In the recent Supreme Court hearing over the firing of Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve, the administration is acting like Truth Social posts are official notices.
>Several justices have noted the unusual nature of the case before it, which began with a post by Trump on his social media platform, Truth Social, that said he would fire Cook.
>Jackson wondered why that would be considered sufficient notice: “How is it that we can assume that she’s on social media?”
What part? Are you doubting that they are being designated as a supply chain risk? Or the implications of being designated as one?
We do have a recent example with Huawei, and it did fall just like this - and that was just some hardware.
>A tweet is not a legally binding statement.
In the recent Supreme Court hearing over the firing of Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve, the administration is acting like Truth Social posts are official notices.
>Several justices have noted the unusual nature of the case before it, which began with a post by Trump on his social media platform, Truth Social, that said he would fire Cook.
>Jackson wondered why that would be considered sufficient notice: “How is it that we can assume that she’s on social media?”
https://apnews.com/live/supreme-court-lisa-cook-federal-rese...
It will be true as soon as it becomes official though, assuming they actually go through with it and this is not just a bargaining tactic.
Won’t that require an act of congress? How likely does that seem?
Huawei was not on the NDAA (the congress part) until August 2019, well after companies started cutting ties in April/May of that year
When did legality apply to this administration?