4 ms·

Elon Musk lawyer says $1M voter giveaway winners are not random

28 points by unsnap_biceps 2y ago

peutetre 2y ago
> He also acknowledged that the winners signed non-disclosure agreements preventing them from speaking about the terms of the contracts. It's funny how supposed "free speech absolutist" Musk is so keen to restrict the speech of others. To qualify for this giveaway you had to sign a petition pledging your support for the first amendment: "The First and Second Amendments guarantee freedom of speech and the right to bear arms. By signing below, I am pledging my support for the First and Second Amendments" Only to gag your speech by signing another piece of paper.
- tj-teej 2y ago
  It's because he's not a "free speech absolutist", does he think felons should be able to vote? Of course he doesn't. His "free speech absolutism" is a way of signaling the kinda guy he is and the kinda guys he wants to be associated with.
  - rsynnott 2y ago
    > does he think felons should be able to vote? Of course he doesn't. Well, maybe one felon.
  - Zigurd 2y ago
    < "does he think felons should be able to vote?" Don't look now, but... the only reason Trump can vote is that Florida law defers to the voting laws of the state in which a felon has been convicted. New York, in turn, has lifted the ban on felons voting, but excludes them from voting from prison.
lawn 2y ago
Bold strategy. Engaging in, and admitting to, an illegal scam in the hope that Trump wins and he'll get away with anything.
- jfengel 2y ago
  He will likely get away with it regardless. The Justice Department is extremely reluctant to prosecute unless they are absolutely sure of winning. They do not like going to a judge and saying, "We're pretty sure this is illegal." The culture is that prosecution has historically been used for persecution, and they want to be absolutely beyond reproach. They are well aware that it would be easy for a court to say, "The specific way he phrased it does not constitute a violation of the law. It's up to Congress to close that loophole." Which, of course, they won't. So unless they can prove a crime beyond a shadow of a doubt, they will likely not try to bring it to court. They might try negotiating a fine, but even if the fine is a billion dollars, it's just pocket change. Which he and I would consider "getting away with it".
  - Zigurd 2y ago
    The news reports I have seen say it is a Pennsylvania DA who is after Musk for an illegal lottery. Musk plainly violated provisions like publishing the odds of winning.
    - jfengel 2y ago
      He now seems to be saying that it's not a lottery: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crlnjzzk919o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crlnjzzk919o Which might make it an election law violation. Or not.
      - Zigurd 2y ago
        That's what I have seen reported, too. They also tried filing for removal to federal court. The prosecutor must be thinking "So their strategy is to go for the criminal case to delay the civil case... OK, then."
        jfengel 2y ago
        It does seem like a pretty big gamble to admit to the criminal charge. If it works, of course, there's every reason to think that the new government will just fail to prosecute. If it fails... it's true that the Justice Department seems very wary of prosecuting when there's even the slightest bit of gray area. They want their cases to be absolutely airtight, especially when there are political ramifications. Even if he loses, and there's just a fine, it would be just the cost of doing business. But if jail time is an option -- and I have no idea if it is -- this is a mighty big risk to be taking.

28 points by unsnap_biceps 2y ago

> He also acknowledged that the winners signed non-disclosure agreements preventing them from speaking about the terms of the contracts. It's funny how supposed "free speech absolutist" Musk is so keen to restrict the speech of others. To qualify for this giveaway you had to sign a petition pledging your support for the first amendment: "The First and Second Amendments guarantee freedom of speech and the right to bear arms. By signing below, I am pledging my support for the First and Second Amendments" Only to gag your speech by signing another piece of paper.

tj-teej 2y ago
It's because he's not a "free speech absolutist", does he think felons should be able to vote? Of course he doesn't. His "free speech absolutism" is a way of signaling the kinda guy he is and the kinda guys he wants to be associated with.
- rsynnott 2y ago
  > does he think felons should be able to vote? Of course he doesn't. Well, maybe one felon.
- Zigurd 2y ago
  < "does he think felons should be able to vote?" Don't look now, but... the only reason Trump can vote is that Florida law defers to the voting laws of the state in which a felon has been convicted. New York, in turn, has lifted the ban on felons voting, but excludes them from voting from prison.

lawn 2y ago

Bold strategy. Engaging in, and admitting to, an illegal scam in the hope that Trump wins and he'll get away with anything.

jfengel 2y ago
He will likely get away with it regardless. The Justice Department is extremely reluctant to prosecute unless they are absolutely sure of winning. They do not like going to a judge and saying, "We're pretty sure this is illegal." The culture is that prosecution has historically been used for persecution, and they want to be absolutely beyond reproach. They are well aware that it would be easy for a court to say, "The specific way he phrased it does not constitute a violation of the law. It's up to Congress to close that loophole." Which, of course, they won't. So unless they can prove a crime beyond a shadow of a doubt, they will likely not try to bring it to court. They might try negotiating a fine, but even if the fine is a billion dollars, it's just pocket change. Which he and I would consider "getting away with it".
- Zigurd 2y ago
  The news reports I have seen say it is a Pennsylvania DA who is after Musk for an illegal lottery. Musk plainly violated provisions like publishing the odds of winning.
  - jfengel 2y ago
    He now seems to be saying that it's not a lottery: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crlnjzzk919o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crlnjzzk919o Which might make it an election law violation. Or not.
    - Zigurd 2y ago
      That's what I have seen reported, too. They also tried filing for removal to federal court. The prosecutor must be thinking "So their strategy is to go for the criminal case to delay the civil case... OK, then."
      - jfengel 2y ago
        It does seem like a pretty big gamble to admit to the criminal charge. If it works, of course, there's every reason to think that the new government will just fail to prosecute. If it fails... it's true that the Justice Department seems very wary of prosecuting when there's even the slightest bit of gray area. They want their cases to be absolutely airtight, especially when there are political ramifications. Even if he loses, and there's just a fine, it would be just the cost of doing business. But if jail time is an option -- and I have no idea if it is -- this is a mighty big risk to be taking.