TWITTER SAYS IT HAS REJECTED
MUSK’S REQUESTS.
JOINING ME NOW FROM THE CENTER
FOR RENEWING AMERICA.
FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL KEN
CUCCINELLI.
WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE BORDER
REGION.
BUT I HAVE GOT TO ASK YOU THIS.
YOU ARE A FORMER LAWYER.
WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THIS?
THE LATEST HEADLINE IS ELON MUSK
SAYS IT APPEARS TWITTER IS
DRAMATICALLY UNDERSTATING THE
SPAM IN THE ORIGINAL COUNT.
>> FIRST OF ALL, AS SOMEBODY WHO
HAS DONE MERGERS AND
ACQUISITIONS, I PROTECTED
HIMSELF WITH THE WRIRMTS BEFORE
HANDING OVER THE CASH TO BUY
2008 TWITTER.
HE’S INVOKING THOSE PROTECTIVE
CLAUSES TO GET OUT OF THE DEAL.
HE’S SAYING TWITTER IS NOT WAIT
APPEARS.
MANY OF ITS ACCOUNTS ARE SPAM
ACCOUNTS.
THEY ARE NOT FREELY PROVIDING
INFORMATION.
WHEN YOU ARE PAYING A PREMIUM
YOU EXPECT TO GET THAT
INFORMATION.
I THINK THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
IS EXPOSED ON TWO SIDES.
THEIR SHARE HEALEDDERS LOST THE
VALUE OF THE PRICE IN THE MUSK
DEAL.
AND TWITTER AND THEIR BOARD HAS
BEEN EX POATDS AS NOT DOING ITS
JOB.
THEY HAVE BEEN FALSELY
SUGGESTING THEY ARE BIGGER THAN
THEY ARE AND ISR -- AND
ADVERTISERS MAY HAVE SCWHRAIMS
COMING OUT OF THIS.
DAVID: TO PUT A DOLLAR FIGURE ON
IT.
HE WAS OFFERING $54 A SHARE.
THE MARKET CLOSED BEFORE THIS
NEWS CAME OUT.
IT CLOSED AT $36.
YOU THINK THERE WILL BE LAWSUITS
FROM INVESTORS, FROM
STOCKHOLDERS AND FROM PEOPLE
THAT HAVE BEEN DEALING WITH THE
COMPANY?
>> STOCK HOLDERS MORE LIKELY.
BUT TWITTER SELLS VIEWS.
IF THOSE VIEWS TO ADVERTISERS
ARE NOT REAL PEOPLE, THEN THEY
HAVE BEEN DEFRAUDED.
THE POTENTIAL FOR THOSE CLAIMS
EXIST.
YOU IT’S BUSINESS DEALING
BETWEEN PARTIES THAT MAY WANT TO
CONTINUE TO DO BUSINESS.
AND THE SHAREHOLDERS WILL BE OUT
FOR BLOOD.
DAVID: DOES THAT MEAN THE ENTIRE
MANAGEMENT TEAM IS SUBJECT TO
THESE LAWSUITS?
>> EVERY COMPANY WILL HAVE
INSURANCE FOR THIS SORT OF
THING.
BUT THEY WILL BE THE NAMED
DEFENDANTS.
IT WILL BE THEIR NAME AND THEIR
HEAD ON THE BLOCK.
EVEN IF THEY ARE INDEMNIFIED FOR
IT WHICH THEY WILL BE.
NO CORPORATION GOES FORWARD
WITHOUT DIRECTOR INSURANCE.
THIS BOARD SKEWED MORE AND MORE
POLITICAL RATHER THAN BEING A
BUSINESS BOARD OF DIRECTORS.
AND THE WEAKNESS OF THAT IS
BEING EXPOSED DRAMATICALLY.
DAVID: THERE ARE SOME
INTERESTING COMPETITORS,
ESPECIALLY THOSE AFFILIATED
FORMER PRESIDENT.
LET’S MOVE TO THE BORDER IF YOU
DON’T MIND.
IT’S CLEAR AS THE LIGHT OF DAY
THAT EVERYBODY IS OVERWHELMED BY
WHAT IS HAPPENING AT THE BORDER.
THE QUESTION IS WHETHER WHAT IS
HAPPENING THERE COULD BE DEFINED
AS AN INVASION.
THERE IS A LOT OF QUESTIONS IT
CONSTITUTIONALLY, POLITICALLY,
YOU THINK IT IS AN INVASION,
EXPLAIN WHY.
>> I THOUGHT IT WAS AN INVASION
A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO.
WHETHER THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
IS DOING ITS JOB OF PROTECTING
THE BORDER IS AS SECONDARY
QUESTION IT’S JUST MORE DRAMATIC
WITH AN ADMINISTRATION NOT
PROTECTING THE BORDER SO THE
STATES ARE LEFT ON THEIR OWN.
THE FOUNDING FATHERS SMOKE THIS.
THEY LEFT THE STATES THE ABILITY
TO PROTECT THEMSELVES.
THE WORDING IS WHEN ACTUALLY
INVADE.
THEY DON’T DEFINE INVADE.
INVASION IS LEFT TO BE DEFINED
BY THE STATE.
IF YOU GO BACK 200 YEARS PLUS TO
THE CONTINUING OF THE
CONSTITUTION.
THEN GEORGIA WAS THE SOUTHWEST
BORDER.
THEY COULDN’T SEND TROOPS DOWN
TO DEAL WITH THE INCURSION.
THE GOVERNOR THAT STATE MADE THE
DECISION AND DEALT WITH IT
THEMSELVES.
ADVANCES IN TECHNOLOGY AND
TRANSPORTATION DON’T CHANGE WHO
HAS THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO MAKE
THAT DECISION.
THE FOUNDERS SECTED
REASONABLENESS AND POLITICAL SEE
STRAINLTS TO RESTRAIN
UNREASONABLE CLAIMS OF INVASION.
THIS IS HOW THE BORDER WAS
DEFENDED FOR 100 YEARS BEFORE
THE BORDER PATROL.
DAVID: JONATHAN TURLEY SAID
THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN AN INVASION FROM A
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT WHICH HE SAYS
IS FROM THE CONSTITUTION WAS
TALKING ABOUT AND MIGRANTS
COMING TO BE PART OF THIS
NATION.
YOU I HAVE A LOT OF RESPECT FOR
JONATHAN TURLEY BUT HE’S WRONG
IN THIS INSTANCE.
THE ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL
ADDRESSES THIS.
HE POINTS TO JAMES MAD ON OF
USING AN EXAMPLE OF JUST
SMUGGLERS FALLING UNDER THIS
PROVISION AS THE QUALIFYING AS
AN INVASION, SMUGGLERS, THE DRUG
CARTELS ARE RUNNING THE ENTIRE
OPERATION WITH AN INTELLIGENCE
NETWORK.
I RESPECT JONATHAN TURLEY
GREATLY.
BUT I DON’T AGREE HE HAS TAKEN
ALL THE INFORMATION INTOGETHER.
IT ISN’T JUST -- INFORMATION
INTO ACCOUNT.
DAVID: KEN, THANK YOU SO MUCH