WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.117 The calculation that you were referring to in this 00:00:03.200 --> 00:00:06.957 tweet, were you referring to Twitter's calculation of fake accounts underlying 00:00:07.040 --> 00:00:10.317 its SEC filings, right? >> Yes. 00:00:10.400 --> 00:00:13.557 >> And the details supporting the calculation refers to the fact that you 00:00:13.640 --> 00:00:18.077 were waiting on details from Twitter supporting its calculation, right? 00:00:18.160 --> 00:00:21.357 >> Yes. >> And when you said the deal was on hold 00:00:21.440 --> 00:00:24.917 pending this information from Twitter, you meant that until you received this 00:00:25.000 --> 00:00:28.437 information, the deal would not close, right? 00:00:28.520 --> 00:00:33.397 >> Just that it would there there is there's a temporary delay. 00:00:33.480 --> 00:00:37.597 >> Delay on the deal closing. >> Yeah, it's a very temporary temporary delay. 00:00:37.680 --> 00:00:39.197 >> Until you receive this information. 00:00:39.280 --> 00:00:45.077 >> Yes. >> Did you instruct any of your advisors to suspend the purchase? 00:00:45.160 --> 00:00:48.837 >> No. >> Did you tell your attorneys to stop working on the deal? 00:00:48.920 --> 00:00:52.957 >> No. >> Did you tell your bankers to stop working on the deal? 00:00:53.040 --> 00:00:56.397 >> No, this is we're literally just waiting for the documents. 00:00:56.480 --> 00:00:58.997 >> Had you received at this point in time, 00:00:59.080 --> 00:01:05.840 May 15th, any analysis from Twitter that there was more than 5%? 00:01:07.360 --> 00:01:11.197 >> I don't think so. >> When you said might be over 90%, why did 00:01:11.280 --> 00:01:15.757 you use that number? >> I'm I'm simply saying that I had no 00:01:15.840 --> 00:01:21.760 basis at this point for a rational 00:01:22.120 --> 00:01:27.437 number calculation. So, it was not impossible that it it 00:01:27.520 --> 00:01:28.797 could be some very high number. 00:01:28.880 --> 00:01:33.077 >> And just so I'm following, so the first question is how you identify those 100 00:01:33.160 --> 00:01:35.877 and then of those 100, how do you determine whether real or fake? 00:01:35.960 --> 00:01:39.077 >> Yes. >> And you're saying Twitter didn't give you that answer. 00:01:39.160 --> 00:01:43.637 >> I I never got an answer for how they picked the 100. 00:01:43.720 --> 00:01:47.797 And I never got an answer for how they determined of the 100, which one were 00:01:47.880 --> 00:01:50.637 which ones real. 00:01:50.720 --> 00:01:53.157 Does that sound like a method to you? 00:01:53.240 --> 00:01:58.717 It sound like a method to me. >> And your advisor >> Sounds like 00:01:58.800 --> 00:02:01.877 >> Did anyone ever tell you that Quinn Emanuel had received backup data on 00:02:01.960 --> 00:02:05.717 their on Twitter's sampling process on July 1st, 2022? 00:02:05.800 --> 00:02:08.077 >> I don't recall. >> Would that have been something that you 00:02:08.160 --> 00:02:13.040 would have wanted to know before you terminated the deal a week later? 00:02:13.880 --> 00:02:18.917 >> Probably. >> Did you find it useful for your data scientist to meet with 00:02:19.000 --> 00:02:23.197 Twitter's data scientists? >> I would have That would make sense. 00:02:23.280 --> 00:02:25.237 >> Yeah. Do you know if that was done? 00:02:25.320 --> 00:02:29.437 >> I don't know. >> Did anyone advise you that Twitter had made that invitation? 00:02:29.520 --> 00:02:32.240 >> I don't think so. 00:02:41.240 --> 00:02:43.277 >> It's copied to Alex Spiro and Andrew 00:02:43.360 --> 00:02:48.760 Rossman. Did anyone at Quinn Emanuel pass along this letter to you? 00:02:50.160 --> 00:02:52.800 >> I don't recall. 00:02:54.880 --> 00:02:58.077 >> And is it fair to say that you don't recall any of your advisors that are 00:02:58.160 --> 00:03:01.277 copied on this letter, Alex Spiro, Andrew Rossman, 00:03:01.360 --> 00:03:03.437 or the attorneys from Skadden Arps 00:03:03.520 --> 00:03:08.997 relaying the invitation that Twitter had made for your data scientists to meet? 00:03:09.080 --> 00:03:12.157 Correct? >> I don't recall. >> Kate also writes on the fourth 00:03:12.240 --> 00:03:16.717 paragraph, {quote} "As follow-up, he offered to have a smaller group 00:03:16.800 --> 00:03:18.997 discussion with Elon 00:03:19.080 --> 00:03:22.637 to for him and Parag. 00:03:22.720 --> 00:03:26.037 He said he thought that would be constructive and more helpful than 00:03:26.120 --> 00:03:30.077 waiting for raw data output, some of which is limited due to data 00:03:30.160 --> 00:03:33.717 retention, and instead explaining activity versus 00:03:33.800 --> 00:03:35.557 mDAU will better frame the question." 00:03:35.640 --> 00:03:39.397 {close quote} Did you ever receive that message from 00:03:39.480 --> 00:03:43.557 any one of your team members? >> I don't recall. 00:03:43.640 --> 00:03:50.120 >> Did you have any follow-up group discussions with Ned or Parag? 00:03:51.720 --> 00:03:54.277 >> I don't think so. >> How did their methodologies differ from 00:03:54.360 --> 00:03:56.877 what Twitter was doing? >> I don't recall. 00:03:56.960 --> 00:03:59.317 >> The stock market went up about 27%. 00:03:59.400 --> 00:04:03.517 >> Wow. In one day? >> Does that surprise you? 00:04:03.600 --> 00:04:05.437 >> It went went up 20%. Are you saying it 00:04:05.520 --> 00:04:09.437 went up 27% percent in one day? 00:04:09.520 --> 00:04:13.997 >> It went Yes, 27% after this filing was made. 00:04:14.080 --> 00:04:16.157 >> In one day? >> Would that surprise you? 00:04:16.240 --> 00:04:18.597 >> That sounds high. >> Yeah. Would it surprise you that it went 00:04:18.680 --> 00:04:22.957 up at all after this filing? >> Well, the stock market Stocks go up and 00:04:23.040 --> 00:04:27.557 down, but but if you're saying it went up I actually don't know. 00:04:27.640 --> 00:04:31.397 You're saying it went It went up 27% in one day? 00:04:31.480 --> 00:04:36.717 Is Is that correct? >> When did you conduct the analysis? 00:04:36.800 --> 00:04:40.317 >> Uh shortly after 00:04:40.400 --> 00:04:43.877 the acquisition. >> Did you use outside data scientists to 00:04:43.960 --> 00:04:48.157 perform this calculation? >> No, we just we could do internal 00:04:48.240 --> 00:04:52.797 analysis. >> Okay. And who at Twitter performed this analysis? 00:04:52.880 --> 00:04:57.837 >> I don't recall. >> And what was it? One person, 10 people? 00:04:57.920 --> 00:05:00.517 Was it a team? >> I think it was a team. 00:05:00.600 --> 00:05:03.117 >> And you can't identify any of those people? 00:05:03.200 --> 00:05:05.800 >> Not that I'm aware of. 00:05:06.440 --> 00:05:10.077 >> Uh was this calculation documented somewhere? 00:05:10.160 --> 00:05:12.760 >> I don't recall. 00:05:13.600 --> 00:05:16.517 >> Uh did you inform advertisers that fake 00:05:16.600 --> 00:05:18.877 accounts represented a higher percentage 00:05:18.960 --> 00:05:20.957 of the platform's account holders? 00:05:21.040 --> 00:05:23.637 >> I don't recall. 00:05:23.720 --> 00:05:28.837 >> Do you Did you inform your equity or debt investors that fake accounts 00:05:28.920 --> 00:05:32.077 represented a higher percentage of the platform's account holders? 00:05:32.160 --> 00:05:35.400 >> Not beyond my public statements. 00:05:37.720 --> 00:05:41.037 >> So, you did not have any 00:05:41.120 --> 00:05:45.040 direct communications with any 00:05:45.400 --> 00:05:50.837 equity or debt investor about your determination that spam and 00:05:50.920 --> 00:05:54.077 fake accounts represent a higher percentage of the platform's holders, 00:05:54.160 --> 00:05:56.640 correct? 00:05:56.840 --> 00:05:58.237 Other than your public statements. 00:05:58.320 --> 00:06:01.480 >> Not other than the public statements. 00:06:04.440 --> 00:06:08.037 >> After you took control of the company, did you instruct anybody at Twitter or X 00:06:08.120 --> 00:06:10.797 to inform advertisers that Twitter's 00:06:10.880 --> 00:06:15.520 prior estimates of fake accounts were inaccurate? 00:06:16.200 --> 00:06:18.800 >> I don't recall. 00:06:19.000 --> 00:06:25.240 >> Do you have a public accountant at X? 00:06:25.760 --> 00:06:30.677 >> Uh PricewaterhouseCoopers. >> Is Pricewaterhouse your accountant? 00:06:30.760 --> 00:06:33.837 >> I believe so. >> Did you inform Pricewaterhouse that you 00:06:33.920 --> 00:06:37.077 had determined that Twitter's prior estimates of fake accounts were 00:06:37.160 --> 00:06:40.677 inaccurate? >> Uh not beyond my public statements. 00:06:40.760 --> 00:06:43.677 >> Yet after all that, you agreed eventually to dismiss your claims and to 00:06:43.760 --> 00:06:46.317 buy Twitter, correct? >> Yeah. 00:06:46.400 --> 00:06:47.757 >> And you did that because you thought the 00:06:47.840 --> 00:06:51.037 judge in Delaware would order you to buy it. 00:06:51.120 --> 00:06:55.237 >> Um I was told that we would not receive a fair hearing from Kathleen McCormick. 00:06:55.320 --> 00:07:02.080 Um that she has she had a strong bias against me. 00:07:02.400 --> 00:07:07.277 And uh you know, subsequent ruling regarding the Tesla 00:07:07.360 --> 00:07:11.797 shareholder vote showed that to be true. 00:07:11.880 --> 00:07:16.357 >> And is that the reason you agreed to capitulate on the Twitter case? 00:07:16.440 --> 00:07:19.557 >> Yes. I did not believe I would receive a fair hearing. 00:07:19.640 --> 00:07:23.317 >> Any other reason? >> No. >> Why do you think she's biased against 00:07:23.400 --> 00:07:24.637 you? Just because of her rulings? 00:07:24.720 --> 00:07:26.957 >> Yes. >> Were you able to obtain the debt 00:07:27.040 --> 00:07:30.397 financing even without the information that you claim Twitter had not provided 00:07:30.480 --> 00:07:35.077 you? >> The debt financing came through, yes. 00:07:35.160 --> 00:07:36.997 >> Were you able to obtain equity financing 00:07:37.080 --> 00:07:40.517 even without the information that you claim Twitter had not provided you? 00:07:40.600 --> 00:07:45.237 >> Yes. >> You told Morgan Stanley that Twitter could be worth 200 to 300 billion 00:07:45.320 --> 00:07:47.957 dollars under your ownership. >> Yeah. 00:07:48.040 --> 00:07:51.037 >> Do you remember that? >> I may have said that. 00:07:51.120 --> 00:07:53.517 >> Did you feel that at the time? 00:07:53.600 --> 00:07:55.677 >> I thought there was a lot of untapped potential. 00:07:55.760 --> 00:07:57.637 >> Did you tell Morgan Stanley during these 00:07:57.720 --> 00:08:01.357 initial stages before you made an offer 00:08:01.440 --> 00:08:03.517 that you believed Twitter's real user 00:08:03.600 --> 00:08:09.560 numbers were much lower than the numbers Twitter was disclosing? 00:08:10.120 --> 00:08:13.197 >> I Yeah, I thought I thought Twitter was exaggerating the numbers. 00:08:13.280 --> 00:08:16.877 >> Have you ever heard of the term monetizable daily active users? 00:08:16.960 --> 00:08:19.717 >> Yes. >> That was the metric that Twitter was using? 00:08:19.800 --> 00:08:24.277 >> Yes. >> Had you as of April 11th 00:08:24.360 --> 00:08:29.357 2022 looked at its MDAU numbers? 00:08:29.440 --> 00:08:30.997 >> I I'm not sure of the date. 00:08:31.080 --> 00:08:35.680 >> Do you remember when the first time is that you focused on those numbers? 00:08:36.040 --> 00:08:39.237 >> Uh I think it may have been when I met 00:08:39.320 --> 00:08:44.477 with Parag and Ned. >> In San Jose? 00:08:44.560 --> 00:08:45.757 >> I think it was in San Francisco. 00:08:45.840 --> 00:08:48.197 >> Oh, in San Francisco on May 6th? 00:08:48.280 --> 00:08:51.917 >> I don't know the exact date, but >> But it was after the deal closed? 00:08:52.000 --> 00:08:55.797 Or sorry, it was after the deal was signed? 00:08:55.880 --> 00:08:58.717 >> I believe so, yes. >> Okay. You wanted the right to take 00:08:58.800 --> 00:09:02.837 confirmatory business due diligence as part of this offer. 00:09:02.920 --> 00:09:07.120 >> Yes. >> And why did you want to do that? 00:09:10.160 --> 00:09:16.960 >> I would just need to make sure that the the public statements are accurate. 00:09:19.200 --> 00:09:21.360 >> Right. 00:09:28.760 --> 00:09:31.917 Anything more in particular? >> No. 00:09:32.000 --> 00:09:34.477 >> Prior to signing, did you or anyone 00:09:34.560 --> 00:09:36.837 on acting on your behalf ever ask for 00:09:36.920 --> 00:09:41.517 the underlying data used to make that estimate? 00:09:41.600 --> 00:09:45.317 >> I don't think so. >> Prior to signing, did you ever ask to 00:09:45.400 --> 00:09:50.680 speak to any Twitter employees involved in their estimation process? 00:09:50.920 --> 00:09:55.597 >> Not that I can recall. >> Prior to signing on April 25th, 2022, 00:09:55.680 --> 00:09:58.837 uh did you ask a single question about the prevalence of fake accounts on 00:09:58.920 --> 00:10:01.917 Twitter's platform? >> Um I mean, I raised uh 00:10:02.000 --> 00:10:05.157 many many times with Jack, but the 00:10:05.240 --> 00:10:09.237 but the you know, what was he doing about the 00:10:09.320 --> 00:10:13.397 fake and spam accounts uh that were plaguing the system. 00:10:13.480 --> 00:10:14.957 >> Other than these conversations with Mr. 00:10:15.040 --> 00:10:18.717 Dorsey that you were described before, any other conversations? 00:10:18.800 --> 00:10:23.440 >> Um not that I can recall. 00:10:27.360 --> 00:10:31.237 >> Did anything or anyone prevent you from including language in the merger 00:10:31.320 --> 00:10:35.757 agreement requiring Twitter to describe its methodology and to provide you with 00:10:35.840 --> 00:10:39.197 all backup information it used to estimate the percentage of fake 00:10:39.280 --> 00:10:43.077 accounts? >> Not that I can recall. 00:10:43.160 --> 00:10:46.277 >> Anything prevent you from including specific language in the agreement 00:10:46.360 --> 00:10:50.997 requiring Twitter to provide you with Twitter's raw data regarding its users? 00:10:51.080 --> 00:10:53.100 >> [snorts] 00:10:53.240 --> 00:10:54.557 >> Not that I can recall. 00:10:54.640 --> 00:10:58.437 >> At this meeting, was anybody upset? 00:10:58.520 --> 00:11:04.880 If you know, to the other side, like perceptively upset. 00:11:05.720 --> 00:11:08.557 >> Uh I don't recall. >> So, at the meeting itself, did you 00:11:08.640 --> 00:11:14.000 express um your displeasure to them? 00:11:14.440 --> 00:11:19.397 >> I probably did. >> Do you remember one way or the other? 00:11:19.480 --> 00:11:22.037 >> I don't recall exactly what I said, but I wouldn't have been 00:11:22.120 --> 00:11:25.717 uh particularly pleased that they could not just justify that the 00:11:25.800 --> 00:11:29.197 how they calculated one of the most fundamental metrics in the system that 00:11:29.280 --> 00:11:32.037 was fundamental to the value of the company. 00:11:32.120 --> 00:11:34.997 >> I understand that's how you felt internally, but did you express that to 00:11:35.080 --> 00:11:36.717 anyone at Twitter at the meeting? 00:11:36.800 --> 00:11:40.517 >> I think I did. >> Do you remember specifically what you said? 00:11:40.600 --> 00:11:43.477 >> No. >> Is it fair to say that Ned and Parag's 00:11:43.560 --> 00:11:47.437 description of Twitter's methodology was not so concerning that it caused you to 00:11:47.520 --> 00:11:51.477 request to meet with Twitter's management team or its engineers or its 00:11:51.560 --> 00:11:57.960 sampling team team members to better understand the basis for the calculations? 00:11:59.960 --> 00:12:02.557 >> I don't recall. >> You never did that on May 6th and you 00:12:02.640 --> 00:12:04.557 never did that after May 6th, right? 00:12:04.640 --> 00:12:08.877 >> I don't recall. >> The calculation that you're referring to in this 00:12:08.960 --> 00:12:12.717 tweet, were you referring to Twitter's calculation of fake accounts underlying 00:12:12.800 --> 00:12:16.077 its SEC filings, right? >> Yes. 00:12:16.160 --> 00:12:19.317 >> And the details supporting the calculation refers to the fact that you 00:12:19.400 --> 00:12:23.837 were waiting on details from Twitter supporting its calculation, right? 00:12:23.920 --> 00:12:27.077 >> Yes. >> And when you said the deal was on hold 00:12:27.160 --> 00:12:30.757 pending this information from Twitter, you meant that until you received this 00:12:30.840 --> 00:12:34.237 information, the deal would not close, right? 00:12:34.320 --> 00:12:39.157 >> Just that it would there that is there's a temporary delay. 00:12:39.240 --> 00:12:43.357 >> Delay on the deal closing. >> Yeah, it's a very temporarily a temporary delay. 00:12:43.440 --> 00:12:44.917 >> Until you receive this information. 00:12:45.000 --> 00:12:50.837 >> Yes. >> Did you instruct any of your advisers to suspend the purchase? 00:12:50.920 --> 00:12:54.597 >> No. >> Did you tell your attorneys to stop working on the deal? 00:12:54.680 --> 00:12:58.717 >> No. >> Did you tell your bankers to stop working on the deal? 00:12:58.800 --> 00:13:02.157 >> No, this is uh we're literally just waiting for the documents. 00:13:02.240 --> 00:13:04.717 >> Had you received at this point in time, 00:13:04.800 --> 00:13:11.600 May 15th, any analysis from Twitter that there was more than 5%? 00:13:13.120 --> 00:13:16.717 >> I don't think so. >> When you said it might be over 90%, why 00:13:16.800 --> 00:13:21.917 did you use that number? >> Um I'm simply saying that I had no basis 00:13:22.000 --> 00:13:27.440 at this point for uh a rational 00:13:27.880 --> 00:13:33.117 number calculation. So, it was not impossible that it it 00:13:33.200 --> 00:13:34.597 could be some very high number. 00:13:34.680 --> 00:13:38.837 >> And just so I'm following, so the first question is how you identify those 100, 00:13:38.920 --> 00:13:41.677 and then of those 100, how do you determine whether real or fake? 00:13:41.760 --> 00:13:44.837 >> Yes. >> And you're saying Twitter didn't give you that answer. 00:13:44.920 --> 00:13:49.477 >> I I never got an answer for how they picked the 100. 00:13:49.560 --> 00:13:52.957 And I never got an answer for how they determined of the 100 00:13:53.040 --> 00:13:56.440 which one were which ones were real. 00:13:56.560 --> 00:13:58.997 Does that sound like a method to you? 00:13:59.080 --> 00:14:01.677 It doesn't sound like a method to me. 00:14:01.760 --> 00:14:05.997 >> And your advisor >> Sounds like >> Did anyone ever tell you that Quinn 00:14:06.080 --> 00:14:09.637 Emanuel had received backup data on their on Twitter's sampling process on 00:14:09.720 --> 00:14:12.917 July 1st, 2022? >> I don't recall. 00:14:13.000 --> 00:14:15.117 >> Would that have been something that you would have wanted to know before you 00:14:15.200 --> 00:14:18.800 terminated the deal a week later? 00:14:19.640 --> 00:14:24.677 >> Probably. >> Did you find it useful for your data scientist to meet with 00:14:24.760 --> 00:14:28.997 Twitter's data scientist? >> I would have That would make sense. 00:14:29.080 --> 00:14:30.997 >> Yeah. Do you know if that was done? 00:14:31.080 --> 00:14:35.077 >> I don't know. >> Did anyone advise you that Twitter had made that invitation? 00:14:35.160 --> 00:14:37.880 >> I don't think so. 00:14:46.920 --> 00:14:48.917 >> It's copied to Alex Spiro and Andrew 00:14:49.000 --> 00:14:54.360 Rossman. Did anyone at Quinn Emanuel pass along this letter to you? 00:14:55.840 --> 00:14:58.480 >> I don't recall. 00:15:00.560 --> 00:15:03.477 >> And is it fair to say that you don't recall any of your advisors 00:15:03.560 --> 00:15:06.957 that are copied on this letter, Alex Spiro and Andrew Rossman, 00:15:07.040 --> 00:15:09.117 or the attorneys from Skadden Arps 00:15:09.200 --> 00:15:14.677 relaying the invitation that Twitter had made for your data scientist to meet? 00:15:14.760 --> 00:15:17.797 Correct? >> I don't recall. >> Kate also writes on the fourth 00:15:17.880 --> 00:15:22.397 paragraph, quote, "As follow-up, he offered to have a smaller group 00:15:22.480 --> 00:15:24.637 discussion with Elon 00:15:24.720 --> 00:15:28.317 to for him and Parag. 00:15:28.400 --> 00:15:31.677 He said he thought that would be constructive and more helpful than 00:15:31.760 --> 00:15:35.717 waiting for raw data output. Some of which is limited due to data 00:15:35.800 --> 00:15:39.357 retention. And instead explaining activity versus 00:15:39.440 --> 00:15:41.197 MDAU will better frame the question. 00:15:41.280 --> 00:15:45.077 Close quote. Did you ever receive that message from 00:15:45.160 --> 00:15:49.237 any one of your team members? >> I don't recall. 00:15:49.320 --> 00:15:55.800 >> Did you have any follow-up group discussions with Ned or Parag? 00:15:57.400 --> 00:15:59.997 >> I don't think so. >> How did their methodologies differ from 00:16:00.080 --> 00:16:02.557 what Twitter was doing? >> I don't recall. 00:16:02.640 --> 00:16:05.077 >> Okay, the stock market went up about 27%. 00:16:05.160 --> 00:16:09.277 >> Wow. In one day? >> Does that surprise you? 00:16:09.360 --> 00:16:11.157 >> It went It went up 20%. Are you saying 00:16:11.240 --> 00:16:15.197 it went up 27% in one day? 00:16:15.280 --> 00:16:19.757 >> It went to Yes, 27% after this filing was made. 00:16:19.840 --> 00:16:21.917 >> In one day? >> Would that surprise you? 00:16:22.000 --> 00:16:24.597 >> That sounds high. >> Would it surprise you that it went up at 00:16:24.680 --> 00:16:28.717 all after this filing? >> Well, the stock market Stocks go up and 00:16:28.800 --> 00:16:33.317 down. But But if You're saying it went up I went up I actually don't know. 00:16:33.400 --> 00:16:37.157 You're saying it went It went up 27% in one day? 00:16:37.240 --> 00:16:42.437 Is Is that correct? >> When did you conduct the analysis? 00:16:42.520 --> 00:16:46.037 >> Uh shortly after 00:16:46.120 --> 00:16:49.637 the acquisition. >> Did you use outside data scientists to 00:16:49.720 --> 00:16:53.917 perform this calculation? >> No, we just We could do internal 00:16:54.000 --> 00:16:58.517 analysis. >> Okay, and who at Twitter performed this analysis? 00:16:58.600 --> 00:17:03.037 >> I don't recall. >> You know, what Was it one person, 10 00:17:03.120 --> 00:17:06.277 people? Was it a team? >> I think it was a team. 00:17:06.360 --> 00:17:08.877 >> And you can't identify any of those people? 00:17:08.960 --> 00:17:11.520 >> Not off hand. 00:17:12.200 --> 00:17:15.797 >> Uh was this calculation documented somewhere? 00:17:15.880 --> 00:17:18.560 >> I don't recall. 00:17:19.400 --> 00:17:22.317 >> Did you inform advertisers that fake 00:17:22.400 --> 00:17:26.677 accounts represented a higher percentage of the platform's account holders? 00:17:26.760 --> 00:17:29.397 >> I don't recall. 00:17:29.480 --> 00:17:34.597 >> Did you Did you inform your equity or debt investors that fake accounts 00:17:34.680 --> 00:17:37.717 represented a higher percentage of the platform's account holders? 00:17:37.800 --> 00:17:38.997 >> Not beyond my public statements. 00:17:39.080 --> 00:17:41.160 >> Okay. 00:17:43.400 --> 00:17:44.797 So, you did not 00:17:44.880 --> 00:17:50.720 have any direct communications with any 00:17:51.040 --> 00:17:56.477 equity or debt investor about your determination that spam and 00:17:56.560 --> 00:17:59.717 fake accounts represent a higher percentage of the platform's holders, 00:17:59.800 --> 00:18:02.280 correct? 00:18:02.480 --> 00:18:03.877 Other than your public statements. 00:18:03.960 --> 00:18:07.200 >> Not other than the public statements. 00:18:10.080 --> 00:18:13.717 >> After you took control of the company, did you instruct anybody at Twitter or X 00:18:13.800 --> 00:18:16.477 to inform advertisers that Twitter's 00:18:16.560 --> 00:18:21.200 prior estimates of fake accounts were inaccurate? 00:18:21.840 --> 00:18:24.440 >> I don't recall. 00:18:24.640 --> 00:18:30.880 >> Do you have uh a public accountant at X? 00:18:31.360 --> 00:18:36.317 >> Uh PricewaterhouseCoopers. >> Is Pricewaterhouse your accountant? 00:18:36.400 --> 00:18:39.517 >> I believe so. >> Did you inform Pricewaterhouse that you 00:18:39.600 --> 00:18:42.757 had determined that Twitter's prior estimates of fake accounts were 00:18:42.840 --> 00:18:46.397 inaccurate? >> Uh not beyond my public statements. 00:18:46.480 --> 00:18:49.437 >> Yet, after all that, you agreed eventually to dismiss your claims and to 00:18:49.520 --> 00:18:53.557 buy Twitter, correct? >> Yes. >> And you did that because you thought the 00:18:53.640 --> 00:18:56.757 judge in Delaware would order you to buy it. 00:18:56.840 --> 00:19:00.997 >> Um I was told that we would not receive a fair hearing from Kathleen McCormick. 00:19:01.080 --> 00:19:07.840 Um that she has She had a strong bias against me. 00:19:08.120 --> 00:19:13.037 And uh you know, subsequent ruling regarding the Tesla 00:19:13.120 --> 00:19:17.597 shareholder vote showed that to be true. 00:19:17.680 --> 00:19:22.117 >> And is that the reason you agreed to capitulate on the Twitter case? 00:19:22.200 --> 00:19:25.317 >> Yes, I did not believe I would receive a fair hearing. 00:19:25.400 --> 00:19:29.077 >> Any other reason? >> No. >> Why do you think she's biased against 00:19:29.160 --> 00:19:30.437 you? Just because of her rulings? 00:19:30.520 --> 00:19:32.597 >> Yes. >> Were you able to obtain the debt 00:19:32.680 --> 00:19:36.037 financing even without the information that you claim Twitter had not provided 00:19:36.120 --> 00:19:40.757 you? >> The debt financing came through, yes. 00:19:40.840 --> 00:19:42.677 >> Were you able to obtain equity financing 00:19:42.760 --> 00:19:46.197 even without the information that you claim Twitter had not provided you? 00:19:46.280 --> 00:19:50.997 >> Yes. >> You told Morgan Stanley that Twitter could be worth 200 to 300 billion 00:19:51.080 --> 00:19:53.717 dollars under your ownership. >> Yes. 00:19:53.800 --> 00:19:56.797 >> Do you remember that? >> I may have said that. 00:19:56.880 --> 00:19:59.277 >> Did you feel that at the time? 00:19:59.360 --> 00:20:01.437 >> I thought there was a lot of untapped potential. 00:20:01.520 --> 00:20:03.397 >> Did you tell Morgan Stanley during these 00:20:03.480 --> 00:20:07.117 initial stages before you made an offer 00:20:07.200 --> 00:20:09.317 that you believed Twitter's real user 00:20:09.400 --> 00:20:15.320 numbers were much lower than the numbers Twitter was disclosing? 00:20:15.840 --> 00:20:18.917 >> I Yeah, I thought I thought Twitter was exaggerating the numbers. 00:20:19.000 --> 00:20:22.597 >> Have you ever heard of the term monetizable daily active users? 00:20:22.680 --> 00:20:25.477 >> Yes. >> And that was the metric that Twitter was using? 00:20:25.560 --> 00:20:30.077 >> Yes. >> Had you as of April 11th 00:20:30.160 --> 00:20:35.117 2022 looked at its MDAU numbers? 00:20:35.200 --> 00:20:38.117 >> I'm not sure of the date. >> Do you remember when the first time is 00:20:38.200 --> 00:20:41.440 that you focused on those numbers? 00:20:41.840 --> 00:20:45.157 >> I I think it may have been when I met with 00:20:45.240 --> 00:20:50.237 Parag and Ned. >> In San Jose? 00:20:50.320 --> 00:20:51.517 >> I think it was in San Francisco. 00:20:51.600 --> 00:20:53.957 >> Oh, in San Francisco on May 6th? 00:20:54.040 --> 00:20:55.077 >> I don't know the exact date. 00:20:55.160 --> 00:20:59.277 >> Okay. But it was after the deal closed or sorry, it was after the deal was 00:20:59.360 --> 00:21:03.117 signed. >> I believe so, yes. 00:21:03.200 --> 00:21:06.677 >> Okay. You wanted the right to take confirmatory business due diligence as 00:21:06.760 --> 00:21:12.760 part of the software. >> Yes. >> Okay. And why did you want to do that? 00:21:15.840 --> 00:21:22.600 >> Uh we just need to make sure that the the public statements are accurate. 00:21:24.880 --> 00:21:27.000 >> Right. 00:21:34.440 --> 00:21:37.677 Anything more in particular? >> No. 00:21:37.760 --> 00:21:40.277 >> Prior to signing, did you or anyone 00:21:40.360 --> 00:21:45.197 on acting on your behalf ever ask for the underlying data used to make that 00:21:45.280 --> 00:21:48.997 estimate? >> I don't think so. 00:21:49.080 --> 00:21:51.037 >> Prior to signing, did you ever ask to 00:21:51.120 --> 00:21:56.440 speak to any Twitter employees involved in their estimation process? 00:21:56.680 --> 00:22:01.317 >> Not that I can recall. >> Prior to signing on April 25th, 2022, 00:22:01.400 --> 00:22:04.597 uh did you ask a single question about the prevalence of fake accounts on 00:22:04.680 --> 00:22:07.677 Twitter's platform? >> Um I mean, I raised uh 00:22:07.760 --> 00:22:10.917 many many times with Jack with the 00:22:11.000 --> 00:22:14.917 with the you know, what was he doing about the 00:22:15.000 --> 00:22:19.157 fake and spam accounts uh that were playing the system. 00:22:19.240 --> 00:22:20.717 >> Other than these conversations with Mr. 00:22:20.800 --> 00:22:24.477 Dorsey that you were described before, any other conversations? 00:22:24.560 --> 00:22:29.200 >> Um not that I can recall. 00:22:33.120 --> 00:22:36.957 >> Did anything or anyone prevent you from including language in the merger 00:22:37.040 --> 00:22:41.517 agreement requiring Twitter to describe its methodology and to provide you with 00:22:41.600 --> 00:22:44.957 all backup information it used to estimate the percentage of fake 00:22:45.040 --> 00:22:48.837 accounts? >> Not that I can recall. 00:22:48.920 --> 00:22:52.037 >> Anything prevent you from including specific language in the agreement 00:22:52.120 --> 00:22:58.440 requiring Twitter to provide you with Twitter's raw data regarding its users? 00:22:59.000 --> 00:23:00.357 >> Not that I can recall. 00:23:00.440 --> 00:23:04.077 >> This meeting, was anybody upset? 00:23:04.160 --> 00:23:10.560 With you to the other side like perceptively upset. 00:23:11.360 --> 00:23:14.317 >> Uh I don't recall. >> So, at the meeting itself, did you 00:23:14.400 --> 00:23:19.800 express um your displeasure to them? 00:23:20.200 --> 00:23:25.117 >> I probably did. >> Do you remember one way or the other? 00:23:25.200 --> 00:23:27.797 >> I don't recall exactly what I said, but I wouldn't have been 00:23:27.880 --> 00:23:31.437 uh particularly pleased that they could not just justify that the 00:23:31.520 --> 00:23:35.717 how they calculated one of the most fundamental metrics in the system that was 00:23:35.800 --> 00:23:37.797 fundamental to the value of the company. 00:23:37.880 --> 00:23:40.797 >> I understand that's how you felt internally, but did you express that to 00:23:40.880 --> 00:23:42.557 anyone at Twitter at the meeting? 00:23:42.640 --> 00:23:46.317 >> I think I did. >> Do you remember specifically what you said? 00:23:46.400 --> 00:23:49.277 >> No. >> Is it fair to say that Ned and Parag's 00:23:49.360 --> 00:23:53.157 description of Twitter's methodology was not so concerning that it caused you to 00:23:53.240 --> 00:23:57.237 request to meet with Twitter's management team or its engineers or its 00:23:57.320 --> 00:24:03.720 sampling team team members to better understand the basis for the calculations? 00:24:05.800 --> 00:24:08.317 >> I don't recall. >> You never did that on May 6th and you 00:24:08.400 --> 00:24:10.397 never did that after May 6th, right? 00:24:10.480 --> 00:24:14.717 >> I don't recall. >> The calculation that you were referring to in this 00:24:14.800 --> 00:24:18.477 tweet, were you referring to Twitter's calculation of fake accounts underlying 00:24:18.560 --> 00:24:21.877 its SEC filings, right? >> Yes. 00:24:21.960 --> 00:24:25.077 >> And the details supporting the calculation refers to the fact that you 00:24:25.160 --> 00:24:29.637 were waiting on details from Twitter supporting its calculation, right? 00:24:29.720 --> 00:24:32.797 >> Yes. >> And when you said the deal was on hold 00:24:32.880 --> 00:24:36.437 pending this information from Twitter, you meant that until you received this 00:24:36.520 --> 00:24:40.037 information, the deal would not close, right? 00:24:40.120 --> 00:24:44.997 >> Just that it would there that is there's a temporary delay. 00:24:45.080 --> 00:24:49.197 >> Delay on the deal closing. >> Yeah, temporary temporarily a temporary delay. 00:24:49.280 --> 00:24:50.677 >> Until you receive this information. 00:24:50.760 --> 00:24:56.637 >> Yes. >> Did you instruct any of your advisers to suspend the purchase? 00:24:56.720 --> 00:25:00.437 >> No. >> Did you tell your attorneys to stop working on the deal? 00:25:00.520 --> 00:25:04.557 >> No. >> Did you tell your bankers to stop working on the deal? 00:25:04.640 --> 00:25:07.877 >> No, this is we're literally just waiting for the documents. 00:25:07.960 --> 00:25:10.397 >> Had you received at this point in time, 00:25:10.480 --> 00:25:17.240 May 15th, any analysis from Twitter that there was more than 5%? 00:25:18.880 --> 00:25:22.637 >> I don't think so. >> When you said might be over 90%, why did 00:25:22.720 --> 00:25:27.757 you use that number? >> I'm simply saying that I had no basis at 00:25:27.840 --> 00:25:33.200 this point for a rational 00:25:33.600 --> 00:25:38.837 number calculation. So, it was not impossible that it it 00:25:38.920 --> 00:25:40.357 could be some very high number. 00:25:40.440 --> 00:25:44.637 >> And just so I'm following, so the first question is how you identify those 100 00:25:44.720 --> 00:25:47.437 and then of those 100, how do you determine whether real or fake? 00:25:47.520 --> 00:25:50.957 >> Yes. >> And you're saying Twitter didn't give you that answer. 00:25:51.040 --> 00:25:55.237 >> I never got an answer for how they picked the 100. 00:25:55.320 --> 00:25:58.717 And I never got an answer for how they determined of the 100 00:25:58.800 --> 00:26:02.200 which one were which one's real. 00:26:02.320 --> 00:26:04.757 Does that sound like a method to you? 00:26:04.840 --> 00:26:07.437 It doesn't sound like a method to me. 00:26:07.520 --> 00:26:11.757 >> And your advisor >> Sounds like >> Did anyone ever tell you that Quinn 00:26:11.840 --> 00:26:15.677 Emanuel had received backup data on your on Twitter's sampling process on July 00:26:15.760 --> 00:26:19.557 1st, 2022? >> I don't recall. >> Would that have been something that you 00:26:19.640 --> 00:26:24.560 would have wanted to know before you terminate the deal a week later? 00:26:25.400 --> 00:26:28.957 >> Probably. >> Did you find it useful for your data 00:26:29.040 --> 00:26:32.157 scientist to meet with Twitter's data scientist? 00:26:32.240 --> 00:26:34.677 >> I would have that would make sense. 00:26:34.760 --> 00:26:36.637 >> Yeah. Do you know if that was done? 00:26:36.720 --> 00:26:40.877 >> I don't know. >> Did anyone advise you that Twitter had made that invitation? 00:26:40.960 --> 00:26:43.640 >> I don't think so. 00:26:52.680 --> 00:26:54.677 >> It's copied to Alex Spiro and Andrew 00:26:54.760 --> 00:27:00.160 Rossman. Did anyone at Quinn Emanuel pass along this letter to you? 00:27:01.560 --> 00:27:04.240 >> I don't recall. 00:27:06.280 --> 00:27:09.197 >> And is it fair to say that you don't recall any of your advisors 00:27:09.280 --> 00:27:12.717 that are copied on this letter, Alex Spiro and Andrew Rossman, 00:27:12.800 --> 00:27:14.837 or the attorneys from Skadden Arps 00:27:14.920 --> 00:27:20.437 relaying the invitation that Twitter had made for your data scientists to meet? 00:27:20.520 --> 00:27:23.517 Correct? >> I don't recall. >> Kate also writes on the fourth 00:27:23.600 --> 00:27:28.117 paragraph, {quote} "As follow-up, he offered to have a smaller group 00:27:28.200 --> 00:27:30.437 discussion with Elon 00:27:30.520 --> 00:27:35.437 to for him and Parag. He said he thought that would be 00:27:35.520 --> 00:27:39.717 constructive and more helpful than waiting for raw data output, 00:27:39.800 --> 00:27:43.037 some of which is limited due to data retention, 00:27:43.120 --> 00:27:46.957 and instead explaining activity versus MDAU will better frame the question." 00:27:47.040 --> 00:27:50.797 {close quote} Did you ever receive that message from 00:27:50.880 --> 00:27:54.957 any one of your team members? >> I don't recall. 00:27:55.040 --> 00:28:01.520 >> Did you have any follow-up group discussions with Ned or Parag? 00:28:03.160 --> 00:28:05.757 >> I don't think so. >> How did their methodologies differ from 00:28:05.840 --> 00:28:08.317 what Twitter was doing? >> I don't recall. 00:28:08.400 --> 00:28:10.717 >> Okay, the stock market went up about 27%. 00:28:10.800 --> 00:28:14.917 >> Wow. In one day? >> Does that surprise you? 00:28:15.000 --> 00:28:16.837 >> It went went up 20%. Are you saying it 00:28:16.920 --> 00:28:20.837 went up 27% in one day? 00:28:20.920 --> 00:28:25.397 >> It went Yes, 27% after this filing was made. 00:28:25.480 --> 00:28:27.597 >> In one day? >> Would that surprise you? 00:28:27.680 --> 00:28:30.237 >> That sounds high. >> Would it surprise you that it went up at 00:28:30.320 --> 00:28:32.717 all after this filing? 00:28:32.800 --> 00:28:37.277 >> Well, the stock market stocks go up and down, but but if you say it went up I 00:28:37.360 --> 00:28:40.197 actually don't know You're saying it went 00:28:40.280 --> 00:28:42.837 It went up 27% in one day? 00:28:42.920 --> 00:28:48.117 Is Is that correct? >> When did you conduct the analysis? 00:28:48.200 --> 00:28:51.757 >> Uh shortly after 00:28:51.840 --> 00:28:55.317 the acquisition. >> Did you use outside data scientists to 00:28:55.400 --> 00:28:59.597 perform this calculation? >> No, we just we could do internal 00:28:59.680 --> 00:29:04.197 analysis. >> Okay. And who at Twitter performed this analysis? 00:29:04.280 --> 00:29:09.277 >> I don't recall. >> And what was it? One person, 10 people? 00:29:09.360 --> 00:29:11.957 Was it a team? >> I think it was a team. 00:29:12.040 --> 00:29:14.557 >> And you can't identify any of those people? 00:29:14.640 --> 00:29:17.040 >> Not offhand. 00:29:17.880 --> 00:29:21.477 >> Uh was this calculation documented somewhere? 00:29:21.560 --> 00:29:24.160 >> I don't recall. 00:29:25.040 --> 00:29:27.957 >> Uh did you inform advertisers that fake 00:29:28.040 --> 00:29:30.357 accounts represented a higher percentage 00:29:30.440 --> 00:29:32.357 of the platform's account holders? 00:29:32.440 --> 00:29:35.077 >> I don't recall. 00:29:35.160 --> 00:29:40.237 >> Do you Did you inform your equity or debt investors that fake accounts 00:29:40.320 --> 00:29:43.517 represented a higher percentage of the platform's account holders? 00:29:43.600 --> 00:29:46.800 >> Not beyond my public statements. 00:29:49.160 --> 00:29:50.557 >> So, you did not 00:29:50.640 --> 00:29:56.480 have any direct communications with any 00:29:56.840 --> 00:30:02.277 equity or debt investor about your determination that spam and 00:30:02.360 --> 00:30:05.477 fake accounts represent a higher percentage of the platform's holders, 00:30:05.560 --> 00:30:08.040 correct? 00:30:08.280 --> 00:30:09.637 Other than your public statements. 00:30:09.720 --> 00:30:12.920 >> Not other than the public statements. 00:30:15.880 --> 00:30:19.477 >> After you took control of the company, did you instruct anybody at Twitter or X 00:30:19.560 --> 00:30:22.277 to inform advertisers that Twitter's 00:30:22.360 --> 00:30:26.960 prior estimates of fake accounts were inaccurate? 00:30:27.640 --> 00:30:30.240 >> I don't recall. 00:30:30.440 --> 00:30:36.680 >> Do you have uh a public accountant at X? 00:30:37.160 --> 00:30:42.117 >> Uh PricewaterhouseCoopers. >> Is Pricewaterhouse your accountant? 00:30:42.200 --> 00:30:45.277 >> I believe so. >> Did you inform Pricewaterhouse that you 00:30:45.360 --> 00:30:48.557 had determined that Twitter's prior estimates of fake accounts were 00:30:48.640 --> 00:30:52.237 inaccurate? >> Uh not beyond my public statements. 00:30:52.320 --> 00:30:55.197 >> Yet after all that, you agreed eventually to dismiss your claims and to 00:30:55.280 --> 00:30:59.317 buy Twitter, correct? >> Yes. >> And you did that because you thought the 00:30:59.400 --> 00:31:02.597 judge in Delaware would order you to buy it. 00:31:02.680 --> 00:31:07.077 >> Um I was told that we would not receive a fair hearing from Kathleen McCormick. 00:31:07.160 --> 00:31:13.640 Um that she has she had a strong bias against me. 00:31:13.960 --> 00:31:18.797 And her you know, subsequent ruling regarding the Tesla 00:31:18.880 --> 00:31:23.357 shareholder vote showed that to be true. 00:31:23.440 --> 00:31:27.917 >> And is that the reason you agreed to capitulate on the Twitter case? 00:31:28.000 --> 00:31:31.077 >> Yes. I did not believe I would receive a fair hearing. 00:31:31.160 --> 00:31:34.717 >> Any other reason? >> No. >> Why do you think she's biased against 00:31:34.800 --> 00:31:36.037 you? Just because of her rulings? 00:31:36.120 --> 00:31:38.397 >> Yes. >> Were you able to obtain the debt 00:31:38.480 --> 00:31:41.877 financing even without the information that you claim Twitter had not provided 00:31:41.960 --> 00:31:46.477 you? >> The debt financing came through, yes. 00:31:46.560 --> 00:31:48.477 >> Were you able to obtain equity financing 00:31:48.560 --> 00:31:51.957 even without the information that you claim Twitter had not provided you? 00:31:52.040 --> 00:31:56.757 >> Yes. >> You told Morgan Stanley that Twitter could be worth 200 to 300 billion 00:31:56.840 --> 00:31:59.477 dollars under your ownership. >> Yeah. 00:31:59.560 --> 00:32:02.597 >> Do you remember that? >> I may have said that. 00:32:02.680 --> 00:32:04.997 >> Did you feel that at the time? 00:32:05.080 --> 00:32:07.117 >> I thought there was a lot of untapped potential. 00:32:07.200 --> 00:32:09.077 >> Did you tell Morgan Stanley during these 00:32:09.160 --> 00:32:12.757 initial stages before you made an offer 00:32:12.840 --> 00:32:14.917 that you believed Twitter's real user 00:32:15.000 --> 00:32:21.000 numbers were much lower than the numbers Twitter was disclosing? 00:32:21.480 --> 00:32:24.637 >> I Yeah, I thought I thought that Twitter was exaggerating the numbers. 00:32:24.720 --> 00:32:28.277 >> Have you ever heard of the term monetizable daily active users? 00:32:28.360 --> 00:32:31.117 >> Yes. >> That was the metric that Twitter was using. 00:32:31.200 --> 00:32:35.717 >> Yes. >> Had you as of April 11th 00:32:35.800 --> 00:32:40.797 2022 looked at its MDAU numbers. 00:32:40.880 --> 00:32:43.757 >> I'm not sure of the date. >> Do you remember when the first time is 00:32:43.840 --> 00:32:47.080 that you focused on those numbers? 00:32:47.480 --> 00:32:50.637 >> Uh I think it may have been when I met 00:32:50.720 --> 00:32:55.877 with Parag and Ned. >> In San Jose? 00:32:55.960 --> 00:32:57.197 >> I think it was in San Francisco. 00:32:57.280 --> 00:32:59.597 >> Oh, in San Francisco on May 6th? 00:32:59.680 --> 00:33:03.357 >> I don't know the exact date, but >> But it was after the deal closed? 00:33:03.440 --> 00:33:05.317 Or sorry, it was after the deal was signed? 00:33:05.400 --> 00:33:08.877 >> signed. I believe so, yes. 00:33:08.960 --> 00:33:12.437 >> Okay. You wanted the right to take confirmatory business due diligence as 00:33:12.520 --> 00:33:18.520 part of this offer. >> Yes. >> Okay. And why did you want to do that? 00:33:21.600 --> 00:33:28.360 >> Uh we just need to make sure that the the public statements are accurate. 00:33:30.640 --> 00:33:32.760 >> Right. 00:33:40.200 --> 00:33:43.477 Anything more in particular? >> No. 00:33:43.560 --> 00:33:46.037 >> Prior to signing, did you or anyone 00:33:46.120 --> 00:33:50.917 on acting on your behalf ever ask for the underlying data used to make that 00:33:51.000 --> 00:33:54.757 estimate? >> I don't think so. 00:33:54.840 --> 00:33:56.797 >> Prior to signing, did you ever ask to 00:33:56.880 --> 00:34:02.200 speak to any Twitter employees involved in their estimation process? 00:34:02.440 --> 00:34:07.077 >> Not that I can recall. >> Prior to signing on April 25th, 2022, 00:34:07.160 --> 00:34:10.357 had you asked a single question about the prevalence of fake accounts on 00:34:10.440 --> 00:34:13.277 Twitter's platform? >> Uh I mean, I raised uh 00:34:13.360 --> 00:34:16.557 many many times with Jack with the 00:34:16.640 --> 00:34:20.597 with the you know, what was he doing about the 00:34:20.680 --> 00:34:24.797 fake and spam accounts uh that were plaguing the system. 00:34:24.880 --> 00:34:26.357 >> Other than those conversations with Mr. 00:34:26.440 --> 00:34:30.117 Dorsey that you were described before, any other conversations? 00:34:30.200 --> 00:34:34.840 >> Um not that I can recall. 00:34:38.640 --> 00:34:42.677 >> Did anything or anyone prevent you from including language in the merger 00:34:42.760 --> 00:34:47.157 agreement requiring Twitter to describe its methodology and to provide you with 00:34:47.240 --> 00:34:50.677 all backup information it used to estimate the percentage of fake 00:34:50.760 --> 00:34:54.397 accounts? >> Not that I can recall. 00:34:54.480 --> 00:34:57.717 >> Anything prevent you from including specific language in the agreement 00:34:57.800 --> 00:35:04.160 requiring Twitter to provide you with Twitter's raw data regarding its users? 00:35:04.560 --> 00:35:05.877 >> Not that I can recall. 00:35:05.960 --> 00:35:09.717 >> At this meeting was anybody upset? 00:35:09.800 --> 00:35:16.360 With you to the other side like perceptibly upset? 00:35:17.000 --> 00:35:18.597 >> I don't recall. 00:35:18.680 --> 00:35:25.600 >> So at the meeting itself did you express um your displeasure to them? 00:35:25.840 --> 00:35:30.797 >> I probably did. >> Do you remember one way or the other? 00:35:30.880 --> 00:35:34.117 >> I don't recall exactly what I said, but I wouldn't have been uh particularly 00:35:34.200 --> 00:35:37.117 pleased that they could not just justify that the 00:35:37.200 --> 00:35:40.637 how they calculated one of the most fundamental metrics in the system that 00:35:40.720 --> 00:35:43.517 was fundamental to the value of the company. 00:35:43.600 --> 00:35:46.557 >> I understand that's how you felt internally, but did you express that to 00:35:46.640 --> 00:35:48.237 anyone at Twitter at the meeting? 00:35:48.320 --> 00:35:51.997 >> I think I did. >> Do you remember specifically what you said? 00:35:52.080 --> 00:35:54.917 >> No. >> Is it fair to say that Ned and Parag's 00:35:55.000 --> 00:35:58.837 description of Twitter's methodology was not so concerning that it caused you to 00:35:58.920 --> 00:36:02.917 request to meet with Twitter's management team or its engineers or its 00:36:03.000 --> 00:36:09.400 sampling team members to better understand the basis for the calculations? 00:36:11.320 --> 00:36:13.957 >> I don't recall. >> You never did that on May 6th and you 00:36:14.040 --> 00:36:15.957 never did that after May 6th, right? 00:36:16.040 --> 00:36:18.800 >> I don't recall.