4 ms·

That was the ‘old’ DOJ, Tim Apple was in the Oval Office a few days ago to pay tribute in gold… it got them exemptions from tariffs and I wouldn’t be surprised

That was the ‘old’ DOJ, Tim Apple was in the Oval Office a few days ago to pay tribute in gold… it got them exemptions from tariffs and I wouldn’t be surprised if the DOJ dropped this case soon. https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https%3A%2F%2Fd1i4t8bqe7zgj6.cloudfront.net%2F08-07-2025%2Ft_f20a28f313874a99ad0717a463ba36c1_name_3___Vertical_Video_00_01_36_12_Still006.png&w=960 https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https%3A...

saubeidl 1y ago
The corruption is so out in the open, it's ridiculous. It's so unsavory to see Tim Cook grovel like that. No backbone at all, what a pitiful human.
- scottyah 1y ago
  Grovel? I thought it was making fun of the POTUS. What made it even funnier was that it'd go right over DT's head. Excellent messaging- pleases the wanna be monarch, shows investors that he's willing to work with any country's heads to ensure the success of Apple, and makes a mockery of the office with such a gaudy display.
  - mikeyouse 1y ago
    > Cook presented Trump with an engraved piece of glass designed by a former Marine Corps corporal who works at Apple. The base of the glass plaque was made of 24 karat gold, Cook said, as he set it up on the Resolute Desk in front of Trump. “You’ve been a great advocate for American innovation and manufacturing,” Cook told Trump. Apple, Cook said, is “going to keep making investments right here in America and we’re going to keep hiring in America.”
    - jen20 1y ago
      And yet, the actual publicized investment plans are barely any different from what they were under Biden and likely would have been under Harris.
      - Nevermark 1y ago
        > the actual publicized investment plans are barely any different On the contrary. > The base of the glass plaque was made of 24 karat gold My recollection, which may be way off, is Biden preferred fine grade silver dinner ware and free Uber passes... It is amazing how quickly centralized power can not just become deeply and openly corrupt, but operate free of credible challenge. The centralization in this case being years of tightened coordination within one party, acting on all three branches. The internal leverage created by such processes provides a natural habitat for final consolidation by an opportunistic individual. And suddenly the standards of governance are unrecognizable. The unsurprising result of successfully centralized power. It has long occurred to me that by not having limits on party power (seat limits? term limits? Cross state limits? Cross branch limits?), the US Constitution left a huge power coordination loop hole, free of checks and balances. That loophole holds up an eternal carrot of legal one party rule. Temporary one party rule in theory, but the constant drive for that grinds down bipartisanship and respect for any shared power. No one party should ever have a dominant majority of congress, much less dominate all three branches. At that point, in-party incentives overwhelmingly push party solidarity above any other issue. (Another great side effect of party seat/term limits would be the breakup up of the party duopoly which even when "working" lowered the bar for each party to the floor, i.e. neither party needed to do much but not be the latest disappointing incumbent. And a duopoly is incapable of providing choices reflecting a complex reality. They are reduced to competing via team identification/shibboleths.
        jen20 1y ago
        I’m not entirely sure what you think you’re arguing for or against here.
        Nevermark 1y ago
        For congressional seat/term limits on parties. Lots of ways to achieve that. I am not going to pick here. That’s an interesting discussion in its own right. But simple examples that demonstrate limits: parties can only operate in 10 states or less (for congressional candidates). Or parties can only hold 30% or less of congressional seats in either house. Etc. In the short run, it enforces bipartisanship, In the long run, it kills long term incentives to attempt to achieve single party rule temporarily, permanent or effectively permanent. Which has been a very destructive incentive driving tremendous organized partisan efforts. (Even when not achieved, the pursuit kills bipartisanship and competition on policy, in pursuit of a lasting hold on power.) And it would open up elections to more parties, more choices, and force more flexibility, adaptation and collaboration from all parties, instead of more two party polarization and entrenchment.
foo70 1y ago
[flagged]
benoau 1y ago
Maybe, but if Trump wanted this to go away he's had a good 7 months to make that happen and he got a million dollars cash gift for his inauguration, certainly worth more than a gold bar trophy stand. This antitrust stems from a 2019/2020 congressional investigation into "Big Tech" that occurred during his first term too. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/06/tech/congress-big-tech-antitrust-report/ https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/06/tech/congress-big-tech-an...
- mikeyouse 1y ago
  That investigation in 2019/2020 came from the Democrat-majority House Judiciary - not from the DOJ. The DOJ was likely investigating in the background but nothing of public substance actually happened until 2024 when they filed suit. And looking at the docket now, every one of the DOJ attorneys who had filed that initial suit in 2024 have left the DOJ. Several states joined the suit so things very well may continue but the stench of corruption is pretty thick on everything the current DOJ touches.

saubeidl 1y ago

The corruption is so out in the open, it's ridiculous. It's so unsavory to see Tim Cook grovel like that. No backbone at all, what a pitiful human.

scottyah 1y ago
Grovel? I thought it was making fun of the POTUS. What made it even funnier was that it'd go right over DT's head. Excellent messaging- pleases the wanna be monarch, shows investors that he's willing to work with any country's heads to ensure the success of Apple, and makes a mockery of the office with such a gaudy display.
- mikeyouse 1y ago
  > Cook presented Trump with an engraved piece of glass designed by a former Marine Corps corporal who works at Apple. The base of the glass plaque was made of 24 karat gold, Cook said, as he set it up on the Resolute Desk in front of Trump. “You’ve been a great advocate for American innovation and manufacturing,” Cook told Trump. Apple, Cook said, is “going to keep making investments right here in America and we’re going to keep hiring in America.”
  - jen20 1y ago
    And yet, the actual publicized investment plans are barely any different from what they were under Biden and likely would have been under Harris.
    - Nevermark 1y ago
      > the actual publicized investment plans are barely any different On the contrary. > The base of the glass plaque was made of 24 karat gold My recollection, which may be way off, is Biden preferred fine grade silver dinner ware and free Uber passes... It is amazing how quickly centralized power can not just become deeply and openly corrupt, but operate free of credible challenge. The centralization in this case being years of tightened coordination within one party, acting on all three branches. The internal leverage created by such processes provides a natural habitat for final consolidation by an opportunistic individual. And suddenly the standards of governance are unrecognizable. The unsurprising result of successfully centralized power. It has long occurred to me that by not having limits on party power (seat limits? term limits? Cross state limits? Cross branch limits?), the US Constitution left a huge power coordination loop hole, free of checks and balances. That loophole holds up an eternal carrot of legal one party rule. Temporary one party rule in theory, but the constant drive for that grinds down bipartisanship and respect for any shared power. No one party should ever have a dominant majority of congress, much less dominate all three branches. At that point, in-party incentives overwhelmingly push party solidarity above any other issue. (Another great side effect of party seat/term limits would be the breakup up of the party duopoly which even when "working" lowered the bar for each party to the floor, i.e. neither party needed to do much but not be the latest disappointing incumbent. And a duopoly is incapable of providing choices reflecting a complex reality. They are reduced to competing via team identification/shibboleths.
      - jen20 1y ago
        I’m not entirely sure what you think you’re arguing for or against here.
        Nevermark 1y ago
        For congressional seat/term limits on parties. Lots of ways to achieve that. I am not going to pick here. That’s an interesting discussion in its own right. But simple examples that demonstrate limits: parties can only operate in 10 states or less (for congressional candidates). Or parties can only hold 30% or less of congressional seats in either house. Etc. In the short run, it enforces bipartisanship, In the long run, it kills long term incentives to attempt to achieve single party rule temporarily, permanent or effectively permanent. Which has been a very destructive incentive driving tremendous organized partisan efforts. (Even when not achieved, the pursuit kills bipartisanship and competition on policy, in pursuit of a lasting hold on power.) And it would open up elections to more parties, more choices, and force more flexibility, adaptation and collaboration from all parties, instead of more two party polarization and entrenchment.

foo70 1y ago

[flagged]

benoau 1y ago

Maybe, but if Trump wanted this to go away he's had a good 7 months to make that happen and he got a million dollars cash gift for his inauguration, certainly worth more than a gold bar trophy stand. This antitrust stems from a 2019/2020 congressional investigation into "Big Tech" that occurred during his first term too. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/06/tech/congress-big-tech-antitrust-report/ https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/06/tech/congress-big-tech-an...

mikeyouse 1y ago
That investigation in 2019/2020 came from the Democrat-majority House Judiciary - not from the DOJ. The DOJ was likely investigating in the background but nothing of public substance actually happened until 2024 when they filed suit. And looking at the docket now, every one of the DOJ attorneys who had filed that initial suit in 2024 have left the DOJ. Several states joined the suit so things very well may continue but the stench of corruption is pretty thick on everything the current DOJ touches.