It depends on how you interpret these phrases. This is valid logic if
"More likely to side with X" => The lawyers believe that you are more likely to side with the plaintiff than with the defendant on the basis of this information (Pr(P | Over $50k) - Pr(D | Over $50k) > epsilon)
"No effect on either lawyer": The lawyers believe that this information provides no insight into your decision (|Pr(P | Under $50k) - Pr(D | Under $50k)| < epsilon).
Calling that a Google data breach is a pretty big misrepresentation; keyloggers installed on user machines collected passwords typed into a number of websites, including Google's.
(disclaimer: I work for Google, have no special knowledge of the incident in question)
I projected literally exponential growth of revenue for Twitter. Well, if it does grow exponentially, it won't be bad! Supposedly their costs won't grow as fast, and they'll have some healthy profits.
It will be a quite long-term investment anyway. Like, well, when Forrest Gump invested in AAPL.
I don't think that this is aimed at you. JabavuAdams suggests that "I couldn't possibly be sexist because I'm not a bad person" is the reason that many commenters are dismissive of the idea that there may be sexism in an establishment to which they contribute.