What kinds of things could Musk and Abbott be discussing that could lead to an exchange of intimate messages? The only (non-jokey) thing I can think of would be discussions about the kinds of accommodations Abbott might need at SpaceX or Tesla events due to being paralyzed.
So yeah, there's probably some genuinely not-for-public consumption stuff about Tesla/SpaceX future business initiatives and a whole lot of racism and snarky comments about people that are supposed to be political allies...
Edit: wondering if the downvote brigade are supposed to be signalling that Elon doesn't have any legitimate reason to start conversations about his companies with Texas politicians or that private conversations with Elon would never end up segueing into something that might be embarrassing. Not sure which of those opinions is more ridiculous really...
Why are politicians involved with legal issues? Is this correct?
[1] A lot of less permits would be needed for 10,000 member software company compared to a rocket launch provider or a manufacturing unit.
I think this is what's confusing me - I'd expect politicians to pass laws, but enforcement might be the job of police, tax authorities, workplace safety inspectors, etc.
And giving politicians say over who laws apply to sounds like a fast track to corruption.
politicians have a dual role they are the legislative authority and also are the executive (when in power) . They don’t do those roles concurrently but the same people switch between those two.
The actual execution happens by police lawyers or tax authorities as you say, but the direction and leadership is set by the politicians. When to prosecute, whom to and what punishment to ask for and so on.
In the US system there is additional complexity as what are nominally administrative positions like judge, sheriff etc also elected. So by definition those people also have to be politicians.
This is how corruption is defined.
In government work, in my field specifically, it's the inappropriate transfer of money (gifts, deals, dinners) that's reportable.
The limit for reporting in my field (for gifts) is 10 dollars.
Corruption is usually when there is personal benefit to the politician themselves.
Pointing out that Tesla might be prepared to do x, y and z in the state in only the regulatory framework concerning p and q is compatible with their plans is plain old lobbying. Whether this is more good because it means lots of jobs for Texas or bad because the existing regulatory framework does an excellent job of protecting roads/labour/investors is exactly the sort of decision we give to elected representatives, for better and for worse. If the regulatory framework gets changed and then Tesla sets up a new plant, we probably see the governor issue press releases about it. Same goes for if local government chooses to subside the plant construction to "bring jobs to the state". That doesn't mean all the questions any politician or government agency actually trying to do the right thing should ask to establish the credibility of the proposal should be asking aren't legitimately trade secrets.
My downvote was to indicate that I reject your implication that there are legitimate reasons to keep his communications with government officials private. "Government" is, in most instances, replaceable with "Public". If you don't want your private business to be public knowledge, do not do business with the public. And if you do business with the public, expect that business to be public. There are mechanisms to protect "private" information that do not require government secrecy or redactions. Private businesses use them all the time. They are fallible, sure, but so is everything. More importantly, they are subject to subpoena and other legal remedies so they can be made public if necessary, but they are otherwise private (unlike email). And no, it doesn't matter to me what levels of harm can be done by the lack of secrecy; that's not a reason to be secret, that's a reason to not provide so much harm exposure. Government should be minimizing risk, not providing mechanisms that engender it. Besides, if my refusal to show ID to a cop with no RAS can still get me arrested, obviously the state understands the law as a "do the bad thing, sort it out later" kind of setup. So show us the emails and let's start working to fix the fallout.
Maybe, just maybe, you shouldn't have used your government email account to have intimate and embarrassing exchanges? That thought come to mind, Mr. Abbott?
No. But there are investigative reporters.
The government uses "special masters" or "taint teams" if there's a scenario like this, at times. One was involved in the Trump Mar-a-Lago case.
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/resources/news...
It's called an "In camera review". Assuming someone sues Abbott over this, then a judge can take the documents in question, look over them, and make a determination on whether or not Abbott's claims are true.
That ruling can be appealed to higher courts.
The FBI and friends can also use their means of unlawful surveillance and leak the contents to politically aligned publishers.
My guess is that they discussed a lot of horse trading too candidly.
kelseyfrog•1h ago
teeray•1h ago
notahacker•45m ago
I'm not seeing much to be gained by making it impossible for governments to do due diligence with many suppliers because they'd rather turn down the contract than broadcast such information to their competitors (not sure it'd jive particularly well with public company control over what is and isn't public information either)...
cogman10•37m ago
The fact is, spacex does not have any "trade secrets" that they should be dropping into communication with a government official when speaking about policy or a future contract.
It's not like Musk would be dropping in things like vendors or material composition when talking to Abbott.
The upside of working with the government for a contract is that usually means a lot of money. The price should be full transparency as that's our tax dollars. Secret government communications should pretty much always be seen as highly suspicious.
notahacker•20m ago
But it does mean that the answer to "can you disclose more about the functioning of technology X" or "can you tell us more about your expansion plans in Texas" will be "no". I don't think businesses being less transparent (or setting the price of the contract at greater than the value of open sourcing every part of their IP that isn't patentable or copyrightable) is a win.
cogman10•14m ago
Forcing communication about illegal things to be done verbally is highly inconvenient for both Musk and Abbott. They have to take the time to connect which limits the other work they can be doing. They need a private time and to find a location to avoid someone overhearing their communications.
Not an impossibility, but definitely makes everything just a bit harder.
inerte•1h ago
perihelions•57m ago
> "The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of JEE"
> "Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by e-mail to jeevacation@gmail.com, and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved"