Mafia boss strikes again
Illegal? Like marking legitimate news stories that criticize Trump as spam to scare away voters from reading them?
Haha he is probably referring to acquiescing to government requests to censor stories that could help Trump in an election. Which doesn’t make the most sense because Zuckerberg himself says that he regrets doing that in the past and won’t do it in the future. Maybe he wants to make sure?
So like this then? https://lemmy.world/post/19224767
Sort of? They’re similar but this is in reference to Zuckerberg admitting he colluded with the government to temporarily censor a negative story about Hunter Biden.
Are you saying he colluded with the government to interfere in the 2020 election?
Yes. And so did Zuckerberg. Did you not hear what he said? He admitted to it this week.
The government and Facebook did election fraud… in 2020?
Not like in a “find the votes” sense, but yes they used their power to sway the election at the behest of the government. There’s no way you don’t know this already.
That is legal.
He’s probably referring to some delusion he manifested in his own mind during a ministroke he had while pinching off a particularly fat McD’s turd.
I will not give him the benefit of the doubt here, you’re only assuming he’s referencing reality.
It would be cool with me if both Zuckerberg and Donald went to jail for the rest of their lives.
Bit of an empty threat when he can just upload his consciousness into a different copy of his current model.
Fascist.
Sounds like great incentive for Zuck to do everything in his power to make sure Trump doesn’t get reelected.
Bold to assume supporting anyone but trump is legal (under the trumpian definition of legality).
deleted by creator
Tomorrow he won’t remember saying it. It’ll be a democrats fault.
Why? Is he breaking the law?
I mean we should be doing that if that happens.
I love that he only manages to be right about something when he’s wrong at a far more fundamental level.
Trump legitimately strikes me as “What if the protagonist of the Sonichu comics got elected.” Sometimes
Maybe Zucc and Trump can be cellmates
I approve this message
i’d really enjoy seeing him try
DonOld the con really meant that if Zuck doesn’t make him win he will be very sorry.
Last time I checked, the executive didn’t decide about indictments or sentences. But I guess that’s all going to change if Dementia Don wins.
Guantanamo Bay has entered the conversation.
The argument there was that they were POWs captured on the battlefield, and thus under the purview of the CinC.
There is no way to make that argument regarding Zuckerberg.
Not POWs, but enemy combatants, which they made up to avoid responsibilities to POWs.
Fair point. Regardless, not something that could be done with Zuckerberg. He couldn’t lock him up for the same reason he couldn’t lock Hillary up.
The supreme court has ruled 6-3 that Zuck belongs in Gitmo because Chewbacca is a wookie and there are no wookies on Endor.
I’ve seen a Wookie on Endor. Fairly certain I was there for it.
Dictatorships don’t care about making an argument.
Yeah I was kind of curious as to how this story would be spun into a negative story against Trump. Anyone who does something illegal should be sentenced appropriately. Maybe “the president can’t set the sentence” will be the tack with this one?
Diaper Don belongs in prison
Yeah I was kind of curious as to how this story would be spun into a negative story against Trump.
That says more about you than it does about the story.
Remember when his senior DOJ staff threatened to quit when he told them that a yes-man would be their boss and help overturn the election? Trump’s whole administration was about corrupting the executive branch.
He is a racist traitor who doesn’t belong anywhere near power; he should be in prison.
Anyone who continues to support him is a reactionary traitor, too.
You do realize that when Trump says “anything illegal” he really means “anything I don’t like”, right?
Also, surely you think that Trump should be sentenced appropriately for violating federal law at Arlington cemetery?
The logical line of “when the guy I don’t like says anything, he really means what I say he means” is pretty errant and toxic. I cringe when the right does it too, “you can tell a Democrat is lying because they’ve opened their mouth”. It’s stupid and ridiculous.
IDK what happened for sure at the cemetery, I’d need some footage and to read up on the pertaining law a little before I make a judgement on that.
I don’t know if you’ve kept your head buried in the sand for 8 years, but all we’ve seen is Trump proving that he believes any perceived wrongdoing to himself is a crime. It’s a CEO philosophy of fire anyone that disagrees.
Trump has proven that’s what he means at literally every possible opportunity for nearly a decade. You cannot possibly not have come to that realization without purposefully ignoring it because you like him, claiming it’s some weird partisan issue is certifiably weird.
He took a campaign photo in section 60 at the cemetery, that is a violation of federal law. You don’t need a video, you’re just giving him a pass because you don’t care what he does or who it hurts.
deleted by creator
The US Army releasing a statement that a) what Trump and his campaign did there was illegal and b) that they physically attacked the person who tried to stop them from breaking the law isn’t good enough for you?
Why would it be? Does the government tell the truth all the time?
Everything bad that’s said about Trump is a lie, right? He’s basically Yahweh.
If a life sentence is appropriate for interfering with an election, I look forward to Trump’s impending life sentence.
Because anyone who does something illegal should be sentenced appropriately, right?
I wouldn’t expect anything less from a self-proclaimed Law-and-Order candidate.
Fair enough. The “perfect phone call” was actually pretty bad, it’s the one case against him that I think probably has a lot of merit. I was thinking at the time that it was probably illegal.
So you think he should be imprisoned for the rest of his life, right? That’s the appropriate sentence? You seem to be agreeing with Trump here.
I mean something like 10 to 20 years sounds fair to me if that’s the appropriate sentence (IDK what election interference sentences look like), which would probably end up being the rest of his life anyways
Yeah, how can the potential next head of state threatening a specific individual with an arbitrary sentence of life imprisonment for some vague charge like “doing anything illegal” possibly be spun into a negative story?
When did crazy talk become the norm. Was it when trump first ran? Was it before? Its so hard to remember with the constant crazy talk all over.
The Democrats will find a way!
I think it’s Trump trying to find a way. In specific, find a way to do something outside of his presidential powers.
He wanted to “lock her up” with Hillary too. Were you one of the people chanting that? Have you noticed she hasn’t been locked up yet even though he had four years to do it?
And long investigation hearings that she didn’t fall asleep in.
Have you noticed she hasn’t been locked up yet even though he had four years to do it?
I’ll just leave that there. It makes the point I would have made pretty succinctly.
The point that he makes threats about imprisoning people and can’t follow through because it’s not within his abilities?
Not quite, but you’re pretty warm!
deleted by creator
Have you heard of the separation of powers?
Yes
Anything illegal in this case = anything trump dislikes.
Full petty dictator mode.
fight! fight!
Simultaneously, a Brazilian judge is threatening Musk. The judge even seized the Starlink’s local accounts (https://g1.globo.com/politica/blog/valdo-cruz/post/2024/08/29/na-falta-de-representante-da-x-no-brasil-stf-bloqueou-recursos-financeiros-da-starlink-de-elon-musk.ghtml) in order to enforce fines against Musk. I’m not entering the merit of the matter, but it’s curious the pattern.
It’s not surprising though. During election season, interested parties both for and against censorship and election interference get more vocal and forceful on the matter.
“The party of law and order”
