I no longer think that. Even massive, wholly overt corruption is apparently fine now. Along with a bunch of other stuff. There are no rules now as long as you can get elected, you're useful to one party or the other, and that party retains enough seats to block impeachment.
Berlusconi is precisely the kind of person who's in power now, and it's taking months of slow, grinding work to maybe, maybe catch him on something bad enough he can't ignore it, while he's plainly profiting from the office and hasn't attempted to avoid actual conflicts of interest, let alone the appearance of them, and that's not even the thing we're trying to throw him out over.
At the highest levels of American power, you can now openly be as corrupt as Berlusconi and... no one cares enough to do anything about it.
So yes, Zuck totally can. Which makes the prospect of his presidency all the more worrisome.
If he were to win I think he would be pressured to structure some kind of trust that prevents him from leveraging Facebook's political power in conjunction with the government.
> If he were to win I think he would be pressured to structure some kind of trust that prevents him from leveraging Facebook's political power in conjunction with the government.
That's the point, isn't it? It's happening right now without consequence, so why should it be different then?
Once these groups determine something to be 'fake news' they are set up to censor as they see fit. Pretty smart if it wasn't so evil.
The holiday thing is something to complain over.
But...
Since the original statement of the Secret Service paying for property they make use of has absolutely nothing to do with either of your questions, I believe you are a bit misguided.
It is completely normal for the Secret Service to pay for usage of property and/or services during their duty. It has been in place for some time and payments have been made to numerous persons of both parties for years.
The complaint is that money is going into Trump's bank account. It directly benefits him financially to go on vacations as often as possible when he stays at his own resorts, because he makes a cut off the tax dollars used to pay for his vacations.
Although, I wouldn't mind it being explained to me how he is.
Of course, at the time presidents were in the habit of divesting themselves of their conflicts.
It can't possibly be kosher for him to be President with this arrangement, can it? If Carter had to divest his peanut farm, why would we let a President retain a massive interest in the biggest media/marketing/surveillance platform in the country? It would make Berlusconi look like an amateur.