I don't begrudge Tesla for portraying facts as damning as possible to the opposing party -- that's what any litigant would do (and should do, I would think, although IANAL), as long as no deliberately false statements are made. So "technically true" is fine by me. But since their investigation is still ongoing, and they haven't felt the need to divulge more specific and damning assertions, then it's fair to consider what's currently left open to interpretation.

"Wrote code" could include a wget cron job. "Bypass company's security" includes literally any activity done without company approval or authorization, including printing out files and putting them in his briefcase and walking out the building without announcing the fact.

No one is really disputing that his alleged acts were "treacherous" to the company, or that they "caused damage to the company's interests" -- that would cover every conceivable form of whistleblowing.

At this point, I don't see what it matters whether it was a "real" hack or not (though it's ironic you mention social engineering, since for too long that has been ignored as a real attack vector). He took info and disclosed it without company approval, now it's up to the courts to decide if that was legitimate and protected whistleblowing.