| ▲ | doug_durham 6 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||
There is no evidence that what you say is true. A tweet is not a legally binding statement. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | prpl 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
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. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | vharuck 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
>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... | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | lemming 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
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. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | jzig 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||
When did legality apply to this administration? | |||||||||||||||||