Evidence from the 30 days after April 16, 2022 does not match the prediction that Twitter’s board and political/regulatory actors would “do anything to stop Elon from acquiring this company, even if it means violating their fiduciary duty or violating antitrust law.”

1. Twitter’s board briefly resisted, then quickly accepted the deal.

   • On April 15, 2022 (just before the podcast date), Twitter’s board adopted a standard “poison pill” shareholder-rights plan explicitly aimed at making a hostile takeover more difficult, a conventional and generally lawful tactic in U.S. corporate governance. (cnbc.com) This is some resistance by the board, but it is not extraordinary or clearly a fiduciary breach; it is a common mechanism designed to give the board time and leverage.
   • Within the 30‑day window, on April 25, 2022, Twitter announced it had accepted Musk’s offer to buy the company for about $44 billion at $54.20 per share, with the board unanimously approving the transaction and presenting it as the best path for shareholders. (cnbc.com) This is the opposite of “doing anything to stop” the acquisition.

2. Antitrust and regulatory authorities did not try to block the acquisition.

   • Contemporaneous reporting and later summaries note that analysts and former officials expected little or no antitrust basis to challenge Musk’s purchase of Twitter, and that regulators were unlikely to oppose it. (fortune.com) The U.S. antitrust waiting-period process under the Hart–Scott–Rodino Act ran its course without a move to block the deal; later coverage explicitly stated that U.S. antitrust regulators decided not to further scrutinize the acquisition, making it unlikely to be stopped on those grounds. (straitstimes.com)
   • Instead, regulatory scrutiny focused on Musk’s own conduct (e.g., his late disclosure of his stake), leading to FTC/SEC inquiries and, eventually, an SEC lawsuit over his stock-disclosure timing—not on regulators bending antitrust rules to prevent him from buying Twitter. (thegatewaypundit.com)

3. No clear evidence of fiduciary or antitrust violations by the board or regulators to block the deal.

   • There was public debate over whether the poison pill was in shareholders’ best interests, but no court or regulator has found that Twitter’s board violated its fiduciary duty in handling Musk’s bid. The final outcome—accepting a large premium offer and completing the sale in October 2022—fits the standard pattern of a board negotiating terms, not an illicit effort to stop the transaction. (en.wikipedia.org)
   • Likewise, antitrust and other regulators did not engage in actions that “violate normal antitrust principles” to thwart the acquisition; the deal ultimately closed after routine review.

Because the observable events in the 30 days after April 16, 2022 show (a) the board agreeing to the sale on favorable terms and (b) regulators not using antitrust or other tools to block the acquisition, the specific forecast that we would soon see law‑breaking, politically driven efforts to prevent Musk from buying Twitter did not come true.