Connect with us

Politics

Microsoft Still in Talks to Buy TikTok After Trump Threatens Ban

Published

on

  • President Trump on Friday said that he would ban TikTok in the U.S., though he did not specify how he would go about doing so.
  • There are a number of actions he could take, including forcing the sale of TikTok to an American company, though the president initially said he did not favor this idea.
  • The announcement came just hours after it was reported that Microsoft was in talks to buy TikTok, and the two were close to finalizing a deal.
  • After reports began to circulate that the deal had been put on hold, Microsoft announced in a blog post on Sunday that it was resuming talks after the company’s CEO spoke to Trump.
  • On Monday, Trump confirmed that he had changed his mind about immediately banning TikTok and said that he would allow Mircosoft to continue negotiations for 45 days. If a deal is not struck by Microsoft or another American company in that time, TikTok will go out of business in the U.S.

Microsoft Backtracks

Microsoft announced in a blog post Sunday that it was going to continue discussions to buy TikTok in the United States after CEO Satya Nadella spoke to President Donald Trump, who had previously said on Friday that he would ban the app’s use in the United States.

“As far as TikTok is concerned, we’re banning them from the United States,” Trump told reporters. 

While the president did not say how he would ban the app, there are several options at his disposal. One possibility would be for Trump to direct the Commerce Department to put TikTok on what’s called the “entity list” which would basically block U.S. companies from having any commercial ties with TikTok.

Another option would be for the president to use a law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which allows him to essentially ban any foreign communications products that are seen as a threat to U.S. national security. That option could have a very extreme outcome.

“No American could work for them,”  Stewart Baker, a former National Security Agency general counsel told The Washington Post. The app store couldn’t make them available. American advertisers couldn’t pay them for ads. It would be economically devastating for them.”

A third potential action Trump could take would be to basically force TikTok’s owner ByteDance to sell the app or divest from its U.S. operations. That would be done through the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) which recommends to the president if acquisitions should be rejected or reversed on national security grounds.

CFIUS, which is chaired by Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, launched an investigation into ByteDance. According to The New York Times, a source said that as a result of the investigation, CFIUS recommended that Trump order ByteDance to divest from TikTok, which is essentially another way forcing them to sell it.

Trump on Friday said that he did not want a deal selling TikTok to a U.S. company, and when asked if he would use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, he said, “I have that authority. I can do it with an executive order or that.”

Microsoft Deal

Trump’s announcement came just hours after reports that Microsoft was in talks to buy TikTok began to circulate. Following Trump’s announcement, the Wall Street Journal reported Microsoft had put those talks on hold.

In the Sunday blog post, Microsoft dispelled those rumors, while also publicly confirming for the first time that the company was in talks to buy the popular chinese-owned app.

“Microsoft fully appreciates the importance of addressing the President’s concerns,” Microsoft said in the post. “It is committed to acquiring TikTok subject to a complete security review and providing proper economic benefits to the United States, including the United States Treasury.”

The company stated it will move quickly and complete the discussions “no later than September 15” and continue to dialogue with Trump and his Administration. Notably, the post also noted that the preliminary proposal would include a purchase of TikTok in the U.S. as well as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand and that Microsoft “may invite other American investors” to be minority owners.

Addressing security concerns, Microsoft said it will add protections and ensure transparency and added that, in addition to other measures, the company will “ensure that all private data of TikTok’s American users is transferred to and remains in the United States.”

To the extent that any such data is currently stored or backed-up outside the United States, Microsoft would ensure that this data is deleted from servers outside the country after it is transferred.”

A deal between Microsoft and TikTok—which would probably be valued somewhere in the billions—would be a huge win for both companies. For TikTok, even though it would be a concession to pressure from the Trump administration, it would still be better than the alternative.

It would allow them to keep the app in the U.S. rather than being banned and taking a huge hit in users right after it was banned in India.

The move would arguably be an even bigger win and a definite huge step for Microsoft. Unlike almost all other big tech companies that are its competitors, Microsoft does not have a social media platform or own a social media company.

If Microsoft did acquire TikTok, not only would it be acquiring its first social media company, it would also be acquiring one of the most popular and fastest-growing platforms. Rather than starting from scratch with a platform that may or may not take off, Microsoft would be diving in headfirst.

Immediately, it would become a major rival to huge platforms like the Facebook-owned Instagram, as well as the Google-owned YouTube, especially because so many tech companies, including Facebook, have been coming up with alternatives to TikTok.

In other words, it would give Microsoft a massive foothold in a consumer market it has not been a part of before and drastically change the landscape of Big Tech in a fundamental way.

Trump Administration Response

On Monday, Trump himself confirmed that TikTok would shut down on Sept. 15 unless it was purchased by Microsoft or another company. He also said that the Treasury Department would need to get a lot of money for the deal, though he did not explain how that would work legally.

According to the Times, Trump changed his mind after several phone calls, including ones from Nadella and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-Sc.), who voiced his support for the move on Twitter Sunday.

But there are still some high level members of the administration that believe more needs to be done to crack down on TikTok, including Trump’s top trade adviser Peter Navarro, who has taken a hardline stance on the matter.

“Every time you sign up for TikTok, all your information is potentially going right back to the Chinese Communist Party,” he said on Fox News Saturday,. “The Chinese military and the Chinese government, they can use this social these social media apps to steal your personal information, your business information.

“They use these social media apps to track you and surveil you and monitor your movements,” he continued. “This is a national security threat. So here’s what I would ask the American people. If they’re using TikTok and they hear the president is going to basically ban that, get on the Trump train with that, because that app you’re using, fun as it may be, is dangerous.”

Navarro doubled down on his remarks during an interview to CNN Monday, where he accused Microsoft of selling products to China that enable censorship and surveillance and suggested that Microsoft be required to divest from any business in China if it buys TikTok. 

“I mean, whose software does the People[‘s] Liberation Army in China run on? Microsoft. Who — the Chinese Communist Party, whose software do they use to do their — all the things they do? It’s Microsoft,” he said. 

“So, this is not a white hat company, right? It’s an American company. It’s clearly a multi-national company that’s made billions in China, that enables Chinese censorship through things like Bing and Skype.”

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo also seemed to echo Navarro in an interview with Fox News on Sunday, where he took a hardline on China but also did not rule out a sale.

“These Chinese software companies doing business with the United States, whether it’s TikTok or WeChat, there are countless more, as Peter Navarro said, are feeding data directly to the Chinese Communist Party their national security apparatus,” he said.  

“President Trump has said ‘enough’ and we’re gonna fix it. And so he will take action in the coming days with respect to a broad array of national security risks that are presented by software connected to the Chinese Communist Party,” he continued.

When asked if the Microsoft deal would still pose risks, Pompeo responded, “I promise you the president, when he makes his decision, will make sure that everything we have done drives us as close to zero risk for the American people.”

See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (The New York Times) (The Wall Street Journal)

Politics

Biden Mistakenly Calls Out For Dead Lawmaker at White House Event

Published

on

The remarks prompted concerns about the mental state of the president, who previously mourned the congresswoman’s death in an official White House statement.


“Where’s Jackie?” 

Video of President Joe Biden publicly asking if a congresswoman who died last month was present at a White House event went viral Wednesday, giving rise to renewed questions about the leader’s mental acuity.

The remarks were made at the White House Conference on Food, Nutrition, and Health, which Rep. Jackie Walorski (R-In.) had helped convene and organize before her sudden death in a car accident.

The president thanked the group of bipartisan lawmakers who helped make the event happen, listing them off one by one, and appearing to look around in search of Rep. Walorski when he reached her name.

“Jackie, are you here? Where’s Jackie?” he called. “I think she wasn’t going to be here to help make this a reality.” 

The incident flummoxed many, especially because Biden had even acknowledged her work on the conference in an official White House statement following her death last month.

“Jill and I are shocked and saddened by the death of Congresswoman Jackie Walorski of Indiana along with two members of her staff in a car accident today in Indiana,” the statement read.

“I appreciated her partnership as we plan for a historic White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health this fall that will be marked by her deep care for the needs of rural America.”

The Age Maximum Question

Numerous social media users and news outlets presented the mishap as evidence that Biden, who is 79, does not have the mental capacity to serve as president. Others, meanwhile, raised the possibility of imposing an age maximum for the presidency.

Most of the comments against the president came from the right, which has regularly questioned his mental stability. However, the idea of an age limit goes beyond Biden and touches on concerns about America’s most important leaders being too old.

While Biden is the oldest president in history, former President Donald Trump — who is 76 and has also had his mental state continually questioned — would have likewise held that title if he had won re-election in 2020.

These concerns extend outside the presidency as well: the current session of Congress is the oldest on average of any Congress in recent history, and the median ages are fairly similar among Republicans and Democrats when separated by chambers.

There is also a higher percentage of federal lawmakers who are older than the median age. Nearly 1 out of every 4 members are over the age of 70.

Source: Business Insider

What’s more, some of the people in the highest leadership positions are among the oldest members. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.), is the oldest-ever House Speaker at 82, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) — the president pro tempore of the Senate and third person in line for the presidency — is the same age, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is 80.

As a result, it is unsurprising that a recent Insider/Morning Consult poll found that 3 in 4 Americans support an age max for members of Congress, and more than 40% say they view the ages of political leaders as a “major” problem.

Those who support the regulations argue that age limits are standard practice in many industries, including for airplane pilots and the military, and thus should be imposed on those who have incredible amounts of power over the country.

However, setting age boundaries on Congress and the President would almost certainly necessitate changes to the Constitution, and because such a move would require federal lawmakers to curtail their own power, there is little political will.

See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (Business Insider) (NBC News)

Continue Reading

Politics

Churches Protected Loophole in Abuse Reporting for 20 years, Report Finds

Published

on

In some cases, Clergy members failed to report abuse among their congregation, but state laws protected them from that responsibility.


A Nationwide Campaign to Hide Abuse

More than 130 bills seeking to create or amend child sexual abuse reporting laws have been neutered or killed due to religious opposition over the past two decades, according to a review by the Associated Press.

Many states have laws requiring professionals such as physicians, teachers, and psychotherapists to report any information pertaining to alleged child sexual abuse to authorities. In 33 states, however, clergy are exempt from those requirements if they deem the information privileged.

All of the reform bills reviewed either targeted this loophole and failed or amended the mandatory reporting statute without touching the loophole.

“The Roman Catholic Church has used its well-funded lobbying infrastructure and deep influence among lawmakers in some states to protect the privilege,” the AP stated. “Influential members of the Mormon church and Jehovah’s witnesses have also worked in statehouses and courts to preserve it in areas where their membership is high.”

“This loophole has resulted in an unknown number of predators being allowed to continue abusing children for years despite having confessed the behavior to religious officials,” the report continued.

“They believe they’re on a divine mission that justifies keeping the name and the reputation of their institution pristine,” David Finkelhor, director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire, told the outlet. “So the leadership has a strong disincentive to involve the authorities, police or child protection people.”

Abuses Go Unreported

Last month, another AP investigation discovered that a Mormon bishop acting under the direction of church leaders in Arizona failed to report a church member who had confessed to sexually abusing his five-year-old daughter.

Merrill Nelson, a church lawyer and Republican lawmaker in Utah, reportedly advised the bishop against making the report because of Arizona’s clergy loophole, effectively allowing the father to allegedly rape and abuse three of his children for years.

Democratic State Sen. Victoria Steele proposed three bills in response to the case to close the loophole but told the AP that key Mormon legislators thwarted her efforts.

In Montana, a woman who was abused by a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses won a $35 million jury verdict against the church because it failed to report her abuse, but in 2020 the state supreme court reversed the judgment, citing the state’s reporting exemption for clergy.

In 2013, a former Idaho police officer turned himself in for abusing children after having told 15 members of the Mormon church, but prosecutors declined to charge the institution for not reporting him because it was protected under the clergy loophole.

The Mormon church said in a written statement to the AP that a member who confesses child sex abuse “has come seeking an opportunity to reconcile with God and to seek forgiveness for their actions. … That confession is considered sacred, and in most states, is regarded as a protected religious conversation owned by the confessor.”

See what others are saying: (Associated Press) (Deseret) (Standard Examiner)

Continue Reading

Politics

Texas AG Ken Paxton Allegedly Flees Official Serving Subpoenas in Truck

Published

on

Following the news, a judge granted the attorney general’s request to quash the subpoenas.


Paxton on the Run

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton fled his own home in a truck Monday morning to evade an official trying to serve him a subpoena, according to an affidavit filed in federal court.

Last month, several nonprofits filed a lawsuit seeking to block Texas from charging individuals under the state’s abortion ban in cases that happened out of state or prior to Roe v. Wade being overturned.

Two subpoenas were issued summoning Paxton to a Tuesday court hearing, one for his professional title and the other addressed to him personally.

Early on Monday Ernesto Martin Herrera, a process server, knocked on the front door of Paxton’s home in McKinney and was greeted by Texas state senator Angela Paxton, who is the Attorney General’s wife.

According to the affidavit, Herrera identified himself and informed her that he was delivering court documents to Mr. Paxton. She responded that her husband was on the phone and in a hurry to leave, so Herrera returned to his vehicle and waited for Ken to emerge.

Nearly an hour later, the affidavit states, a black Chevrolet Tahoe pulled into the driveway, and 20 minutes after that, the attorney general stepped out.

“I walked up the driveway approaching Mr. Paxton and called him by his name,” Herrera wrote in the affidavit. “As soon as he saw me and heard me call his name out, he turned around and RAN back inside the house through the same door in the garage.”

Shortly afterward, Angela exited the house and climbed into a truck in the driveway, leaving a rear driver-side door open.

“A few minutes later I saw Mr. Paxton RAN from the door inside the garage towards the rear door behind the driver side,” Herrera wrote. “I approached the truck, and loudly called him by his name and stated that I had court documents for him.”

“Mr. Paxton ignored me and kept heading for the truck,” he continued.

The affidavit adds that Herrera placed the documents on the ground by the vehicle and stated that he was serving a subpoena, but the Paxtons drove away.

Process Server or Lingering Stranger?

Following the publication of the affidavit in The Texas Tribune, Ken attacked the news outlet on Twitter and claimed to fear for his safety.

“This is a ridiculous waste of time and the media should be ashamed of themselves,” he wrote. “All across the country, conservatives have faced threats to their safety – many threats that received scant coverage or condemnation from the mainstream media.”

“It’s clear that the media wants to drum up another controversy involving my work as Attorney General, so they’re attacking me for having the audacity to avoid a stranger lingering outside my home and showing concern about the safety and well-being of my family,” he continued.

On Monday, the attorney general filed two requests: a motion to quash the subpoena and another to seal the certificates of service, which included the affidavit.

His lawyers argued that Herrera “loitered at the Attorney General’s home for over an hour, repeatedly shouted at him, and accosted” him and his wife.

U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman granted both requests on Tuesday.

In a statement, the attorney general said that Herrera is “lucky this situation did not escalate further or necessitate force.”

See what others are saying: (The Texas Tribune) (CNN) (Fort Worth Star-Telegram)

Continue Reading