>

How much are those "trading cards" going for these days anyway?
CRA says it signed a contract with three different law firms in the Musk litigation, all of which signed "on behalf of Twitter."

So Twitter hired CRA cause Musk countersued Twitter last year and now Musk has to pay for it?   
Oh I love the irony >

Twitter likely spent tens of millions on the litigation, which Musk now needs to pay. But it’s not unusual for the loser in a legal battle to get the total bill.
What is unusual is a firm like CRA, which is hired by the law firms, suing the underlying client. I’m guessing that Musk has stiffed the law firms involved as well. (Otherwise, it would be strange if Musk paid the law firms $10m but didn’t pay the consulting firm $2m) >


But it’s not unusual for the loser in a legal battle to get the total bill.

Actually, that's not the norm in the US (reason being that there shouldn't be a disincentive to bring a meritorious claim just because of fear that losing it will bankrupt you). You will see some judgments include legal fees and punitive damages but those are definitely for extraordinary behavior (frivolous/meritless claims, abuse of legal system, etc.) >

IIRC this doesn't even have to do with losing/settling. The lawyers worked on behalf of Twitter to sue Musk to force the sale. Now that Musk bought Twitter, he still owes money to the lawyers that sued him, just like the offices owe rent, utilities, etc... Just because you bought a company doesn't mean you get out of their contractual obligations. >

Is it twitter or musk that has to pay? >

Twitter. 
Here's a quote from the article, emphasis mine:
"The total amount of the Invoices which have been rendered to Twitter and remain unpaid are $2,189,001.83," it stated, alleging that Twitter had "breached the Contract by failing to pay all of the CRA invoices." >

Elon adapting the Trump method of paying contractors: just don't lol. >

Fuuuuuck. Is he going to announce his run for president next year? He'd probably win in a land slide. >

Thankfully, he is ineligible for the office. >

It's been some time since the GOP let pesky little things like rules and norms stand in their way >

In general you may be correct but being a natural born citizen to be the President is very clearly stated in the constitution. That's not a "rule" or "norm" easily overcome. >


That's not a "rule" or "norm" easily overcome.

Sure it is. Just toss it the Supreme Court, which will do whatever the GOP wants them to do >

I think you're crossing the line where cynicism reduces the strength of your arguments. I'm just as discouraged as most but let's not act like something very clearly written in the constitution (so not open for Supreme Court reinterpretation), which could only be changed by an amendment passed by 2/3rds majority, is the same as all the bullshit we've seen lately. No need to concede a fight that hasn't even happened yet, I'm not sure what that accomplishes. >

I don't think Musk would run, but if he did, and that's what the GOP wanted, I 100% believe the present SCOTUS would enable it. You clearly have more faith in the SCOTUS than I do, which isn't hard, as I have no faith in them whatsoever. >

You're still giving them so much more power than they have. They have a lot of power, but not here. I don't understand the point of your defeatism in such a clear cut issue. >

Marbury v. Madison has entered the chat >

Elon Musk lost $200Bln and now does not pay his bills. Do not do business with him. >

He's gonna start selling hats and flags isn't he >

Elon NFTs >

“Trading cards”