I’m way more interested in the reactions of Google, Apple, Oracle, and the dozens of other corporations ByteDance depends on.
The “90-day extension” Trump keeps talking about has no basis in law except to conclude an in-process divestment, which currently doesn’t exist. He can order the law not to be enforced, but you’re still breaking the law. It’ll interesting to see if those companies are willing to along with an executive order their counsel knows is illegal or are willing to knowingly break the law under the promise they won’t be prosecuted (for now).
The president may grant a one-time extension of the divestiture deadline by as long as 90 days if a path to a qualified divestiture has been identified, “significant” progress has been made to executing the divestiture, and legally binding agreements for facilitating the divestiture are in place.
as long as 90 days if a path to a qualified divestiture has been identified, “significant” progress has been made to executing the divestiture, and legally binding agreements for facilitating the divestiture are in place.
My point is that no path has been identified, no progress has been made, and nothing is in place.
I don’t think that it can just be declared satisfied, though. I imagine Google and Apple’s obscenely top-shelf representation will be like, “this has about this much legal merit”:
I mean, they can get away with it. They own the government, if the next president threw a fit about them going along with something that they knew was illegal because Trump was OK with it, do you think their lawyers wouldn’t be able to make it go away for a meager fine that’s 0.001% of their annual revenue?
I’m curious whether “can probably get away with it” is enough for them. And whether they’ll take the risk for no reward whatsoever in the case of Apple and Google.
I’m way more interested in the reactions of Google, Apple, Oracle, and the dozens of other corporations ByteDance depends on.
The “90-day extension” Trump keeps talking about has no basis in law except to conclude an in-process divestment, which currently doesn’t exist. He can order the law not to be enforced, but you’re still breaking the law. It’ll interesting to see if those companies are willing to along with an executive order their counsel knows is illegal or are willing to knowingly break the law under the promise they won’t be prosecuted (for now).
edit: IANAL
Wikipedia says, with a couple references:
So I think he can do it.
My point is that no path has been identified, no progress has been made, and nothing is in place.
Point taken, but I’m just going to presume that all that will be declared satisfied in the EO in some token form or another.
I don’t think that it can just be declared satisfied, though. I imagine Google and Apple’s obscenely top-shelf representation will be like, “this has about this much legal merit”:
But who knows! :)
I mean, they can get away with it. They own the government, if the next president threw a fit about them going along with something that they knew was illegal because Trump was OK with it, do you think their lawyers wouldn’t be able to make it go away for a meager fine that’s 0.001% of their annual revenue?
I’m curious whether “can probably get away with it” is enough for them. And whether they’ll take the risk for no reward whatsoever in the case of Apple and Google.