What is your point?

The article says that the letter specifically mentioned examples where Musk failed to act with scientific integrity. It details the situation, which happens to be linked with right-wing stuffs. It obviously does not say "Musk has used his platform on X to make unjustified and divisive statements, which is perfectly fine, but it happens to be on an ideology we don't like", it says "Unlike other members that have the same ideology as Musk and for which we have no problem with them staying members of the RS, Musk did not express his view in a normal way, he has used is platform on X to act in a way that is very much incompatible with scientific integrity". The problem raised is the unjustified and divisive statements that prove that Musk is intellectually dishonest. (and even if we give credit to the very weak argument that Musk is some kind of split personality that is magically intellectually honest if the subject is more "science related", the history of his statements shows quickly that it's not the case).

The consultation with a lawyer was to determine if it breached the Code of Conduct, proof that, contrary to what you pretend, the first sentence does not imply that it has nothing to do with scientific integrity. If the first sentence implied that, why would they even bother paying a lawyer to check something that, according to you, is obviously not breaching a Code of Conduct that only talks about scientific integrity. (and, as explained, the layer concluded that there were risks of legal retaliation, but not that the code of conduct was not breached)