Hacker News Reader

Comment by ternnoburn | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

> 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-17...

Yep! Thanks for finding the source. I was on my phone, couldn't get the actual text.

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.

> 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.

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

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.

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.

> 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.

(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.

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.

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.

> 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.

Then why does it need an executive order? And doesn’t “certify” mean more than just “claim”?

> 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.

Sure, the loophole is a part of the law, as I (and others) stated. Congress passed the law, which included a simple and easy way for a president to suspend it once of 90 day, with weak and unenforceable requirements to invoke it. Given that this is an unusual clause to have in a law, I feel comfortable calling it a loophole.

> the loophole is a part of the law

That's not a loophole. It was intentionally designed the way it's been written to be used the way Trump is using it--to give the President leverage and the ability to save face for Beijing.

You're saying it is not possible to build a loophole into a law.

I'm saying that it is.

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com