[zmarty]

Bloomberg conveniently left out the reason why "Tripp has since changed lawyers". It's because he published on Twitter a trove of confidential internal Tesla documents. Once he did that his lawyer knew they had no case anymore. Tripp only deleted the documents after his lawyer was able to get in touch with him. This showed that he did in fact access internal Tesla systems and he did in fact exfiltrate this information. But somehow Bloomberg paints Tesla in a negative light, as they always do.

This is what's left of the fallout:

"B advised that the Tweets by Mr. Tripp yesterday were issued by him on his own accord. Mr. Tripp has clearly been impacted emotionally by what $TSLA has done to him.He is very concerned about being gagged & wants to protect the public, more than his own personal interest. ++"

https://twitter.com/StuartMeissner/status/103013836984050073...

"It is accurate that we no longer rep M.Tripp in any matter.Nor do we have a need for any connection whatsoever with his attys in his Nev civil action.There wont be further comment on this.We still rep K.Hansen with re to his SEC submission & do have confidence in his submission"

https://twitter.com/StuartMeissner/status/107295281670310297...

"Also Mr. Tripp's Twitter account WAS NOT suspended/removed by twitter this AM. He himself voluntarily terminated his twitter account on advice of myself, so that there will not b any more confusion re if he has published anything or not. There is enough confusion re $TSLA already"

https://twitter.com/StuartMeissner/status/103013943327684608...

[rayiner]

> Bloomberg conveniently left out the reason why "Tripp has since changed lawyers". It's because he published on Twitter a trove of confidential internal Tesla documents. Once he did that his lawyer knew they had no case anymore. Tripp only deleted the documents after his lawyer was able to get in touch with him. This showed that he did in fact access internal Tesla systems and he did in fact exfiltrate this information. But somehow Bloomberg paints Tesla in a negative light, as they always do.

Whistleblower complaints are for obvious reasons typically based on exfiltrated documents. There may be liability against the whistleblower for that, but generally that does not impair the merits of the case against the company (except to the extent the company can use threats of legal action over the documents to keep the whistleblower quiet). And in some cases there are specific legal safeguards for whistleblowers whose complaints are based on confidential documents, especially in the case of public companies: https://www.zuckermanlaw.com/court-rules-whistleblowers-can-...

[SilasX]

Agreed, and these kinds of criticisms always get me eye-rolling. "On the one hand, Megacorp committed <atrocious environment/safety violations>. But on the other hand, Whistleblower stole internal documents proving them. So, you have to accept, there's wrongdoing on both sides."

[hitekker]

A succinct description of false equivalence. Quite nice.

[PKop]

Reminds me of criticisms WikiLeaks

[zmarty]

A "whistleblower" that first leaked all information to reporters, and then only claimed he was a whistleblower once Tesla figured out who it was. A "whistleblower" that a few months later publishes all of these internal documents ON TWITTER.

[AndrewBissell]

Maybe he recognized that giving the information to SEC or DOJ would result in them dithering and keeping the information from the public for months or years on end as is their custom when facing complaints against well-heeled and connected corporate bad actors.

Tripp believed dangerous batteries were being placed in Tesla cars being sold to the public. It seems like none have been seen in the wild -- maybe because he was wrong or maybe because his public revelations forced Tesla to change course.

[twblalock]

Even his own lawyer thought it was wrong to publish the documents on Twitter.

> Tripp believed dangerous batteries were being placed in Tesla cars being sold to the public. It seems like none have been seen in the wild -- maybe because he was wrong or maybe because his public revelations forced Tesla to change course.

Based on his actions and his credibility problems, it is reasonable to assume he was intentionally dishonest and was pursuing a personal vendetta, rather than acting in the public interest.

[camjohnson26]

Who should he have leaked it to? Where should he have published it?

[AnthonyMouse]

> Who should he have leaked it to?

The appropriate regulatory agency rather than the media.

> Where should he have published it?

Publishing internal documents is the last resort after everything else has failed.

[gamblor956]

Whistleblower protection laws generally do not require that the "appropriate regulatory agency" be the only person to whom disclosure is made...

Publishing internal documents is the last resort after everything else has failed.

No, that's usually the first and best option once the company has been made aware of the problem and chooses not to correct it...as is what is alleged happened here. Why make vague statements that Company X ignored Problem Y when you can just provide documents proving your claims?

[AnthonyMouse]

> Whistleblower protection laws generally do not require that the "appropriate regulatory agency" be the only person to whom disclosure is made...

Whistleblower protection laws in some cases don't even exist and even where they do you're typically not going to have a fun time if you have to use them. When it comes down to it you do what you've got to do, but going there first rather than last is not a really great idea.

> No, that's usually the first and best option once the company has been made aware of the problem and chooses not to correct it...as is what is alleged happened here. Why make vague statements that Company X ignored Problem Y when you can just provide documents proving your claims?

For one thing, documents rarely prove anything on their own (how do you even know they're not forgeries?) without the investigatory powers needed to verify the information in them. Which the government has and Twitter doesn't.

[AnaniasAnanas]

What is wrong with publishing internal documents as the first step exactly?

[AnthonyMouse]

Internal documents can contain confidential business information that is of use to competitors etc. which it may be illegal or a violation of an NDA for you to expropriate and publish. Then it becomes a public exhibit of everyone attacking each other and defending themselves instead of people working to actually solve the problem.

Moreover, "a company" doesn't do stuff, its employees do. If you're the employee, the first person whose job it is to keep the company from doing dumb stuff is you. And there is a process for that. If you're the one responsible for it, you fix it. If you're not, you alert the person who is, then their boss if that doesn't work and on up the chain to the government until it gets fixed. If that process works then the problem gets solved without there being anything to create a media storm over, and if that process would have worked but you decided to skip it then you're creating a media storm over nothing.

[dylan604]

I guess it depends on the intent of the whistle blower. Is there a Project Zero type of way to publish? Wikileaks? Why does it have to go to any gov't body first? If the information is leaked out, do the governing agencies have a responsibility to investigate based on the leaked information or only investigate the suspect for leaking? Paralysis by analysis can be applied here, so just publish and let the chips fall where they may?

[FireBeyond]

The ever-impartial Wikileaks? Sure, let's jump right on that...

[stcredzero]

The ever-impartial Wikileaks? Sure, let's jump right on that...

I don't think such a site has to be that impartial. I'll just settle for not evil. It would be best if they had competitors.

[AndrewBissell]

Very deceptive to call what Tripp posted to Twitter "a trove of confidential internal documents." There were:

- Photos of trailers parked outside the Gigafactory full of potentially hazardous battery waste.

- Photos of shoddy workplaces within the Gigafactory and precision work being done with crude implements like Dremel tools.

- VIN numbers of cars which Tripp believed had been fitted with batteries with possibly punctured cells handled by the defective GF machine.

- Some entries in the accounting system which Tripp claimed supported his argument that waste was not being accounted for correctly.

- Photos of internal emails with Tesla execs (including Musk) where he tried to raise concerns about scrap and the general chaos at the Gigafactory.

[ericb]

> crude implements like Dremel tools

Woa, woa, woa! You're hurting your credibility with this one!

[AndrewBissell]

crude in the context of the job they were being used to do. I agree Dremels can be awesome! :-)

[scoggs]

Sometimes a job calls for duct tape.

[JumpCrisscross]

> he did in fact access internal Tesla systems and he did in fact exfiltrate this information

Both sides can be true. He could have stolen Tesla’s data. He could have also thought he was whistleblowing while doing so. Either way, it doesn’t justify calling in a fake bomb threat.

[FireBeyond]

> Either way, it doesn’t justify calling in a fake bomb threat.

Police investigated (it was a shooting incident, not a bomb threat), found no credible basis, asked to interview a witness, who Tesla declined to make available.

Why so sure he made a threat?

[JumpCrisscross]

> Why so sure he made a threat?

Sorry, ambiguous wording. I don't allege he called in a threat. Tesla publicly stated he made violent threats. The police refused to corroborate that claim. Tesla's statement was unjustified.

[FireBeyond]

"Tesla publicly stated he made violent threats. The police refused to corroborate that claim." ... because Tesla "declined" to make the witness/es who received those threats available to the police.

That's a bit more contextual.

[thisisit]

Let's assume for a moment this story was about ExxonMobil an oil company, or any company you dislike will you still hold this opinion?

Remember whistleblowing as an act requires people to produce confidential internal documents.

[_ea1k]

If the evidence against XOM was some pictures of some trailers and complaints of the company being disorganized, then yes, I would treat them the same way.

[blueboo]

Hah. I knew the top comment would be an Actually, In Defense of Persecuting a Whistleblower.

[ucha]

How do you know what happened between Tripp and his lawyer?

[zmarty]

It was all on Twitter between them.

[AndrewBissell]

All anyone knows is that Tripp's lawyer asked him to take the posts down, and sometime later stopped representing him in the case. The rest is you trying to connect dots to assassinate Tripp's character.

[ucha]

I could only find the lawyer's twitter account but not the tweets you're referring to.

[zmarty]

B advised that the Tweets by Mr. Tripp yesterday were issued by him on his own accord. Mr. Tripp has clearly been impacted emotionally by what $TSLA has done to him.He is very concerned about being gagged & wants to protect the public, more than his own personal interest. ++

https://twitter.com/StuartMeissner/status/103013836984050073...

It is accurate that we no longer rep M.Tripp in any matter.Nor do we have a need for any connection whatsoever with his attys in his Nev civil action.There wont be further comment on this.We still rep K.Hansen with re to his SEC submission & do have confidence in his submission

https://twitter.com/StuartMeissner/status/107295281670310297...

Also Mr. Tripp's Twitter account WAS NOT suspended/removed by twitter this AM. He himself voluntarily terminated his twitter account on advice of myself, so that there will not b any more confusion re if he has published anything or not. There is enough confusion re $TSLA already

https://twitter.com/StuartMeissner/status/103013943327684608...

[AndrewBissell]

I don't see where Meissner says he knew they "didn't have a case" as you asserted in your OP.

[DuskStar]

In general, a lawyer saying something with the form "After $client did $actions without consulting us, we recommended that $client take $actions to do damage control, and they did so. We no longer represent $client" is about as far from a good sign as you can get.

Now, he might still have a case. But I'm pretty sure the above is lawyerspeak for "client fucked up, and we don't want to deal with them anymore".

[drugme]

But somehow Bloomberg paints Tesla in a negative light, as they always do.

No -- they're simply stating the obvious: that the company's unhinged and basically sociopathic response to this incident is much worse than the any "document leaking" that Tripp may have engaged in. Especially when the "leaks" involved have turned out to be apparently quite innocuous.

[mhermher]

This is the worst kind of bootlicking. Why are you stanning for a psychopath. None of what you posted means anything regarding the article. It's meaningless sideshow to try to discredit Tripp.