And while I wouldn't call it "dictator shit" since a CEO is not a government official with direct power over his targets, it would certainly be a smear campaign which I wouldn't condone.
I'm operating on the assumption that people say many things that they do not intend to follow up with deeds, especially when they think they are not talking publicly.
I'd be more worried about this if their were some evidence that this was a view (1) meant to be expressed in public (or actually articulated to the public); or (2) articulated in confidence internally in a professional context (which means the intent was real, not just rhetorical; or (3) if other eye-witness testimony comes forth that unequivically supports that this was an actual threat mean to intimidate those actually present (seems unlikely...but lets see).
Without that, this is just another internet shitstorm, manufactured by people who have something to gain financially or who are emotionally invested in maligning this individual or the company.
I don't think you need to give anone the benefit of the doubt here, its more that the evidence doesn't really support the conclusions that are implied by the reporting (at least, yet).