Get away with what exactly?

Musk, Zuckerberg, and Altman and their companies have zero history of sketchy stuff that would, in a normal world, lead to CEOs being ousted? Affairs are enough to do it to Huang? The whole Chinese spy thing is not confirmed is it? And the three people I've listed have had documented cases of endangering national security through either their actions or their company's actions.

Zuckerberg controls 61% of voting shares for Meta, and implicitly, the Meta board of directors.

The board decides who is CEO. Zuck controls the board. Zuck cannot be fired unless he wants to be.

Zuckerberg and Musk can't be fired. They own controlling share.

I suppose that's one reason. But Musk has formed basically pyramid schemes to keep his debtors from calling and to move his debt out from under him. Without that, he likely would have to sell shares to cover the debt of his Twitter purchase.

He paid for that with: 1) shares of TSLA that he sold, 2) company debt (not personal debt)

He had billions of dollars in a margin loan tied to Tesla stock.

Care to explain which "basically pyramid schemes" you are alluding to? A link to a reputable source would suffice.

Musk has a history of having his companies buy his other companies, and his most recent example of this is obviously xAI buying X and then SpaceX buying xAI. For example, the purchase of X by xAI valued X at a ridiculous ~$40 billion. And then he took SpaceX public after all of this. And SpaceX is built upon $38 billion worth of taxpayer money, grants, tax credits, etc. Must be nice to have a bunch of loser companies all buy each other and then use a government funded hype stock to make it all back.

It is absolutely impossible to know the exact details, but Musk has a history of shady deals (even having his companies bill each other for expenses), and so it's not much of a leap of faith that these moves are to absolve himself from lenders and investors by shifting debt around and moving losers into winners.

I bet that SpaceX will buy Tesla any day now.

Musk somehow weasles his way through lawsuits and gray areas and corruption and legal loop holes to just have his companies buy each other out when they start sucking, all on the teat of others and the government.

They could lose control through a substantial shareholder lawsuit. A minority shareholder suit against Musk could prove tremendous damages repaid in stock and the judge might not let the special classes of shares with extra voting power protect his control.

It would have to be a very good cause though, disliking him or ordinary bad business decisions won't cut it.

[delayed]

Musk and Russia?

Why does he support Putin?