I mean, I'm definitely not at the top of the list. Ellen's at the top of the list. Right. So he has. No he has no choice but to go all in. They're already doing lawfare against him. It's ridiculous. I think the point is just that if they're not defeated, they're going to keep doing it because there's no downside for it.View on YouTube
The prediction was explicitly conditional: only if the Biden–Harris–aligned governing coalition was not electorally defeated in 2024 would legal and regulatory “lawfare” against Elon Musk and others continue or intensify in the 2025–2029 term.
In reality, that condition did not occur:
- In the 2024 U.S. presidential election, Donald Trump (Republican) defeated Kamala Harris (Democrat), 312–226 in the Electoral College, and took the popular vote as well. Trump was subsequently certified by Congress and inaugurated as president on January 20, 2025, replacing the Biden administration. (en.wikipedia.org)
Given this, the antecedent of Sacks’s conditional prediction (“if they’re not defeated…”) is false in the actual world. That means we cannot empirically observe what the Biden–Harris coalition would have done had it remained in power for the 2025–2029 term. Any claim about whether they would have continued or intensified “lawfare” is now counterfactual and not verifiable from real-world developments.
Because the necessary condition for testing the prediction never obtained, its truth or falsity cannot be determined, even though enough time has passed. Hence the outcome is best categorized as ambiguous, not right or wrong.