Question Everyone

@elonmusk So silly - maybe the other things you have accomplished are just luck

Universal HIGH INCOME via checks issued by the Federal government is the best way to deal with unemployment caused by AI. AI/robotics will produce goods & services far in excess of the increase in the money supply, so there will not be inflation.

@elonmusk So dumb - maybe the other things you have accomplished are just luck

@JonathanTurley Brilliant work. Thank you.

I am delighted to announce that my new book, “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution,” is now #2 on the New York Times Bestsellers list for nonfiction. I am incredibly grateful to everyone who has bought the book... jonathanturley.org/2026/02/12/rag…

including attorneys’ fees under applicable statutes where your client’s claims are found to be frivolous. We will conduct full discovery into the factual basis for each allegation in your letter, including the circumstances under which your client began contemporaneously documenting the remarks she now characterizes as harassment. If your client wishes to resolve this matter, the three-month severance offer extended at termination remains open for fourteen days from the date of this letter. After that date, it is withdrawn. Govern yourself accordingly. Respectfully, [Name] [Firm] Counsel for TABLE and [Principal]

Your lawyer at work: Dear Counsel — Your client’s demand will not be met. She worked at TABLE for 30 months, earned $1M+ annually, and was terminated alongside one-third of the staff in a documented restructuring. She was offered three months’ severance. She demands twenty-four. That is not a legal claim. It is extortion. The harassment allegations collapse on contact with the facts. Your client was TABLE’s head of HR compliance. She personally administered sensitivity training to the individual whose remarks now form the basis of your complaint. Her own conduct is incompatible with the severity of the claims she now advances. She reported to a female president. She was terminated in a group RIF. The retaliation theory has no anchor. We also note that this demand arrived at a moment your client knew — through privileged access to TABLE’s family affairs — to be one of maximum personal pressure for TABLE’s principal. We will not pretend that is coincidental. TABLE will not settle. If your client files, we defend to verdict and pursue fees where claims are found frivolous. Three months’ severance remains open for 14 days. After that, it is withdrawn. Govern yourself accordingly.

I am reaching out to the @X community for advice with the likely risk of sharing TMI. I have been sufficiently upset about the whole matter that I have lost sleep thinking about it and I am hoping that this post will enable me to get this matter off my chest. By way of background, I started a family office called TABLE about 15 years ago and hired a friend who had previously managed a family office, and years earlier, had been my personal accountant. She is someone that I trusted implicitly and consider to be a good person. The office started small, but over the last decade, the number of personnel and the cost of the office grew massively. The growth was entirely on the operational side as the investment team has remained tiny. While my investment portfolio grew substantially, the investments I had made were almost entirely passive and TABLE simply needed to account for them and meet capital calls as they came in. While TABLE purchased additional software and other systems that were supposed to improve productivity, the team kept increasing in size at a rapid rate, and the expenses continued to grow even faster. While I would periodically question the growing expenses and high staff turnover, I stayed uninvolved with the office other than a once-a-year meeting when I briefly reviewed the operations and the financials and determined bonus compensation for the President and the CFO. I spent no time with any of the other employees or the operations. The whole idea behind TABLE was that it would handle everything other than my day job so that I would have more time for my job and my family. Over the last six years, expenses ballooned even further, employee turnover accelerated, and I became concerned that all was not well at TABLE. It was time for me to take a look at what was going on. Nearly four years ago, I recruited my nephew who had recently graduated from Harvard and put him to work at Bremont, a British watchmaker, one of my only active personal investments to figure out the issues at the company and ultimately assist in executing a turnaround. He did a superb job. When he returned from the UK late last year after a few years at Bremont, I asked him to help me figure out what was going on with TABLE. When I explained to TABLE’s president what he would be doing, she became incredibly defensive, which naturally made me more concerned. My nephew went to work by first meeting with each employee to understand their roles at the company and to learn from them what ideas they had on how things could be improved. He got an earful. Our first step in helping to turn around TABLE was a reduction in force including the president and about a third of the team, retaining excellent talent that had been desperate for new leadership. Now here is where I need your advice. All but one of the employees who were terminated acted professionally and were gracious on the way out (excluding the president who had a notice period in her contract, is currently still being paid, and with whom I have not yet had a discussion). The highest compensated terminated employee other than the president, an in-house lawyer (let’s call her Ronda), told us that three months of severance was not enough and demanded two years’ severance despite having worked at the company for only two and one half years. When I learned of Ronda's request for severance, I offered to speak with her to understand what she was thinking, but she refused to do so. A few days ago, we received a threatening letter from a Silicon Valley law firm. In the letter, Ronda’s counsel suggests that her termination is part of longstanding issues of ‘harassment and gender discrimination’ – an interesting claim in light of the fact that Ronda was in charge of workplace compliance – and that her termination was due to: “unlawful, retaliatory, and harmful conduct directed towards her. Both [Ronda] and I [Ronda’s lawyer] have spoken with you about [Ronda’s] view of what a reasonable resolution would include given the circumstances. Thus far, TABLE has refused to provide any substantive response. This letter provides the last opportunity to reach a satisfactory agreement. If we cannot do so, [Ronda] will seek all appropriate relief in a court of competent jurisdiction.” The letter goes on to explain the basis for the “unsafe work environment” claim at TABLE: “In early 2026, Pershing Square’s founder Bill Ackman installed his nephew in an unidentified role at TABLE, Ackman’s family office. [His nephew]—whose only work experience had been for TABLE where he was seconded abroad for the last four years to a UK watch company held by Ackman—began appearing at TABLE’s offices and conducting interviews of employees without a clear explanation of his role or the purposes of these interviews. During this period, he made a series of inappropriate and genderbased [sic] comments to multiple employees that created an unsafe work environment. Among other things, [his nephew] made remarks about female employees’ ages (“Tell me you are nowhere near 40”), physical appearance (“Your body does not look like you have kids”), as well as intrusive questions about family planning and sexual orientation (“Who carried your son? Who will carry your next child?”). These incidents were reported to senior leadership at TABLE and Pershing Square. Rather than being addressed appropriately, the response from senior management reflected, at best, willful blindness to the inappropriateness of [his nephew]’s remarks and, at worst, tacit endorsement.” The above allegations about my nephew had previously been brought to my attention by TABLE’s president when they occurred. When I learned of them, I told the president that I would speak to him directly and encouraged her to arrange for him to get workplace sensitivity training. The president assured me that she would do so. When I spoke to my nephew, he explained what he actually had said and how his actual remarks had been received, not at all as alleged in the legal letter from Ronda’s counsel. I have also spoken to others at the lunch table who confirmed his description of the facts. In any case, he meant no harm, was simply trying to build rapport with other employees, and no one, as far as I understand, was offended. Ironically, Ronda claims in her legal letter that TABLE didn’t take HR compliance seriously, yet Ronda was in charge of HR compliance at TABLE and the person who gave my nephew his workplace sensitivity training after the alleged incidents. In any case, Ronda, as head of compliance, should have kept a record or raised an alarm if indeed there was pervasive harassment or other such problems at the company, and there is no evidence whatsoever that this is true. So why does Ronda believe she can get me to pay her nearly $2 million, i.e., two years of severance, nearly one year of severance for each of her years at the company? Well, here is where some more background would be helpful. Over the last two months, I have been consumed with a major family medical issue – one of my older daughters had a massive brain hemorrhage on February 5th and has since been making progress on her recovery – and I am in the midst of a major transaction for my company which I am executing from a hospital room office next to her . While the latter business matter is publicly known, the details of my daughter’s situation are only known to Ronda because of her role at our family office. Now, let’s get back to the subject at hand. Unfortunately, while New York and many other states have employment-at-will, there has emerged an industry of lawyers who make a living from bringing fake gender, race, LGBTQ and other discrimination employment claims in order to extract larger severance payments for terminated employees, and it needs to stop. The fake claim system succeeds because it costs little to have a lawyer send a threatening letter and nearly all of the lawyers in this field work on contingency so there is no or minimal cash cost to bring a claim. And inevitably, nearly 100% of these claims are settled because the public relations and legal costs of defending them exceed the dollar cost of the settlement. The claims are nearly always settled with a confidentiality agreement where the employee who asserts the fake claims remains anonymous and as a result, there is no reputational cost to bringing false claims. The consequences of this sleazy system (let’s call it ‘the System’) are the increased costs of doing business which is a tax on the economy and society. There are other more serious problems due to the System. Unfortunately, the existence of an industry of plaintiff firms and terminated employees willing to make these claims makes it riskier for companies to hire employees from a protected class, i.e., LGBTQ, seniors, women, people of color etc. because it is that much more reputationally damaging and expensive to be accused of racism, sexism, and/or intolerance for sexual diversity than for firing a white male as juries generally have less sympathy for white males. The System therefore increases the risk of discrimination rather than reducing it, and the people bringing these fake claims are thereby causing enormous harm to the other members of these protected classes. So what happened here? Ronda was vastly overpaid and overqualified for the job that she did at TABLE. She was paid $1.05 million plus benefits last year for her work which was largely comprised of filling out subscription agreements and overseeing an outside law firm on closing passive investments in funds and in private and venture stage companies, some compliance work, and managing the office move from one office to another. She had a very good gig as she was highly paid, only had to go into the office three days a week, and could work from anywhere during the summer. Once my nephew showed up and started to investigate what was going on, she likely concluded that there was a reasonable possibility she would be terminated, as her job was in the too-easy-and-to-good-to-be-true category. The problem was that she was not in a protected class due to her race, age or sexual identity so she had to construct the basis for a claim. While she is female and could in theory bring a gender-based discrimination claim, she reported to the president who is female and to whom she is very close, which makes it difficult for her to bring a harassment claim against her former boss. When my nephew complimented a TABLE employee at lunch about how young she looked – in response to saying she was going to her 40-year-old sister’s birthday party, he said ‘she must be your older sister’ – Ronda immediately reported it to our external HR lawyer. She thereby began building her case. The other problem for Ronda bringing a claim is that she was terminated alongside 30% of other TABLE employees as part of a restructuring so it is very difficult for her to say that she was targeted in her termination or was retaliated against. TABLE is now hiring an external fractional general counsel as that is all the company needs to process the relatively limited amount of legal work we do internally. In short, Ronda was eminently qualified and capable and did her job. She was just too much horsepower for what is largely an administrative legal role so she had to come up with something else to bring a claim. Now Ronda knew I was a good target and it was a good time to bring a claim against me. She also knew that I was under a lot of pressure because on March 4th when Ronda was terminated, my daughter had not yet emerged from consciousness, she was not yet breathing on her own, and my daughter and we were fighting for her life. I was and remain deeply engaged in her recovery while at the same time I was working on finishing the closing for the private placement round for my upcoming IPO. Ronda also knew that publicity about supposed gender discrimination and a “hostile and unsafe work environment” are not things that a CEO of a company about to go public wants to have released into the media. And she may have thought that the nearly $2 million she was asking for would be considered small in the context of the reputational damage a lawsuit could cause, regardless of the fact that two years of severance was an absurd amount for an employee who had only worked at TABLE for 30 months. She also likely considered that I wouldn’t want to embarrass my nephew by dragging him into the klieg lights when her claims emerged publicly. So, in summary, game theory would say that I would certainly settle this case, for why would I risk negative publicity at a time when I was preparing our company to go public and also risk embarrassing my nephew. Notably, she hired a Silicon Valley law firm, rather than a typical NY employment firm. This struck me as interesting as her husband works for one of the most prominent Silicon Valley venture firms whose CEO, I am sure, has no tolerance for these kinds of fake claims that sadly many venture-backed companies also have to deal with. I mention this as I suspect her husband likely has been working with her on the strategy for squeezing me as, in addition to being a computer scientist, he is a game theorist. My only advice for him is to understand more about your opponent before you launch your first move. All of the above said, gender, race, LGBTQ and other such discrimination is a real thing. Many people have been harmed and deserve compensation for this discrimination, and these companies and individuals should be punished for engaging in such behavior. Which brings me to the advice I am seeking from the X community. I am not planning to follow the typical path and settle this ‘claim.’ Rather, I am going to fight this nonsense to the end of the earth in the hope that it inspires other CEOs to do the same so we shut down this despicable behavior that is a large tax on society, employment, and the economy and contributes to workplace discrimination rather than reducing it. Do you agree or disagree that this is the right approach?

including attorneys’ fees under applicable statutes where your client’s claims are found to be frivolous. We will conduct full discovery into the factual basis for each allegation in your letter, including the circumstances under which your client began contemporaneously documenting the remarks she now characterizes as harassment. If your client wishes to resolve this matter, the three-month severance offer extended at termination remains open for fourteen days from the date of this letter. After that date, it is withdrawn. Govern yourself accordingly. Respectfully, [Name] [Firm] Counsel for TABLE and [Principal]

including attorneys’ fees under applicable statutes where your client’s claims are found to be frivolous. We will conduct full discovery into the factual basis for each allegation in your letter, including the circumstances under which your client began contemporaneously documenting the remarks she now characterizes as harassment. If your client wishes to resolve this matter, the three-month severance offer extended at termination remains open for fourteen days from the date of this letter. After that date, it is withdrawn. Govern yourself accordingly. Respectfully, [Name] [Firm] Counsel for TABLE and [Principal]

VIA EMAIL AND CERTIFIED MAIL [Date] [Plaintiff’s Counsel Name] [Firm Name] [Address] Re: Response to Pre-Litigation Demand — [Ronda’s full name] Dear [Counsel]: I write on behalf of TABLE and its principal in response to your letter dated [date]. We have reviewed your client’s demand carefully. It will not be met. I. The Demand Is Extortionate on Its Face Your client worked at TABLE for approximately thirty months. She received total compensation exceeding $1.05 million annually, with a benefits package commensurate with that figure. She was offered three months’ severance upon termination as part of a company-wide reduction in force affecting approximately one-third of TABLE’s staff. She has rejected that offer and now demands twenty-four months — nearly one year of severance for every year of employment. That demand has no basis in her employment agreement, in equity, or in law. It is a negotiating position dressed as a legal claim, and we intend to treat it accordingly. II. The Discrimination and Retaliation Claims Are Meritless Your letter alleges gender discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. The factual predicate for those claims is thin to the point of embarrassment, and we expect it will become thinner still upon scrutiny. Your client reported directly to TABLE’s President — a woman. The alleged harasser whose conduct forms the centerpiece of your complaint is a junior employee whose offhand social remarks at a group lunch were, by every contemporaneous account available to us, received without complaint or offense by those present. More to the point: your client, as TABLE’s senior in-house counsel and head of HR compliance, was herself responsible for investigating, documenting, and escalating any credible claims of workplace harassment. She did none of those things — because there was nothing credible to escalate. Instead, your client administered workplace sensitivity training to the individual whose conduct she now characterizes as creating an “unsafe work environment.” If the conduct were as egregious as your letter suggests, the appropriate response was not to serve as that individual’s trainer. It was to escalate, document, and act. Your client’s own professional conduct is inconsistent with the severity of the claims she now advances. III. The Termination Was Part of a Legitimate Restructuring Your client was terminated alongside approximately one-third of TABLE’s workforce as part of a deliberate and documented operational restructuring. TABLE is replacing a full-time, $1 million-per-year general counsel role with a fractional outside counsel arrangement commensurate with the actual volume and complexity of its legal work. That is a legitimate business decision. TABLE need not justify it further, but we are prepared to do so at trial if your client wishes to make that necessary. The retaliation theory is particularly difficult to sustain given this context. Your client was not singled out. She was one of many. The timing of her termination coincided with a restructuring that had been underway for months — not with any protected activity on her part. IV. We Note the Strategic Context of This Demand Your letter was delivered at a moment your client knew to be one of maximum personal and professional pressure for TABLE’s principal. Your client had access, through her role at TABLE, to sensitive personal information regarding his family. The demand was calibrated accordingly. We want to be precise: we are not alleging bad faith on your part as counsel. You are representing your client. But we are putting you on notice that we view the timing and framing of this demand as relevant to the totality of what has occurred here, and we will not pretend otherwise. V. TABLE’s Position TABLE will not settle this matter on the terms demanded, or on any terms that reward conduct we regard as opportunistic and in bad faith. If your client elects to file, we will defend vigorously. We will seek all available remedies, inc

@BillAckman @X Fight it and use only AI as legal counsel. Beat her with a sexless, genderless, purely objective machine that is instructed to practice law as a woman.

@stephenasmith Mueller destroyed our family with his Russia Hoax so he can burn in Hell. I’m not only glad he’s dead - I’m glad it was a slow, grinding, embarrassing demise. I like you fine Stephen but you cannot imagine where this sentiment comes from. Pres Trump has earned Grace on this.

“Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it… No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.” — Winston Churchill

@AndrewCMcCarthy Trump doesn’t fake it. x.com/grey4626/statu…

Robert Mueller, Patriot nationalreview.com/corner/robert-…

Steven, When a mortal enemy finally exhales his last breath, the raw, unfiltered surge of satisfaction that courses through the veins isn’t “disgusting.” It’s primal psychology, hardwired into the human animal since the first tribes clashed spears over survival. Schadenfreude isn’t a right-wing defect; it’s evolutionary justice, the limbic system’s quiet roar of relief when the predator who hunted your family, your name, your very existence is neutralized by the only force he couldn’t indict: mortality itself. Call it pathology if you must, but it’s the same pathology that kept our species alive. Trump felt it. Millions feel it with him. And we will not apologize. The Left spent decades normalizing this exact glee, Steven...parading it like a virtue on every stage, every feed, every late-night monologue. They danced on the graves of their “enemies,” toasted the suffering of conservatives, cheered the slow-motion destruction of lives they labeled “threats to democracy.” They mainstreamed it, mainstreamed the venom, mainstreamed the celebratory cruelty, then wrapped it in sanctimony and called it “punching up.” Now the script flips and suddenly you clutch your pearls? Spare the selective sanctimony. We see the pathology for what it is: a one-way mirror of projection, where your side’s sadism is “accountability” and ours is “disgusting.” We don’t give a fuck about that performative etiquette anymore. Political correctness died the same death as civility when the state itself was turned into a torture chamber. Robert Mueller didn’t merely “investigate.” He orchestrated a multi-year psychological crucifixion...special counsel as medieval rack, stretching Trump, his children, his wife, his associates on the wheel of endless subpoenas, leaks, innuendo, and legal sadism. Families shattered in real time. Reputations flayed. A presidency hamstrung while the inquisitor played the stoic patriot on camera. Vietnam vet with a Purple Heart? That medal buys respect for service, not absolution for later weaponizing the FBI against innocents. The Mueller Report wasn’t truth-seeking; it was ritual humiliation dressed in legalese, a slow bleed designed to break a man’s spirit and scar his bloodline. Philosophy 101, Steven: Nietzsche warned that fighting monsters risks becoming one. Mueller became the monster. When the monster dies, the scarred don’t mourn...they exhale. That’s not cruelty. That’s closure. That’s the lethal precision of consequence finally arriving. The Left’s outrage isn’t about Mueller’s dignity. It’s terror at the death of their sacred narrative...the one where they alone dictate who may celebrate and who must genuflect. We have stepped outside that cage. We have rejected the script. And when the architect of our torment meets the grave, we will not feign tears. We will name it what it is: the universe balancing its own ledger. Trump was right to say it out loud. The rest of us are right to feel it in our bones. No more mercy for the memory of those who showed none. 🗡️💀⚖️

Want to know who Bob Mueller was? Listen to this. Every word of it. This paints the picture of what his Special Counsel did to innocent POTUS Trump. He was a dirty cop and should have paid for it while he was living. How many others did he do this to?

@Not_the_Bee Romney????

I asked ChatGPT to give a thumbs up or down for all 100 senators. The results are ridiculous. All but 2 Dems got a thumbs up, all but 4 Republicans got a thumbs down (and those 4 Republicans with thumbs up are Murkowski, Collins, Romney and Britt...aka not real Republicans)

Baby Marco's face! 🤣

@TheBrancaShow “Our tax base has been eroded.” 1. Nice denial by passive voice. 2. Typical euphemistic talking point.

Shorter Kathy Hochul: WHY DID YOU MAKE ME DO THIS TO YOU, YOU BITCHES?

@mirandadevine So he can feel however he wants, but he should go away with honor and be quiet.

Joe Kent is a man of integrity. Whether you agree with him or not, he is acting on his conscience. He is a highly decorated combat veteran and Gold Star husband whose wife was killed in action in Syria in 2019. He has every right to feel the way he does. Thank you for your service @joekent16jan19

@AndrewCMcCarthy As much as Don says it is, cuz unless someone pays him what he wants, it won’t trade.

How Much Is Mar-a-Lago Worth? nationalreview.com/corner/how-muc…

Now that we have had many Islamic terror attacks on US soil in the past few days alone, my heart aches at the possibility that Islamophobia might increase. If you are about to be killed in an Islamic attack, please stop a moment and recognize that while you might be dead soon, there are many peaceful Muslims.