• Whirlybird@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      He didn’t negotiate with foreign governments though, nor is any foreign government involved in a dispute with the USA, so that doesn’t apply. All he did was say no when asked if he could give them access to his product to use in an act of war.

      • spaghettiwesternOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

        Your definition of a dispute (or controversy) is absurd. Likewise is your assertion that Musk’s communicating with Putin about Ukraine would not constitute negotiation. It’s a stretch to content that all they talked about was having tea.

        Musk is not a government representative in any form and the service paid for by the DoD is literally being used in acts of war every day. This asshole actively interfered with American foreign policy and provided comfort and support to a country that is arguably engaged in direct hostilities with the US. There should be serious, life changing consequences to that kind of activity.

          • spaghettiwesternOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            We are experiencing daily cyberattacks from Russia, election interference, and propaganda specifically targeting American’s views across the political spectrum. There is a dictionary definition of “hostility” and what Russia is doing and has been doing for years fits it precisely. You don’t get to make up your own definition any more than you get to make up your own facts.

            Hostility: noun,plural hos·til·i·ties.

            • a hostile state, condition, or attitude; enmity; antagonism; unfriendliness.
            • a hostile act.
            • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Lol still going with the completely disproven “election interference” thing are you?

              You are trying to use hostility in a completely different meaning to what the Logan Act means.

              • spaghettiwesternOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                It’s sad when people believe their own propaganda, make up their own facts and even go so far as to make up definitions to common English words. Dispute and hostility mean what they mean, not what you want them to mean.

                And the “completely disproven” election interference? Completely proven.

                A tiny portion of just the unredacted findings we know about from the Senate Intelligence Report on Russian Interference in the 2016 Election:

                The Committee’s bipartisan Report unambiguously shows that members of the Trump Campaign cooperated with Russian efforts to get Trump elected. It recounts efforts by Trump and his team to obtain dirt on their opponent from operatives acting on behalf of the Russian government. It reveals the extraordinary lengths by which Trump and his associates actively_sought to enable the Russian interference operation by amplifying its electoral impact and rewarding its perpetrators - even after being warned of its Russian origins. And it presents, for the first time, concerning evidence that the head of the Trump Campaign was directly connected to the Russian meddling through his communications with an individual found to be a Russian intelligence officer.

                Additionally, the Committee’s bipartisan Report shows that, at the June 9, 2016 meeting in Trump Tower, senior members of the Campaign sought, explicitly, to receive derogatory information for electoral benefit from a Russian lawyer known to have ties to the Russian government, with the understanding that the information was part of “Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” Prior to and during that meeting, members of the Trump Campaign’s leadership clearly stated their desire to receive the promised derogatory Russian information, and ultimately they also clearly expressed their displeasure that the Russian information that was presented was not sufficiently damaging.

                The Committee’s bipartisan Report shows that, during the campaign, Donald Trump and the Trump Organization were pursuing a business deal in Russia. This is a topic about which the Campaign and its associates misled the public and Congress. The Committee’s Report shows that Trump’s outreach to the Kremlin began early and that during the Republican’ ’ primary campaign, around the time that Trump authorized pursuit of the Russia deal, Trump asked for an in-person meeting with Putin.

                There may be some who attempt to minimize the seriousness of Trump’s actions, or the actions of his associates, by arguing that these individuals were motivated simply by self- interest or self-promotion. This argument overlooks that when self-interest is intertwined with the goals of a malign Russian influence operation, and when self-interest promotes the known Russian effort while also being promote~ by that same Russian effort, then self-interest and Russia’s interest become one and the same. Moreover, this argument misunderstands the deep counterintelligence vulnerability that is created when those who seek positions of great power, or proximity to that power, are willing to trade away national security for personal gain.

                Candidate Trump’s pursuit of private business in Russia during the campaign, and his Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort’s deep financial ties to a Kremlin-aligned Russian.oligarch during the campaign, are not the only sources of leverage to which Trump and his Campaign were vulnerable. The Committee’s bipartisan Report shows that dt1ring the campaign Trump maintained personal correspondence with a Russian oligarch and his adult son on topics including the upcoming U.S. election. The Moscow-based oligarch and his son, who were involved in offering the Trump Campaign derogatory information related to the election and who gave Trump a sizable gift during the Campaign, maintain significant and concerning connections 'not only to Kremlin leadership but also to Russian organized crime. Trump had previously done business with the oligarch in Moscow.

                Just keep telling yourself that there was no conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, despite the copious evidence to the contrary. Self-delusion seems to be a maga specialty and you’ve got it down.

                  • spaghettiwesternOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    What do they call authoritarian followers like you in your country? Sheep?

    • jarfil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Except at the time the US Government’s policy was for Starlink to NOT extend coverage outside of Ukraine’s borders.

      Musk followed US stated policy by disobeying Ukraine’s request.

      • UrPartnerInCrime
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’m not for the guy and think he’s done waaay more wrong than good, but wasn’t everyone against him even offering starlink on the first place? Now everyone is mad that they didn’t use more starlink? Honestly just seems like a lose lose situation right now for him. Had he overstepped his bounds and used starlink as an aggressor, instead of defense like he has been doing (which is one thing the US said to Ukraine, defend your land not attack theirs) people would have dragged him through the mud for that instead.

        I’m all for being critical when it’s due, especially for a guy trying to role-playing Edison and his shitty tactics, but idk about this one.

        Edit: Here’s a link explaining it a lot more clearly about why the news is making this bigger than it was.

        Edit edit: link broken lemmys hard lol

        • jarfil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Precisely. For the one time the guy follows the rules… like there haven’t been a thousand other things he’s been doing that deserve criticism… this one is a really weird smear campaign to pick.

          And a full year after the fact, at that. Where were all these people in 2022 when all this happened?