Donald Trump submitted a Supreme Court filing opposing a TikTok ban, citing his “dealmaking expertise” and promising to resolve national security concerns.
The brief advocates delaying the case to allow Trump to address it politically.
Legal experts criticized the filing for being overly self-promotional and unprecedented, with some mistaking it for satire.
Critics noted its unusual tone and highlighted the involvement of Trump’s potential solicitor general pick, D. John Sauer, in drafting the document.
The case concerns TikTok’s alleged violations of privacy laws and ties to China.
What argument can be made against actual schizophrenic ramblings with absolutely no basis in reality? How can one start to address the finer points of an argument made during a psychotic break?