4 ms·

The law has a provision permitting the President to grant 90 day exceptions. Trump has indicated he'll sign one tomorrow. This isn't going around the law, it's

The law has a provision permitting the President to grant 90 day exceptions. Trump has indicated he'll sign one tomorrow. This isn't going around the law, it's just the law as written. We can debate whether the law was good or bad, but this is an outcome the law directly supports.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> law has a provision permitting the President to grant 90 day exceptions “A 1-time extension of not more than 90 days,” § 2(A)(3) [1]. [1] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-17758/pdf/COMPS-17758.pdf#page=63 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-17758/pdf/COMPS-17...
- ternnoburn 2y ago
  Yep! Thanks for finding the source. I was on my phone, couldn't get the actual text.
- foobarbecue 2y ago
  Except it doesn't sound like he's satisfied any of the criteria, unless he's promising to buy it himself: (A) a path to executing a qualified divestiture has been identified with respect to such application; (B) evidence of significant progress toward executing such qualified divestiture has been produced with respect to such application; and (C) there are in place the relevant binding legal agree- ments to enable execution of such qualified divestiture during the period of such extension
  - redcobra762 2y ago
    Those are criteria the President has to certify are the case, not criteria that have to be the case. Zero clue how that would play out in the courts, but it wouldn't resolve in anything resembling a timely manner.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
      His administration will lie, because TikTok has made it clear they will not divest in order to stay in the USA. But so what? His administration, and he himself, lied about a bunch of stuff during his previous term, and what happened? Nothing. Never tried, never convicted (he was impeached, but so what?) We do not have a mechanism for dealing with a president or administration that is willing to just lie. Even if the SCOTUS were to determine that the administration did in fact lie about certifying those things, so what? Nothing will happen.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > We do not have a mechanism for dealing with a president or administration that is willing to just lie Of course we do. We’ll just fine Apple, Google and Oracle tens of billions of dollars if they don’t cut ties with Bytedance. The law can be patient. I advocated for this bill. My personal guess is the tech companies bend at the knee and then pay for a new train system in New York or whatever.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    (A) is intentionally vague and deferential. The possibility of a Trump Presidency was in everyone’s mind in drafting; he’s not a guy you tell what to do, he’s a guy you give discretion to with an opportunity to blame unsatisfactorily deferential third parties.
- rayiner 2y ago
  That requires a legal agreement to divest to be in place, which I suspect isn’t the case yet. That being said, the law is enforceable today and Biden said he won’t enforce it.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
    > That requires a legal agreement to divest to be in place, which I suspect isn’t the case yet. Nope, it merely requires that the president certifies that it is in place, and that's something entirely different given who the president will be.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  It says the conditions of the extension must be certified to Congress. That means the deal is identified, has been significantly executed, and legally binding. I doubt Trump has any of that, which is probably why he’s resorting to an executive order. More worryingly he stated in his Truth social post that he’s seeking 50% ownership. That doesn’t meet the definition of divestiture in this bill, since China would still effectively steer operations, including content recommendations.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
    He's not resorting to an executive order to ignore the law. He's using the loophole in the law that allows him to grant a 1-time 90 day lift of the ban, given that he certifies that certain conditions have been met. The conditions have not been met, but he will lie and state that to his satisfaction, they have. Nothing will happen to challenge that except some noise from a couple of Democratic senators. What happens 90 days later is anyone's guess.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > using the loophole in the law that allows him to grant a 1-time 90 day lift of the ban It's not a loophole, it's a clear power granted--with strict limits--within the scope of a short bill.
      - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
        Then why does it need an executive order? And doesn’t “certify” mean more than just “claim”?
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > why does it need an executive order? It doesn't. That's Trump being Trump. > doesn’t “certify” mean more than just “claim”? Not to my knowledge.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
kelnos 2y ago
The president can grant one 90-day exception, if certain conditions are met. Those conditions have not been met.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> law has a provision permitting the President to grant 90 day exceptions “A 1-time extension of not more than 90 days,” § 2(A)(3) [1]. [1] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-17758/pdf/COMPS-17758.pdf#page=63 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-17758/pdf/COMPS-17...

ternnoburn 2y ago
Yep! Thanks for finding the source. I was on my phone, couldn't get the actual text.
foobarbecue 2y ago
Except it doesn't sound like he's satisfied any of the criteria, unless he's promising to buy it himself: (A) a path to executing a qualified divestiture has been identified with respect to such application; (B) evidence of significant progress toward executing such qualified divestiture has been produced with respect to such application; and (C) there are in place the relevant binding legal agree- ments to enable execution of such qualified divestiture during the period of such extension
- redcobra762 2y ago
  Those are criteria the President has to certify are the case, not criteria that have to be the case. Zero clue how that would play out in the courts, but it wouldn't resolve in anything resembling a timely manner.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
    His administration will lie, because TikTok has made it clear they will not divest in order to stay in the USA. But so what? His administration, and he himself, lied about a bunch of stuff during his previous term, and what happened? Nothing. Never tried, never convicted (he was impeached, but so what?) We do not have a mechanism for dealing with a president or administration that is willing to just lie. Even if the SCOTUS were to determine that the administration did in fact lie about certifying those things, so what? Nothing will happen.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > We do not have a mechanism for dealing with a president or administration that is willing to just lie Of course we do. We’ll just fine Apple, Google and Oracle tens of billions of dollars if they don’t cut ties with Bytedance. The law can be patient. I advocated for this bill. My personal guess is the tech companies bend at the knee and then pay for a new train system in New York or whatever.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  (A) is intentionally vague and deferential. The possibility of a Trump Presidency was in everyone’s mind in drafting; he’s not a guy you tell what to do, he’s a guy you give discretion to with an opportunity to blame unsatisfactorily deferential third parties.
rayiner 2y ago
That requires a legal agreement to divest to be in place, which I suspect isn’t the case yet. That being said, the law is enforceable today and Biden said he won’t enforce it.
- PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
  > That requires a legal agreement to divest to be in place, which I suspect isn’t the case yet. Nope, it merely requires that the president certifies that it is in place, and that's something entirely different given who the president will be.
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
It says the conditions of the extension must be certified to Congress. That means the deal is identified, has been significantly executed, and legally binding. I doubt Trump has any of that, which is probably why he’s resorting to an executive order. More worryingly he stated in his Truth social post that he’s seeking 50% ownership. That doesn’t meet the definition of divestiture in this bill, since China would still effectively steer operations, including content recommendations.
- PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
  He's not resorting to an executive order to ignore the law. He's using the loophole in the law that allows him to grant a 1-time 90 day lift of the ban, given that he certifies that certain conditions have been met. The conditions have not been met, but he will lie and state that to his satisfaction, they have. Nothing will happen to challenge that except some noise from a couple of Democratic senators. What happens 90 days later is anyone's guess.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > using the loophole in the law that allows him to grant a 1-time 90 day lift of the ban It's not a loophole, it's a clear power granted--with strict limits--within the scope of a short bill.
    - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
      Then why does it need an executive order? And doesn’t “certify” mean more than just “claim”?
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > why does it need an executive order? It doesn't. That's Trump being Trump. > doesn’t “certify” mean more than just “claim”? Not to my knowledge.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago

kelnos 2y ago

The president can grant one 90-day exception, if certain conditions are met. Those conditions have not been met.