'close coordination with our peers' says it all really. Organised crime all done at the same time against political parties in Uganda just like facebook, google, youtube, insta, twitter, amazon, apple all coordinate crime in the US.
The days of when corps feared to break the laws due to the fines & justice that would come down upon them are like 20 years in the past.. and now they can attack the executive branch.. or any other, and coordinate coups.
Lying under oath openly to congress 'we dont specifically target or deplatform conservatives!'
The execs dont just need execution, they need to have their company and personal assets seized and get broken into pieces via the anti-monopoly and RICO statutes.
The general counsel for their companies sitting right there if they have to intervene and those long drawn-out windy time-wasting responses mentioning feelings a lot (ie something incredibly unmeasurable and non-specific ) which could have been a 'yes' or 'no'?
I haven't heard suggestions it was not under oath until now.. only a lot of frustration that the questions were too soft.
'close coordination with our peers' says it all really. Organised crime all done at the same time against political parties in Uganda just like facebook, google, youtube, insta, twitter, amazon, apple all coordinate crime in the US.
The days of when corps feared to break the laws due to the fines & justice that would come down upon them are like 20 years in the past.. and now they can attack the executive branch.. or any other, and coordinate coups.
Lying under oath openly to congress 'we dont specifically target or deplatform conservatives!'
The execs dont just need execution, they need to have their company and personal assets seized and get broken into pieces via the anti-monopoly and RICO statutes.
That’s the thing, I thought they were never under oath when in front of Congress and it was a dog and pony show
The general counsel for their companies sitting right there if they have to intervene and those long drawn-out windy time-wasting responses mentioning feelings a lot (ie something incredibly unmeasurable and non-specific ) which could have been a 'yes' or 'no'?
I haven't heard suggestions it was not under oath until now.. only a lot of frustration that the questions were too soft.