3 ms·
Tesla says it has not received subpoena on Model 3 production
- anqoz 8y agoJournalists outright lying... This one is shocking, I've never seen it before...
- gameswithgo 8y agoThe WSJ article did not claim that Tesla received a subpoena.
- happytoexplain 8y agoYou're right, it is unusual. Journalists being falsely accused of lying, on the other hand, is depressingly common.
- reagank 8y agoThere's no refuting of anything in the article. They actually CONFIRM that they've gotten document requests from DOJ, just voluntarily provided rather than after a subpoena. Watch your bias.
- mbrumlow 8y agoFrom 2015 till now, and this your 3rd comment ever... Seems like there is a interesting story hidden somewhere here. Care to share? Or is this just one of many alts? EDIT: Not trying to start anything, not sure why this line of questioning is freaking everybody out. I am just generally curious how a account is this old and what drives somebody to comment so infrequently. Like really, this is the one topic in 3 years somebody commented on - it might be interesting to hear why. You look at other accounts and they comment on just about anything ever. So I am just wondering what about this topic has driven somebody to comment. Also, there is no way to send a PM to anybody so...
- lajamerr 8y agoThere's a big difference between handing over documents voluntarily to a government request and being forced to by subpoena though. I'm curious on the exact wording the original article had.
- gameswithgo 8y agothe original article said ex-employees had received subpoena, not tesla.
- Freestyler_3 8y agoReally opens your eyes to how careful a company(with shares) must be with anything said, if projections call for criminal probe.
- dang 8y agoThe WSJ article is being discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18311492 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18311492.