TikTok, US Discuss Ways To Avoid Sale (wsj.com) 15
TikTok's Chinese parent, ByteDance, is discussing with the U.S. government possible arrangements that would allow the popular video-sharing app to avoid a full sale of its U.S. operations, WSJ reported Wednesday, citing people familiar with the matter. From a report: Discussions around such an option, under way for months, have assumed increased urgency since the Chinese government took steps that make a sale more difficult, the people said. They take place against a fast-approaching deadline that President Trump imposed for TikTok to agree to a sale of its U.S. operations or else be shut down, and as geopolitical wrangling over the app intensifies. A number of options remain on the table, the situation is fluid and a sale is still a possibility, the people said. Even if there isn't a full sale, the outcome would likely involve some sort of restructuring of TikTok, one of the people said. The main concern for government officials involved in the talks has been the security of TikTok's data and keeping it out of reach of the Chinese government, said people familiar with the negotiations.
Sigh... (Score:3)
Let the shake down begin in earnest. Doubtless laundered donations to a pro-Trump PAC will be welcome.
But being a Chinese company is ILLEGAL (Score:3)
Not a bad FP. Where was the duty troll?
Extending a bit with the new Subject. Also unconstitutional if the Subject field was longer.
In a different world, if a Chinese (or American) company is doing something wrong and illegal, then present the evidence and prosecute that company. If the wrong thing is not illegal, then fix the law and get them next time.
The appropriate joke is rather nationalist, but that does NOT mean I support Trump in this or anything else.
In old America, everything is legal unless it is
Don't forget the Schumer donation too (Score:1)
That seems like something they might try.
They better not forget the Chuck Schumer donation too - he's the one who started the whole TikTok thing.
Well, and Bytedance did by almost immediately violating the terms of the acquisition, but Schumer is the one who demanded the current National Security Review of TikTok, which is what we're dealing with now.
Re: Sigh... (Score:2)
Rather than continuing to add to the list of criminal accusations against Trump, might it be an idea to pause and prove some of the existing allegations in a court of law?
Re: (Score:2)
Rather than continuing to add to the list of criminal accusations against Trump, might it be an idea to pause and prove some of the existing allegations in a court of law?
Wasn't Trump the one that was arguing that a sitting president cannot be indited because being involved in a criminal trial would interfere with his ability to perform his presidential duties? Unless you can convince 2/3rds of the Senate to impeach him first, it's basically impossible to even get him into a court of law in order to have a chance of proving anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Technically, the DOJ back during Watergate made a legal determination that a sitting President could not be indicted or stand trial. It may be true, but it has never been tested, and at the end of the day, if the DOJ does decide in some far off day to indict a sitting President, it will likely end up with SCOTUS having to decide the validity of the DOJ's official position. My hunch is the DOJ is right, not so much because of the "division of powers" argument, but more because while the Constitution remains
Re: (Score:1)
Why would we do that? No one has to prove ByteDance's Tik Tok is doing anything illegal.
Trump tweets and thus shall it be, no need for evidence or legalities.
Serious question. (Score:2)
Does anyone still care?
Re: (Score:2)