Violence at Tesla dealerships will now be considered domestic terrorism.

[ItsPeople]

I’ll just stick to unplugging them

 

[Mr.FOH]

Musk did spend over 200 million to secure the office. These are the perks

 

[ItsPeople]

Musk did spend over 200 million to secure the office. These are the perks

Bought and paid for

 

[MoshpitMazi]

Trump is playing a dangerous game

 

[the cac mamba]

i don't know how trump would make this a federal charge. probably would have to be a law passed

elon deserves it, so i think it's funny, but i wouldn't be surprised if they crack down on this shyt. you can't just have uninvolved people being targeted like this. hell, most tesla owners are democrats

 

[blues_funk_reggae]

... and while tesla is "supplying so many jobs" musk is adding to the unemployment numbers at an astronomical rate

 

[blues_funk_reggae]

Musk did spend over 200 million to secure the office. These are the perks

I have a personal belief that its somewhere north of 500M...and a further suspicion tells me Musk will continue to give trump money for the next four years and the total will be closer to a billion.

 

[Buddy]

Does Musk have platform shoes on or something? I never once imagined him being taller than Trump. Anyways... tethers ain't gon like this

PROTECT "UNCLE ELON" AT ALL COSTS!!

 

[AlbertPullhoez]

Elon Musk is the Spliff Star to Trump's Busta Rhymes

 

[br82186]

From two Reddit commenters...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there is any statutory definition of domestic terrorism. It's a phrase that gets thrown around a lot, and there are foreign organizations designated as terrorists, but I don't think federal law has a domestic terrorism definition.

Finally, someone actually addressing the legal question in r/law

It's defined in 18 USC 2331(5):

> (5) the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that-

> (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

> (B) appear to be intended-

> (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

> (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

> (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

> (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States;

Whether this constitutes terrorism then depends on what status Elon Musk has.

Let's say for the sake of argument that these acts are dangerous to human life (although obviously spray painting a swastika on a dealership isn't). If he is just a private citizen, then he clearly doesn't qualify as "a civilian population". He's just one person. And if he is a private citizen, then intimidating him cannot be expect to impact the policy of a government.

On the other hand, if he is an officer of the United States, then it's possible those acts would satisfy this definition.

But then of course he would need to be confirmed by the senate.

Trump wants it both ways as usual. Or to put it another way:

> Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

 

[Afrodroid]

It's getting better every day

 

[Uchiha God]

Elon really the president huh

 

[Uchiha God]

Elon Musk is the Spliff Star to Trump's Busta Rhymes

It’s the other way around

 

[BaggerofTea]

Just burn them down at night Ala the French


No reason to perform for the cameras.

People will just wake up to smoldering ruins

 

[Rekkapryde]

The joke has gone far enough