I know everyone else said it, but he can’t order “no liability” and if he orders the 90 day extension with no acquisition agreement or even term sheet in place that’s illegal. Not that he cares of course. - ThreadSky

rmfifthcircuit.bsky.social • 48 days ago

I know everyone else said it, but he can’t order “no liability” and if he orders the 90 day extension with no acquisition agreement or even term sheet in place that’s illegal. Not that he cares of course.

Comments

samwisela.bsky.social•48 days ago

If there is no penalty for an illegal act, then there is no deterrent.

andrewkinsey.bsky.social•48 days ago

I'm sure the GCs of Apple and Microsoft and Oracle, famous for their total lack of risk aversion, will gladly just take his word for it.

discoveryattorney.net•48 days ago

He's so mercurial and biased towards whatever his last advisor told him, that if I were Apple or whomever, I'd be very weary. Who knows what he will do?

rtushnet.bsky.social•48 days ago

Is it bad that I'm now wondering if this was a rope-a-dope for "China hands Trump an early defeat"?

trossmeissl.bsky.social•48 days ago

Interesting question — President does something illegal, but has immunity. Others relying on the legality of the president’s illegal act - does that defeat any mens rea requirement for liability?

glorious-bastard.bsky.social•48 days ago

Seems like if they were to be prosecuted, any such defendant would have a strong argument based on lack of mens rea and/or entrapment-by-estoppel (similar to promissory estoppel).