• NotNotMike@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    In my opinion, it comes down to the wording of the U.S. judges’ code of conduct

    A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned

    While the link between Musk’s two companies might be debatable, it definitely raises “reasonable questions” about whether or not the judge can be impartial. It is much easier to recuse oneself then to try to deal with a mistrial, so the judge not recusing themselves is extremely suspicious.

    Also, as to evidence to whether Musk’s involvement with X has impacted Tesla stock, that has been a matter of debate for a while. X is in a dire financial situation because of the loans taken out during the buyout. If they cannot get advertisers back on the platform, then either X goes bankrupt or Elon has to chip in his own money. Musk’s money is mostly locked in to Tesla stock, and if he sells a large number, the stock will inevitably go down. Therefore, if Elon loses this case, it is very possible that the judge will lose money.

    • EatATaco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      As I noted elsewhere, the latter argument about him having to sell to bail out x is a compelling argument. That their values are inherently tied together by virtue of him being owner I’m less convinced about because people claim the stock prices are linked, but have no provided no evidence that it is the case, despite it being a relatively easy thing to prove mathematically.

      • NotNotMike@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        The mathematical proof is that Elon owns several hundred million Tesla shares and his holding or selling of those shares will impact the share price of the judge’s shares. Up or down, the price will be impacted, that’s just how markets work. If he is forced to sell those shares to fund X, the judge will be impacted.

        Also, you shouldn’t really need an exact proof for the judge’s recusal. There is a chance he is impacted by the result of the case in a significant monetary way, so why not pass the case to a judge who doesn’t have these connections. This isn’t the last judge in Texas (just one of the most partisan) so there is far greater upsides to recusal than downsides.

        Why risk the optics of impropriety when you don’t have to?

        • nomous@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          Yeah the other comment reeks of “just asking a question” everyone with two braincells knows the companies are related. They just want you to waste your time doing the reading they should be doing of they’re actually curious.