Here’s the Real Reason Trump Wants to Save Chinese TikTok. It’s All About Him!
Supreme Court might not ‘have the stomach’ to accept Trump’s new legal demand: expert
Story by David McAfee. December 29, 2024.
“Meanwhile, as the date for the TikTok ban in the U.S., January 19, draws closer, Donald Trump was among a number of litigants filing Amicus briefs with the Supreme Court last week. His was a little bit different than the others. It wasn’t about the law. Or even about the facts. Instead, it was about…Donald Trump. The case is ultimately about whether U.S. companies that platform TikTok can continue to do so after the date of the ban, but apparently, Trump just wants to jump in and make a deal. There’s more than a smidge of kleptocracy underlying the idea—one wonders if even the Supreme Court will have the stomach for it.” – Joyce Vance, former federal prosecutor, wrote this weekend.
“President Trump is one of the most powerful, prolific, and influential users of social media in history. Consistent with his commanding presence in this area, President Trump currently has 14.7 million followers1 on TikTok with whom he actively communicates, allowing him to evaluate TikTok’s importance as a unique medium for freedom of expression2, including core political speech. Indeed, President Trump and his rival both used TikTok to connect with voters during the recent Presidential election campaign, with President Trump doing so much more effectively.” – Trump’s Amicus brief.
According to the legal expert, Trump “is represented by his nominee to be Solicitor General, John Sauer, who obsequiously described the president-elect in the glowing sort of terms Trump likes to see himself described with.”
-
@RalphHightower: Here’s the real reason why Trump is stepping in at the last minute. It’s not about the company or that it’s a Chinese company. It’s all about him! ↩
-
@RalphHightower: Since when does Trump care about “freedom of expression?” Never! In fact, Trump wants to take away our freedom of speech, which happens to be part of the First Amendment. ↩