4 ms·
No, this is something different. The law allows a 90-day reprieve only if significant effort has been expended towards selling TikTok. But ByteDance hasn't ma
by SeanLuke 2y ago
No, this is something different. The law allows a 90-day reprieve only if significant effort has been expended towards selling TikTok. But ByteDance hasn't made any effort at all. Trump is instead trying to prevent the Justice Department from enforcing the law. But the penalties -- and they are very large -- for violating the law can be enforced any time up to 5 years after the violation; that is, after Trump has left office. So his action may not have any effect.
- XorNot 2y agoOh it'll have an effect: the benefit of a law you could enforce but don't is that it sends an unambiguous message about the quid-pro-quo which is expected.
- SeanLuke 2y agoYeah, but would Verizon (let's say) let TikTok on its servers given that they'll be fined for it retroactively (in 4 years) regardless of Trump's order now? And it's a big fine.
- polotics 2y agoi believe the company you're looking for here is Oracle. Hilarious if a delayed fine comes one day for the masters of costly audits!
- vkou 2y ago> So his action may not have any effect. Or it creates a strong financial incentive for TikTok to ensure that the next administration will be a continuation of the current one. It's always nice to have a media company in a politician's back pocket.
- lenerdenator 2y agoAssuming, of course, that SCOTUS has the balls to say "um... no, actually, that wasn't right, and your presidential immunity doesn't cover this." Which, I doubt they will, but I'm not psychic.