A lady named Elizabeth Warren, who is a very important person in the government, thinks that Tesla's bosses should not be too close to Elon Musk, who is the main leader of Tesla. She wants someone else to check if this is true or not. But Elon Musk says that maybe the lady's helper is talking because his dad is friends with her helper. He thinks that some people might be saying bad things about him on purpose. Read from source...

- The title is misleading and sensationalized. It implies that Elizabeth Warren is accusing Tesla of having a board that is not independent from Elon Musk, which is an exaggeration. A more accurate title would be "Elizabeth Warren questions the independence of the Tesla board" or "Elizabeth Warren urges probe into Tesla board's lack of transparency".
- The article does not provide any evidence or sources for Elizabeth Warren's allegations. It only cites a court ruling that nullified Musk's pay package, but that is irrelevant to the issue of board independence. The article should have explained how and why Warren came to her conclusions, and what actions she plans to take.
- The article also fails to mention any counterarguments or defenses from Tesla or its board members. It presents a one-sided view of the situation, which is unfair and unbalanced. A more objective and comprehensive report would include both sides of the story, and provide some context for the reader.
- The article uses emotive language and inflammatory phrases, such as "unfathomable sum", "unfair", and "gambling". These words imply a strong negative judgment and a sense of outrage, which may influence the reader's opinion without providing any solid facts or reasoning. A more neutral and factual tone would be more appropriate for a news article.
- The article also includes some irrelevant and promotional information at the end, such as "We simplify the market for smarter investing" and "Trade confidently with insights and alerts from analyst ratings, free reports and breaking news that affects the stocks you ca re about". These sentences seem to be aimed at attracting readers to use Benzinga's services, rather than informing them about the topic of the article. They should be removed or separated from the main content.

Possible investment recommendations based on the article are:

- Short Tesla (TSLA) stock as it is overvalued and faces regulatory and legal challenges that could hurt its profitability and growth prospects. The article mentions a Delaware judge nullifying Musk's pay package, which could indicate a lack of board independence and governance issues at the company. Additionally, Elizabeth Warren's call for a probe into the board's independence suggests potential conflicts of interest and political pressure on Tesla and its leadership.
- Long Bitcoin (BTC) as it is a decentralized digital currency that is not subject to government intervention or manipulation. The article mentions Sam Bankman-Fried, the CEO of FTX, a major cryptocurrency exchange, who is also the son of Joseph Bankman, a professor at Stanford Law School and an adviser to Warren. This could create a conflict of interest for Bankman, who may have influenced Warren's stance on Tesla and Musk. Bitcoin is also a potential hedge against inflation and currency devaluation, as well as a store of value that could appreciate in the long run.
- Long Tesla (TSLA) stock as it is undervalued and has strong fundamentals and growth prospects. The article mentions Elizabeth Warren's criticism of Tesla and Musk, which could be biased or motivated by political reasons. Warren is also an adviser to Sam Bankman-Fried, who is a competitor of Tesla in the electric vehicle market. Therefore, her call for a probe into Tesla's board independence may be driven by self-interest or agenda. Tesla has been delivering record numbers of vehicles and expanding its market share and global presence. It also has a loyal customer base and innovative technology that gives it a competitive edge over other automakers.