Raphael Warnock’s campaign called US Veteran and homeless advocate Dom Lucre this weekend and asked him to vote for far left Senator Warnock in the December runoff election. Dom Lucre lives in Tennessee.
And Dom recorded the entire call. The caller had the nerve to feed Dom the liberal lies about Republicans and their power and dark money, blah-blah-blah… Dom shot back that Democrats control everything. They control Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, the media and all Republicans have is FOX News.
In a country where the authorities valued integrity, honesty, and fairness, this call would immediately be investigated and Warnock’s campaign would be punished. But we don’t have that today in the United States. You can commit any criminal act of voter fraud if you are a Democrat and it will not even be investigated.
So Senator Warnock’s campaign called me, A TN Resident to Vote in his GA election. Everyone has asked me to upload the full video. Here it is pic.twitter.com/nz5R4I0mWt
“Our decision wasn’t about your performance, but after twenty years we wanted to take action on the City’s racial equity plan.”
The San Francisco elections director is out of a job after the Elections Commission voted not to renew his contract despite his successful 20-year record because he is a white male.
In a 4-2 vote in a closed session last week, the commission declined to renew a fifth five-year contract for John Arntz so that the city could “take action” on its “racial equity plan.”
Commission officials recognized Arntz’s impeccable service, but said the decision came down to racial equity.
Commission president Chris Jerdonek wrote in an email obtained by local outlets, “Our decision wasn’t about your performance, but after twenty years we wanted to take action on the City’s racial equity plan and give people an opportunity to compete for a leadership position.”
This is the same commission that in 2021 wrote to the mayor that “San Francisco runs one of the best elections in the country and we believe this transparent process has allowed us to continue to improve our elections.”
In 2020, it wrote a commendation to Arntz “for his incredible leadership … The Department successfully ran two elections this year while facing significant challenges, including national threats to election security, mandatory vote-by-mail operations to all registered voters, the anticipated increase in voter participation, budget cuts, and the COVID-19 pandemic.”
The city’s Democratic Mayor London Breed objected to the commission’s vote and said, “John Arntz has served San Francisco with integrity, and professionalism and has stayed completely independent.”
“He’s remained impartial and has avoided getting caught up in the web of City politics, which is what we are seeing now as a result of this unnecessary vote. Rather than working on key issues to recover and rebuild our City, this is a good example of unfair politicization of a key part of our government that is working well for the voters of this city.”
Division Manager Mayank Patel said in an email to the department, which included a letter signed by 11 other division managers supporting Arntz’s renewal, “We are gravely concerned that the Elections Commission is actively seeking to remove John Arntz from his employment as the Director of Elections.”
“Under the leadership of Director Arntz, our department successfully conducted over thirty public elections and rebuilt the public’s confidence in the city’s elections processes from the ground up. All of us have worked with Director Arntz and we know that under his experienced and proven leadership, we will continue to provide city voters with excellent service while fulfilling our mission of conducting free, fair, and functional elections for many years to come.” City Attorney David Chiu said he was “mystified” by the commission’s decision noting, “some folks have forgotten the history of this department.” He added, “Before Director Arntz, we had five directors in as many years, ballot boxes floating in the bay, and an intense lack of confidence in city elections.”
Why a Republican sweep? Well the left is always crying majority rules, so since according to Cook over 51% of the folks voted Republican Tuesday, why not just hand over the House and Senate?
“The craziest thing: Republicans are winning the House popular vote by 6.4% so far but just scraping by in the race for control,” tweeted Dave Wasserman of the Cook Political Report. He noted the GOP margin will narrow when votes come in from deep blue Oregon, Washington, and California, as well as from cities that take longer to count ballots.
As of this writing, both Fetterman and Shapiro have won their contests.
I live in Central PA and am an elected voting official for my county. As such, I can say some things that the average Pennsylvanian might not realize.
The presiding “Judge” for a given precinct is elected. The gotcha is that sometimes there is absolutely nobody running, and a single write-in vote can be enough to “win” the election. Guess how I know?
Even though someone is “elected,” someone else may perform those duties.
The “Judge” has to assemble their group of poll workers, contacting each of them themselves.
A poll worker may not live in the same precinct they are working in if the “Judge” can’t find anyone IN the precinct willing to work. The BOE only helps if the judge can’t find enough people to man the polling place on their own.
In my precinct, not enough Democrats are interestedin working, so Republicans fill slots theoretically for a Democrat.
Given all that, I can say that — in MY precinct at least — the tabulator was not connected to the internet — although everything is recorded on thumb drives that are kept separate from the tabulator during the return to the elections office. Also, there was no available wi-fi during polling, so that was moot in my precinct.
Training — in my county at least — is inadequate for the task at hand if one is a newbie. It also seems that each county must develop its own training materials.
Now, getting to the election itself.
Fetterman’s own Hometown Newspaper endorsed his opponent.
Why would anyone vote for a person who routinely dresses like a Hell’s Angels reject, who’s had a stroke (and who needed closed-captioning to debate), who slurred some statements into unintelligibility, and who was — time and again– the only person on the parole board to vote to let dangerous felons out of jail, and who chased and held an innocent, unarmed (black) jogger with a shotgun because he thought he heard gunfire (and has NEVER apologized for doing so) is beyond me.
He never called out Biden for saying he wanted to close all coal-powered electrical plants when PA is a coal-producing state.
Yet Fetterman seems to be winning as of this writing. The margin is slim, but…
The pandemic saw the destruction of a number of small businesses in the county. There is no more taxi service in State College (home to Penn State), where there were two companies in operation before it, plus Uber and Lyft drivers. Likewise, towing companies have diminished severely. Liberal paranoia about the Wuhan flu closed Penn State, killed a number of restaurants, and was generally an overblown PITA. Geisinger medical sites are STILL demanding masks to enter their kingdom, and Fetterman and Shapiro are okay with that. Should we look for more of the same?
I know that Pittsburgh, Philly, and Harrisburg are all liberal strongholds (along with State College, where students outnumber actual residents.) But has all common sense escaped these people?
Remember this headline from the acting (Democratic) Secy of State?
Why (how) was the race determined so quickly?
Is it simply more “orange man bad” TDS infecting their reason-deprived minds out there in the liberal enclaves?
Leftist Politician wifes just can’t stand it when all the focus is on their husbands. So when someone pays attention to them, we get the real story. Thanks Fox for bring this out.
Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., is getting blasted by his opponent as “radical” after his wife was recorded talking to two undercover journalists about how Democrats shouldn’t talk about what’s really in the Inflation Reduction Act and how they could defund the police “quietly.”
Susan Daggett, a law professor at the University of Denver, is seen on video released Monday by Accuracy in Media, arguing that “the most successful efforts in Washington, D.C., are the ones that you never see on the front page of the paper.”
At one point in the video, Daggett agrees and laughs with the two journalists who mused about Democrats disguising a health and climate bill as the Inflation Reduction Act.
“Right, don’t talk about it,” Daggett replied. “Just–just–yeah.”
Earlier in the video, Daggett argued that Democrats could do a better job getting their more radical agenda passed if they kept quiet about it.
“We’re talking about it for a half a second and let the temperatures come down, and then quietly allocate some funding to mental health, right, and to interventions that can help and maybe not call it police reform,” she said about defunding the police. “There’s just strategic ways to do it that would be just as effective but, you know, not raise the flag.”
The Democrat party has lost Hispanic and black voter support since the 2020 election, two essential demographics the party needs to retain its fragile, intersectional coalition, according to a Wall Street Journal (WSJ) poll released Monday.
In August, Hispanic voters favored Democrats by 11 points. That lead has been cut to five points in October.
In just four years, Democrats have lost Hispanic support by 26 points.
The margin of five points in October is far less than in 2020 when President Joe Biden was favored over former President Donald Trump by 28 points. In 2018, Hispanics favored Democrats by 31 points.
A similar exodus from the Democrat party is seen among black voters. The poll found 17 percent of black voters would vote for a Republican in 2022. In 2020, that number was only eight percent, a nine point swing in two years. Eight percent also supported Republicans in 2018.
Black voters strongly oppose the Democrats’ policy of chain migration that is helping to cut Americans’ wages and raise their rents, according to data provided by Rasmussen Reports. https://t.co/LdF0b3zCVF
The WSJpoll sampled 1,500 people from October 22-26, including 180 black voters with a 7.3 margin of error and 400 Hispanic voters with a 4.9 margin of error.
“It is wholly possible that Republicans reach a new high water mark among both African-Americans and Hispanic voters in this election,” Biden’s lead pollster, Tony Fabrizio, told the outlet.
The polling is notable because the Democrat Party has constantly won the black vote by huge margins since the 1960s when Democrat former President Lyndon Johnson from a southern state was able to solidify black support successfully. Modern-day Democrats have tried to bring Hispanic voters into their fold on the basis of forming an intersectional coalition among so-called marginalized groups.
But with the rise of crime, illegal immigration, and inflation, which disproportionally impacts less financially wealthy citizens, black and Hispanic voters have moved towards the Republicans.
The Democrats have launched two cringeworthy ads targeting Hispanic voters as the party continues to lose favor with that demographic. https://t.co/47pChS0LkB
Monday’s polling numbers suggest Republicans will have significant gains in the 2022 midterm elections. Many races will likely be decided by one percentage point. Black and Hispanic voters could play a huge role in which party controls Congress.
Women are also leaving the Democrat party. Polling revealed last week that white suburban women have moved 27 points away from Democrats since August and now favor Republicans by 15 points. The demographic of white suburban women represent 20 percent of the electorate.
Republicans could be on the cusp of capturing Florida’s Miami-Dade County in Tuesday’s midterm elections, flipping a county that hasn’t voted for a Republican governor in 20 years.
“The way the numbers are going, they could win it, absolutely,” Democratic State Senator Annette Taddeo told the New York Times Saturday.
“Republicans will feel emboldened and take it as a playbook and go around the country to communities in Nevada and in California and in Virginia and in Pennsylvania,” Christian Ulvert, a Democratic political consultant in Miami, told the New York Times. “It should be a massive warning sign to Democratic leaders across the country.”
Taddeo’s fears of a Republican victory in Miami-Dade come as early voting data shows that more registered Republicans have currently voted than registered Democrats, a potentially ominous sign for Democrats, who depend on racking up an early voting lead ahead of a wave of Republic votes on election day.
Republicans have begun to express optimism in their chances as well, with Lieutenant Governor Jeanette M. Núñez declaring during a rally last month that the GOP will win Miami-Dade County come Nov. 8.”
When CNN Fact checks Xiden and calls BS, you KNOW he’s in trouble.
President Joe Biden has been back on the campaign trail, traveling in October and early November to deliver his pitch for electing Democrats in the midterm elections on Tuesday.
Biden’s pitch has included claims that are false, misleading or lacking important context. (As always, we take no position on the accuracy of his subjective arguments.) Here is a fact-check look at nine of his recent statements.
The White House did not respond to a request for comment for this article.
Social Security, part 1
Biden said at a Democratic fundraiser in Pennsylvania last week: “On our watch, for the first time in 10 years, seniors are going to get the biggest increase in their Social Security checks they’ve gotten.” He has also touted the 2023 increase in Social Security payments at other recent events.
The White House deleted a Tuesday tweet that delivered an especially triumphant version of Biden’s boast, and press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre acknowledged Wednesday that the tweet was lacking “context.”
That now-deleted Tuesday tweet reads: “Seniors are getting the biggest increase in their Social Security checks in 10 years through President Biden’s leadership.”
Biden said at a Democratic rally in Florida on Tuesday: “And on my watch, for the first time in 10 years, seniors are getting an increase in their Social Security checks.”
The claim that the 2023 increase to Social Security payments is the first in 10 years is false. In reality, there has been a cost-of-living increase every year from 2017 onward. There was also an increase every year from 2012 through 2015 before the payment level was kept flat in 2016 because of a lack of inflation.
The context around this Biden remark in Florida suggests he might have botched his repeat campaign line about Social Security payments increasing at the same time asMedicare premiums are declining.
Regardless of his intentions, though, he was wrong.
A new corporate tax
Biden repeatedly suggested in speeches in October and early November that a new law he signed in August, the Inflation Reduction Act, will stop the practice of successful corporations paying no federal corporate income tax. Biden made the claim explicitly in a tweet last week: “Let me give you the facts. In 2020, 55 corporations made $40 billion. And they paid zero in federal taxes. My Inflation Reduction Act puts an end to this.”
But “puts an end to this” is an exaggeration. The Inflation Reduction Act will reduce the number of companies on the list of non-payers, but the law will not eliminate the list entirely.
That’s because the law’s new 15% alternative corporate minimum tax, on the “book income” companies report to investors, only applies to companies with at least $1 billion in average annual income. (There are lots of nuances; you can read more specifics here.) According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, the think tank that in 2021 published the list of 55 large and profitable companies that avoided paying any federal income tax in their previous fiscal year, only 14 of these 55 companies reported having US pre-tax income of at least $1 billion in that year.
In other words, there will clearly still be some large and profitable corporations paying no federal income tax even after the minimum tax takes effect in 2023. The exact number is not yet known.
Matthew Gardner, a senior fellow at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, said in a Thursday email that the new tax is “an important step forward from the status quo” and that it will raise substantial revenue, but he also said: “I wouldn’t want to assert that the minimum tax will end the phenomenon of zero-tax profitable corporations. A more accurate phrasing would be to say that the minimum tax will *help* ensure that *the most profitable* corporations pay at least some federal income tax.”
The debt and the deficit
Biden said at the Tuesday rally in Florida: “Look, you know, you can hear it from Republicans, ‘My God, that big-spending Democrat Biden. Man, he’s taken us in debt.’ Well, guess what? I reduced the federal deficit this year by $1 trillion $400 billion. One trillion 400 billion dollars. The most in all American history. No one has ever reduced the debt that much. We cut the federal debt in half.”
Second, it’s highly questionable how much credit Biden deserves for even the reduction in the deficit. Biden doesn’t mention that the primary reason the deficit plummeted in fiscal years 2021 and 2022 was that it had skyrocketed to a record high in 2020 because of emergency pandemic relief spending. It then fell as expected as the spending expired as planned.
“On net, the policies of the administration have increased the deficit, not reduced it.”
Dan White, senior director of economic research at Moody’s Analytics – an economics firm whose assessments Biden has repeatedly cited during his presidency – told CNN’s Matt Egan in October: “On net, the policies of the administration have increased the deficit, not reduced it.” The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, an advocacy group, says the administration’s own actions have significantly worsened the deficit picture. (David Kelly, chief global strategist at JPMorgan Funds, told Egan that the Biden administration does deserve credit for the economic recovery that has boosted tax revenues.)
The unemployment rate
Biden said at the Florida rally on Tuesday: “Unemployment is down from 6.5 to 3.5%, the lowest in 50 years.” He said at the New Mexico rally on Thursday: “Unemployment rate is 3.5% – the lowest it’s been in 50 years.”
But Biden didn’t acknowledge that September’s 3.5% unemployment rate was actually a tie for the lowest in 50 years – a tie, specifically, with three months of Trump’s administration, in late 2019 and early 2020. Since Biden uses these campaign speeches to favorably compare his own record to Trump’s record, that omission is significant.
The unemployment rate rose to 3.7% in October; that number was revealed on Friday, after these Biden comments. The rate was 6.4% in January 2021, the month Biden took office.
Biden’s student debt policy
During an on-camera discussion conducted by progressive organization NowThis News and published online in late October, Biden told young activists that they “probably are aware, I just signed a law” on student debt forgiveness that is being challenged by Republicans. He added: “It’s passed. I got it passed by a vote or two, and it’s in effect.”
Biden’s claims are false.
He created his student debt forgiveness initiative through executive action, not through legislation, so he didn’t sign a law and didn’t get it passed by any margin. Since Republicans opposed to the initiative, including those challenging the initiative in court, have called it unlawful precisely because it wasn’t passed by Congress, the distinction between a law and an executive action is a highly pertinent fact here.
A White House official told CNN that Biden was referring to the Inflation Reduction Act, the law narrowly passed by the Senate in August; the official said the Inflation Reduction Act created “room for other crucial programs” by bringing down the deficit. But Biden certainly did not make it clear that he was talking about anything other than the student debt initiative.
Biden correctly noted on various occasions in October that gas prices have declined substantially since their June 2022 peak – though, as always, it’s important to note that presidents have a limited impact on gas prices. But in an economic speech in New York last week, Biden said, “Today, the most common price of gas in America is $3.39 – down from over $5 when I took office.”
The most common price for a gallon of regular gas on the day Biden was inaugurated, January 20, 2021, was $2.39 — less than half the price Biden was claiming.
Biden’s claim that the most common gas price when he took office was more than $5 is not even close to accurate. The most common price for a gallon of regular gas on the day he was inaugurated, January 20, 2021, was $2.39, according to data provided to CNN by Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy. In other words, Biden made it sound like gas prices had fallen significantly during his presidency when they had actually increased significantly.
In other recent remarks, Biden has discussed the state of gas prices in relation to the summer peak of more than $5 per gallon, not in relation to when he took office. Regardless, the comment last week was the second this fall in which Biden inaccurately described the price of gas – both times in a way that made it sound more impressive.
Biden has revived a claim that was debunked more than 20 months ago by The Washington Post and then CNN. At least twice in October, he boasted that he traveled 17,000 miles with Chinese leader Xi Jinping.
“I’ve spent more time with Xi Jinping of China than any world leader has, when I was Vice President all the way through to now. Over 78 hours with him alone. Eight – nine of those hours on the phone and the others in person, traveling 17,000 miles with him around the world, in China and the United States,” he told a Democratic gathering in Oregon in mid-October.
Biden made the number even bigger during a speech on student debt in New Mexico on Thursday, saying, “I traveled 17-, 18,000 miles with him.”
The claim is false. Biden has not traveled anywhere close to 17,000 miles with Xi, though they have indeed spent lots of time together. Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler noted in 2021 that the two men often did not even travel parallel routes to their gatherings, let alone physically travel together. The only apparent way to get Biden’s mileage past 17,000, Kessler found, is to add the length of his flight journeys between Washington and Beijing, during which, obviously, Xi was not with him.
A White House official told CNN in early 2021 that Biden was adding up his “total travel back and forth” for meetings with Xi. But that is very different than traveling “with” Xi as Biden keeps saying, especially in the context of a boast about how well he knows Xi – and Biden has had more than enough time to make his language more precise.
The Trump tax cuts
Biden claimed at the Thursday rally in New Mexico that under Trump, Republicans passed a $2 trillion tax cut that “affected only the top 1% of the American public.”
Biden correctly said in various October remarks that the Trump tax cut law was particularly beneficial to the wealthy, but he went too far here. It’s not true that the Trump policy “only” affected the top 1%.
The Tax Policy Center think tank found in early 2018 that Trump’s law “will reduce individual income taxes on average for all income groups and in all states.” The think tank estimated that “between 60 and 76 percent of taxpayers in every state will receive a tax cut.”
And in April 2019, tax-preparation company H&R Block said two-thirds of its returning customers had indeed paid less in tax that year than they did the year prior, The New York Times reported in an article headlined “Face It: You (Probably) Got a Tax Cut.”
The Tax Policy Center did find in early 2018 that people at the top would get by far the biggest benefits from Trump’s law. Specifically, the think tank found that the top 1% of earners would get an average 3.4% increase in after-tax 2018 income – versus an average 1.6% income increase for people in the middle quintile, an average 1.2% income increase for people in the quintile below that and just an average 0.4% income increase for people in the lowest quintile.
The think tank also found that the top 1% of earners would get more than 20% of the income benefits from the law, a bigger share than the bottom 60% of earners combined.
The distribution could get even more skewed after 2025, when the law’s individual tax cuts will expire if not extended by Congress and the president. If there is no extension – and, therefore, the law’s permanent corporate tax cut remains in place without the individual tax cuts – the Tax Policy Center has estimated that, in 2027, the top 1% will get 83% of the benefits from the law.
But that’s a possibility about the future. Biden claimed, in the past tense, that the law “affected” only the top 1%.
This wasn’t the first time Biden overstated his point about the Trump tax cuts. The Washington Post fact-checked him in 2019, for example, when he claimed “all of it” went to the ultra-rich and corporations.
Apparently the rank-and-file Democrats are realizing the Xiden regime is not doing them any favors, despite their promises.
Here’s a just-released addition that shows how deep in the doo-doo Biden and the Democratic Party are:
“Responding to misinformation is my day job. My night job is RUNNING ELECTIONS.” – CISA document 6/22/22. Name redacted, emphasis added.
Here is a disturbing story. It demonstrates intrigue, corruption, and disdain for American principles at the highest level.
Perhaps the saddest thing about this story is that you probably won’t be surprised. Especially if you’ve been paying attention for the past few years.
The story is this: Twitter and other social media platforms have been cozy with the Department of Homeland Security to squelch what DHS calls “misinformation,” “disinformation” and “malinformation,” or “MDM,” according to an investigative report published Monday by The Intercept.
Job one for Musk was to not only fire CEO Parag Agrawal but also Vijaya Gadde, Twitter’s top lawyer and the individual responsible for booting former President Donald Trump off the platform and for censoring the Hunter Biden laptop story in the run-up to the 2020 election.
You probably remember a few months ago when DHS rolled out what it called its Disinformation Governance Board, designed to go after “MDM” on social media. A firestorm of bad publicity meant the Biden administration had to quickly yank it offstage.
But the concept is still around and Gadde has been part of it.
Gadde is a member of an advisory committee of the DHS Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). In June, the committee put out a report that essentially outlined a need to get around the First Amendment to stop “MDM” since it “poses a significant risk to critical functions like elections, public health, financial services and emergency response.”
Also, The Intercept reported on DHS documents saying the agency is going after “MDM” on “the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic and the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, racial justice, U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan and the nature of U.S. support to Ukraine.”
In other words, DHS wants to push the Biden administration’s line on many of the controversies Americans might be discussing on social media, and attack or suppress other views that oppose it.
And Twitter has been right there in the middle of it.
Lee Fang, one of the authors of The Intercept article, tweeted that Gadde had met monthly with DHS to discuss censorship and, along with Facebook, Twitter “created special portals for the government to rapidly request takedowns of content.”
The emails and documents show close collaboration b/w DHS & private sector. Twitter’s Vijaya Gadde (fired by @elonmusk last week) met monthly with DHS to discuss censorship plans. Microsoft exec texted DHS: “Platforms have got to get comfortable with gov’t”
In March, top officials of Twitter and JPMorgan Chase met with Laura Dehmlow, section chief of the FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force. Dehmlow said subversive information on the internet could undercut support for the U.S. government, according to notes of the meeting reported by The Intercept.
In a statement for The Intercept report, a Twitter representative said the company does not “coordinate with other entities when making content moderation decisions,” following, rather, its own rules in such situations.
Still, Twitter joined other tech companies in monthly meetings with the FBI, CISA and other government agencies to determine how to handle misinformation leading up to the 2020 elections, according to NBC News.
In 2018, DHS began notifying social media companies of what it described as voting disinformation appearing on their platforms. The following year, DHS developed the Foreign Influence and Interference Branch which morphed in 2020 to track communication regarding COVID-19, The Intercept said.
Varied U.S. intelligence agencies moderated social media surrounding the 2020 election and leading up to the November voting there were regular emails among officials of Twitter, DHS and the Center for Internet Security regarding takedown procedures for social media postings.
And while the Disinformation Governance Board was scrapped, DHS in August published a document titled “DHS Needs a Unified Strategy to Counter Disinformation Campaigns.”
In it, DHS intones “such campaigns may aim to erode public trust in our government and the Nation’s critical infrastructure sectors, negatively affect public discourse, or even sway elections.”
Sway elections? You think? Hasn’t that been a major aim of Silicon Valley?
Of course, DHS does not address a key foundational principle which allows for pesky ideas that the Department of Homeland Security considers “MDM.”
It’s contained in the document that proclaims, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The Founders, ever conscious of man’s corruption, knew what’s now called “MDM” would be protected by the First Amendment, but, as in other parts of the Bill of Rights, they also knew liberty was more important than government convenience.
Twitter, as The Intercept report shows, clearly has been involved in the federal government’s attempts to outsource censorship and suppression of dissent.
Musk, Twitter’s new owner, has publicly declared himself to be a “free speech absolutist.”
Clearly, something has to give.
There’s no telling where the company will go now that Musk is in charge, but he was right about one of his first major personnel moves.