The case is directed at her specifically: "Meng is accused of committing fraud in 2013 by telling U.S. financial institutions that Huawei had no connection to Skycom, which was reportedly selling goods manufactured in the United States to Iran in violation of American sanctions on Tehran. Meng has contended Huawei sold Skycom in 2009." [1]
As far as selective enforcement - can you give any examples?
Also - even though you're probably right on some level, and I fully agree there's 'relevance' to the current situation in China, I would argue it's not acutely relevant.
A lot of law enforcement doesn't happen until there's some people getting bold about it. For example, the Hells Angels get away with a lot until there is real violence, or super hardcore drugs start appearing - then the cops focus their attention more on the situation. Organized crime knows this, which is why they choose to keep the equilibrium by staying quiet, generally.
Since America has general competitive concerns with China, it makes sense that a large international firm that is flagrantly violating US law would be targeted by a body in the justice system.
But it doesn't mean that Trump's hawkish team is behind this as a part of the negotiations.
In fact, I really don't think it's part of the negotiation, and I even bet that Trump et. al. were caught maybe off guard by it.
So yes, politicized, but more in general, not acutely.
Moreover, if there is law being broken it should be prosecuted, and to your point, hopefully more evenly.
FYI - sometimes these things are also done to 'send a signal'. Just like if a Hells Angel dude steps out of line and maybe does something violent, and the cops rush down on all members of that chapter, it's a 'signal' to HA leadership that if they step out of line, that's what's going to happen, i.e. part of keeping the equilibrium. Otherwise, if the HA chapter got away with something, others might try as well.
As far as selective enforcement - can you give any examples?
Also - even though you're probably right on some level, and I fully agree there's 'relevance' to the current situation in China, I would argue it's not acutely relevant.
A lot of law enforcement doesn't happen until there's some people getting bold about it. For example, the Hells Angels get away with a lot until there is real violence, or super hardcore drugs start appearing - then the cops focus their attention more on the situation. Organized crime knows this, which is why they choose to keep the equilibrium by staying quiet, generally.
Since America has general competitive concerns with China, it makes sense that a large international firm that is flagrantly violating US law would be targeted by a body in the justice system.
But it doesn't mean that Trump's hawkish team is behind this as a part of the negotiations.
In fact, I really don't think it's part of the negotiation, and I even bet that Trump et. al. were caught maybe off guard by it.
So yes, politicized, but more in general, not acutely.
Moreover, if there is law being broken it should be prosecuted, and to your point, hopefully more evenly.
FYI - sometimes these things are also done to 'send a signal'. Just like if a Hells Angel dude steps out of line and maybe does something violent, and the cops rush down on all members of that chapter, it's a 'signal' to HA leadership that if they step out of line, that's what's going to happen, i.e. part of keeping the equilibrium. Otherwise, if the HA chapter got away with something, others might try as well.
[1] https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/meng-wanzhou-huawei-cfo-meng...