HN Explorer

9 comments

[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 11.5 ms ] thread
anqoz
Journalists outright lying... This one is shocking, I've never seen it before...
gameswithgo
The WSJ article did not claim that Tesla received a subpoena.
happytoexplain
You're right, it is unusual. Journalists being falsely accused of lying, on the other hand, is depressingly common.
reagank
There's no refuting of anything in the article. They actually CONFIRM that they've gotten document requests from DOJ, just voluntarily provided rather than after a subpoena. Watch your bias.
[dead] mbrumlow
From 2015 till now, and this your 3rd comment ever...

Seems like there is a interesting story hidden somewhere here. Care to share?

Or is this just one of many alts?

EDIT: Not trying to start anything, not sure why this line of questioning is freaking everybody out. I am just generally curious how a account is this old and what drives somebody to comment so infrequently. Like really, this is the one topic in 3 years somebody commented on - it might be interesting to hear why.

You look at other accounts and they comment on just about anything ever. So I am just wondering what about this topic has driven somebody to comment.

Also, there is no way to send a PM to anybody so...

lajamerr
There's a big difference between handing over documents voluntarily to a government request and being forced to by subpoena though.

I'm curious on the exact wording the original article had.

gameswithgo
the original article said ex-employees had received subpoena, not tesla.
Freestyler_3
Really opens your eyes to how careful a company(with shares) must be with anything said, if projections call for criminal probe.