know, really? You know, find an actual programmer who would be in charge of like collecting that data and just put the programmer on the stand and say, all right, you're the programmer. Is this really all the information we could get? Are you seriously saying that you can't tell how many bots there are with internal information? Now if the engineer says we really can't, then I don't know if any discovery is necessary. Is it? Because if the person who could give us this information says it's not obtainable, you know, it doesn't matter if you want it. It's not obtainable. Well then nothing happens and maybe Elon Musk loses.

But do you think this is a real thing that he could actually force them to give him accurate bot information and they have it? What if they have it? I'm not so sure that they have it. If you've ever worked in a big corporation and you're in charge of data like I was — I worked for a big corporation, two of them. In both cases I was one of the data guys, right? If somebody wanted to know what was true data-wise, they came to me. They asked me and I would tell them what was true because I had the data, usually financial data. And how often was my data wrong? What do you think? How often was my data so wrong that it wouldn't help you with a decision? 25 percent? Yeah, all the time. All the time the data is always wrong in one way or another. There's always some context missing, timing differences, that sort of thing.

So I don't know this is. But if it turned out that that's what Elon Musk had in mind all along — and I won't say that he had one path all along because I can't imagine him being a one-path guy. Again, this is mind reading, right? But I can't imagine that Elon Musk thinks of his strategies in terms of there's one thing I'm going to do and only that and I'm going to get it done. I feel like he's intellectually flexible so that he has several paths that could work and he's monitoring them at all times. And oh, this one just ope