4 ms·

Maybe there are valid reasons to go after Musk, but the propensity of the previous administration towards lawfare clouds all of these investigations. There are

Maybe there are valid reasons to go after Musk, but the propensity of the previous administration towards lawfare clouds all of these investigations. There are no real checks and balances when it comes to launching investigations into your political rivals for political purposes. Considering the barrage of regulatory, reputational and legal attacks Musk faced, it shouldn't be surprising that he seeks to neuter the ability of the bureaucracy to weaponise the government again in future.

Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
The problem with the lawfare argument, is that people can claim 'lawfare' even when the investigation is fully warranted. The classified documents in the Trumps bathroom, for example. This wasn't lawfare, this was a guy breaking the law and being investigated for it. In Elon's case, he is not a truthful person. He was recently caught lying and cheating about being good at video games of all things. Just for cred. Imagine what he's capable when the stakes were higher. 'Lawfare' is just a way for the out-of-power party to cry victim even when they fully and absolutely did the crime. It means that when they get back in power they not only get a free pass but also an excuse to crush anyone who had the gal to even try and hold them accountable.
- scarab92 2y ago
  It goes both ways. Innocent people can be genuine victims of lawfare, just as easily as guilty people can claim to be victims of lawfare. The previous administration is widely regarded to have engaged in lawfare, so I would prefer to assume that their political rivals are innocent until proven otherwise, rather than guilty by default.
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
    Trump is widely regarded as having committed crimes. It is the persons actions that make them guilty. And in Trumps case, his actions are public record so no assumptions are necessary. And for a hypothetical, if he was in fact guilty and the investigations were warranted. And then he used his presidential power to punish and fire everyone remotely associated with those cases. Would this be a good or bad thing in your opinion?
  - justin66 2y ago
    > The previous administration is widely regarded to have engaged in lawfare Widely regarded? You're already dealing with a goofy subset of humanity when you're using words like "lawfare."
  - acdha 2y ago
    > The previous administration is widely regarded to have engaged in lawfare No, it wasn’t. That was claimed by a specific subset of people who wanted to evade consequences for the crimes they committed, but that wasn’t backed up by even a cursory review of the facts. You can see a similar example with claims that Eric Adams suffered from “lawfare”, which might be an effective political tactic but are clearly contradicted by the evidence against him. Lots of criminals claim they’re innocent but that doesn’t mean they’re right.
Veserv 2y ago
You disagree with “lawfare”, as in the biased application of the law to further individual interests? Having presented no hard evidence for your claims, I can only assume the standard you demand is the scrupulous separation of interests, conflicts, and bias to demonstrate the absence of bias beyond a reasonable doubt which is a laudable standard. Yet, you applaud to the clear, unabashed, unapologetic, intentionally biased application of the law to further individual interests. By an entity whose interests, conflicts, and bias are so thoroughly intertwined that the presence of bias is beyond a reasonable doubt. Can you please explain why you apply diametrically opposed standards of evidence based on their alignment to your in-group?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
Breza 2y ago
Let's look at a single example of Elon Musk's alleged crimes. He bought Twitter stock in 2022 and did not follow disclosure laws, which led to him getting an extra $150 million. It took the SEC more than two years to investigate him and decide to proceed with charges. That's more due process than most people get. https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26219 https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releas...

Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago

The problem with the lawfare argument, is that people can claim 'lawfare' even when the investigation is fully warranted. The classified documents in the Trumps bathroom, for example. This wasn't lawfare, this was a guy breaking the law and being investigated for it. In Elon's case, he is not a truthful person. He was recently caught lying and cheating about being good at video games of all things. Just for cred. Imagine what he's capable when the stakes were higher. 'Lawfare' is just a way for the out-of-power party to cry victim even when they fully and absolutely did the crime. It means that when they get back in power they not only get a free pass but also an excuse to crush anyone who had the gal to even try and hold them accountable.

scarab92 2y ago
It goes both ways. Innocent people can be genuine victims of lawfare, just as easily as guilty people can claim to be victims of lawfare. The previous administration is widely regarded to have engaged in lawfare, so I would prefer to assume that their political rivals are innocent until proven otherwise, rather than guilty by default.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
  Trump is widely regarded as having committed crimes. It is the persons actions that make them guilty. And in Trumps case, his actions are public record so no assumptions are necessary. And for a hypothetical, if he was in fact guilty and the investigations were warranted. And then he used his presidential power to punish and fire everyone remotely associated with those cases. Would this be a good or bad thing in your opinion?
- justin66 2y ago
  > The previous administration is widely regarded to have engaged in lawfare Widely regarded? You're already dealing with a goofy subset of humanity when you're using words like "lawfare."
- acdha 2y ago
  > The previous administration is widely regarded to have engaged in lawfare No, it wasn’t. That was claimed by a specific subset of people who wanted to evade consequences for the crimes they committed, but that wasn’t backed up by even a cursory review of the facts. You can see a similar example with claims that Eric Adams suffered from “lawfare”, which might be an effective political tactic but are clearly contradicted by the evidence against him. Lots of criminals claim they’re innocent but that doesn’t mean they’re right.

Veserv 2y ago

You disagree with “lawfare”, as in the biased application of the law to further individual interests? Having presented no hard evidence for your claims, I can only assume the standard you demand is the scrupulous separation of interests, conflicts, and bias to demonstrate the absence of bias beyond a reasonable doubt which is a laudable standard. Yet, you applaud to the clear, unabashed, unapologetic, intentionally biased application of the law to further individual interests. By an entity whose interests, conflicts, and bias are so thoroughly intertwined that the presence of bias is beyond a reasonable doubt. Can you please explain why you apply diametrically opposed standards of evidence based on their alignment to your in-group?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

Breza 2y ago

Let's look at a single example of Elon Musk's alleged crimes. He bought Twitter stock in 2022 and did not follow disclosure laws, which led to him getting an extra $150 million. It took the SEC more than two years to investigate him and decide to proceed with charges. That's more due process than most people get. https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26219 https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releas...