4 ms·
Isn't "Opening a civil and criminal investigation" without due process, also direct manipulation as well? Surely, prior to a fault/guilty verdict, running someo
by crankylinuxuser 8y ago
Isn't "Opening a civil and criminal investigation" without due process, also direct manipulation as well? Surely, prior to a fault/guilty verdict, running someone through the mud is furtherance of that, no?
This reminds me of "perp watches" posed by police departments on Facebook and twitter. No charges, but arrested - and you get to live in the newspaper and social media regardless if you are exonerated. Cause, public shaming?
edit: s/peep/perp/
- jchw 8y agoA criminal investigation being opened is literally part of due process.
- pathseeker 8y agoThe big announcement is what OP is referring to.
- aaomidi 8y agoThe big announcement is part of transparency and keeping the US government accountable. There is simply no other way, the only reason this is a big announcement is because Elon is very active on social media.
- _jal 8y agoAllow me a moment to note the irony of complaining about big announcements in this context.
- jchw 8y agoI must've missed something, what I understood from reading the article was simply that there are insider reports of a criminal probe, not that the U.S. government made an announcement of such.
- simias 8y agoWhat are you referring to exactly? Are you talking about this particular investigation? Why do you think due process isn't followed?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- SeanAppleby 8y agoSure, publicity around early investigations in general has inevitable externalities on people who might still be innocent, but how do you think you reach a verdict without going through an investigation?
- crankylinuxuser 8y agoThere's a difference in: "We conduct investigations on a regular basis on a multitude of people over possible perceived wrongdoings." -vs- "We are conducting a thorough investigation on Musk, Tesla, SpaceX because we believe he did something wrong." The first is a non-answer, and puts no blame anywhere. Its their reason to be, so its unsurprising. The second statement itself changes the market the very same way he was claimed to do, and paints him and the companies in a bad light, prior to any finding of fact. I'm arguing for the defense and protection of the accused. By the very definition, they are not guilty/liable UNTIL the court says they are. But this style of bandying around "We're INVESTIGATING ____" Only puts strong implicit blame and guilt on the accused.