Let's not forget that this is a take, not an indisputable fact. Whether ostensible or true, he has cited potentially valid reasons for both cases (he DID have i

Let's not forget that this is a take, not an indisputable fact. Whether ostensible or true, he has cited potentially valid reasons for both cases (he DID have investors lined up to take it private and there WAS a lack of openness to investigate Twitter). I'm not saying he did or he didn't, I just find this kind of assertion (indeed the whole tone of the article) to be a bit flippant and more of a channeling for dislike of someone then for honest unbiased speculation of what is going on.