7 ms·

Trump Defends ZTE Concession After Sparking Bipartisan Rebuke

51 points by Ihmahr 8y ago

eganist 8y ago
It was the huffington post which first pointed out the timing of Trump's ZTE concessions relative to a Trump Organization-affiliated project the Chinese government agreed to finance. Financing article: http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/southeast-asia/article/2145808/trump-indonesia-project-latest-stop-chinas-belt-and-road http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/southeast-asia/article/2145808... HuffPo correlation story: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-china-zte_us_5af9f701e4b0200bcab7fa66 https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-china-zte_us_5af9... This is not to say that the two are necessarily connected so much as it's to say that not investigating the timing of the two is to exhibit a lack of due diligence.
- wyldfire 8y ago
  > This is not to say that the two are necessarily connected so much as it's to say that not investigating the timing of the two is to exhibit a lack of due diligence. They don't even have to be connected with any explicit quid pro quo between the parties. It could all be implicit from the Chinese government knowing full well who the owner of the Trump Organization is. Trump had a recourse, he could have easily put his assets in a blind trust. Instead, he should suffer the consequences.
  - toufka 8y ago
    Further, when it comes to other high offices, like judges, the appearance of conflicts are as problematic as actual conflicts. Such that care beyond standard conflict checks is required to prevent having to investigate every relationship and decision.
    - actsasbuffoon 8y ago
      I've always found this deeply disturbing. By not putting his assets into a blind trust, Donald Trump made it easy for foreign governments to create the appearance of impropriety. This suggests that he may not fully grasp how dangerous it is to give someone the power to blackmail you. Anyone in public service should understand this, though clearly Trump isn't alone on this one.
      - goalieca 8y ago
        Oh he did this on purpose. He clearly wants the money.
        actsasbuffoon 8y ago
        Yes, but the money can't possibly be worth the punishment normally associated with what he's done. My net worth is dramatically lower than what Trump claims to be worth, and I wouldn't take anywhere near this much risk just to make money. Mind you, I dabble in day trading. I do stupid, risky things to make money with far more of my money than is probably wise (I lost $4k yesterday, which sadly, wasn't that bad compared to some of my previous losses). So clearly my sense of risk/reward is a little off kilter. That said, I'd never do something blatantly illegal (possibly unconstitutional!) in order to make money! Especially not if it represented 1/20th of my self-reported net worth! That would be a positively stupid amount of risk for such a small reward.
r00fus 8y ago
How is this not pure corruption? How is it legal? Do we live in a banana republic?
- simcop2387 8y ago
  I've seen it argued that it is illegal, a direct violation of the emoluments clause of the constitution. I'm not a lawyer, let along a constitutional one, so I can't say that with any authority, but everything about it certainly screams that it is a violation. And it certainly does seem like we're moving towards (if not already being there) a banana republic.
- berberous 8y ago
  Forcing a company that employees 75,000 people in China out of business doesn't seem like the right outcome. I would expect the U.S. and China to negotiate some sort of more appropriate remedy that is better for all sides.
  - olliej 8y ago
    No the company made itself go out of business. First they violated export restrictions, then after apologizing and paying a fine it turned out they had explicit intent to continue violating export restrictions. In response they were told they could no longer purchase American technology. Then they chose to go out of business. They chose to go out of business. No one required that they break the law, and if they hadn’t they would be fine. The alternative is that companies can break the law however much they want if they’re large enough.
    - Ihmahr 8y ago
      > No the company made itself go out of business. And for that 75k people should loose their job? Or can we try to find a better solution?
      - beat 8y ago
        If you have a better solution, something that guarantees that ZTE won't be making products for the US market that are designed to spy on Americans, I'm all ears.
throwaway84742 8y ago
Trade negotiations are underway. This is a part of that, as was the initial ban. Trump does this again and again: he creates leverage in the form of negative consequences should he walk away from the table. Then he gives some of it back much to the relief of the other side, in exchange for something else he needs. He negotiated thousands of deals, some of which were very complicated. It could well be that he’s the strongest negotiator we ever had in that position.
- cthalupa 8y ago
  >It could well be that he’s the strongest negotiator we ever had in that position. So strong that he can't negotiate deals beneficial enough for him that he can afford to hold up his end of them, and instead files for bankruptcy so that he doesn't have to pay for it. He's taken such good care of all of the hard working US citizens he's interacted with in his days as a business man.
  - throwaway84742 8y ago
    And yet he still has 4 billion dollars and is a president of the US. Must be pretty good at negotiating.
    - maxxxxx 8y ago
      That's like saying Pablo Escobar was good at business because he amassed billions of dollars.
      - selectodude 8y ago
        Except Pablo Escobar was actually a very good businessman.
        cthalupa 8y ago
        And actually had a net worth in the billions. Two traits Trump does not share with Escobar.

51 points by Ihmahr 8y ago

It was the huffington post which first pointed out the timing of Trump's ZTE concessions relative to a Trump Organization-affiliated project the Chinese government agreed to finance. Financing article: http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/southeast-asia/article/2145808/trump-indonesia-project-latest-stop-chinas-belt-and-road http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/southeast-asia/article/2145808... HuffPo correlation story: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-china-zte_us_5af9f701e4b0200bcab7fa66 https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-china-zte_us_5af9... This is not to say that the two are necessarily connected so much as it's to say that not investigating the timing of the two is to exhibit a lack of due diligence.

wyldfire 8y ago
> This is not to say that the two are necessarily connected so much as it's to say that not investigating the timing of the two is to exhibit a lack of due diligence. They don't even have to be connected with any explicit quid pro quo between the parties. It could all be implicit from the Chinese government knowing full well who the owner of the Trump Organization is. Trump had a recourse, he could have easily put his assets in a blind trust. Instead, he should suffer the consequences.
- toufka 8y ago
  Further, when it comes to other high offices, like judges, the appearance of conflicts are as problematic as actual conflicts. Such that care beyond standard conflict checks is required to prevent having to investigate every relationship and decision.
  - actsasbuffoon 8y ago
    I've always found this deeply disturbing. By not putting his assets into a blind trust, Donald Trump made it easy for foreign governments to create the appearance of impropriety. This suggests that he may not fully grasp how dangerous it is to give someone the power to blackmail you. Anyone in public service should understand this, though clearly Trump isn't alone on this one.
    - goalieca 8y ago
      Oh he did this on purpose. He clearly wants the money.
      - actsasbuffoon 8y ago
        Yes, but the money can't possibly be worth the punishment normally associated with what he's done. My net worth is dramatically lower than what Trump claims to be worth, and I wouldn't take anywhere near this much risk just to make money. Mind you, I dabble in day trading. I do stupid, risky things to make money with far more of my money than is probably wise (I lost $4k yesterday, which sadly, wasn't that bad compared to some of my previous losses). So clearly my sense of risk/reward is a little off kilter. That said, I'd never do something blatantly illegal (possibly unconstitutional!) in order to make money! Especially not if it represented 1/20th of my self-reported net worth! That would be a positively stupid amount of risk for such a small reward.

r00fus 8y ago

How is this not pure corruption? How is it legal? Do we live in a banana republic?

simcop2387 8y ago
I've seen it argued that it is illegal, a direct violation of the emoluments clause of the constitution. I'm not a lawyer, let along a constitutional one, so I can't say that with any authority, but everything about it certainly screams that it is a violation. And it certainly does seem like we're moving towards (if not already being there) a banana republic.
berberous 8y ago
Forcing a company that employees 75,000 people in China out of business doesn't seem like the right outcome. I would expect the U.S. and China to negotiate some sort of more appropriate remedy that is better for all sides.
- olliej 8y ago
  No the company made itself go out of business. First they violated export restrictions, then after apologizing and paying a fine it turned out they had explicit intent to continue violating export restrictions. In response they were told they could no longer purchase American technology. Then they chose to go out of business. They chose to go out of business. No one required that they break the law, and if they hadn’t they would be fine. The alternative is that companies can break the law however much they want if they’re large enough.
  - Ihmahr 8y ago
    > No the company made itself go out of business. And for that 75k people should loose their job? Or can we try to find a better solution?
    - beat 8y ago
      If you have a better solution, something that guarantees that ZTE won't be making products for the US market that are designed to spy on Americans, I'm all ears.

throwaway84742 8y ago

Trade negotiations are underway. This is a part of that, as was the initial ban. Trump does this again and again: he creates leverage in the form of negative consequences should he walk away from the table. Then he gives some of it back much to the relief of the other side, in exchange for something else he needs. He negotiated thousands of deals, some of which were very complicated. It could well be that he’s the strongest negotiator we ever had in that position.

cthalupa 8y ago
>It could well be that he’s the strongest negotiator we ever had in that position. So strong that he can't negotiate deals beneficial enough for him that he can afford to hold up his end of them, and instead files for bankruptcy so that he doesn't have to pay for it. He's taken such good care of all of the hard working US citizens he's interacted with in his days as a business man.
- throwaway84742 8y ago
  And yet he still has 4 billion dollars and is a president of the US. Must be pretty good at negotiating.
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    That's like saying Pablo Escobar was good at business because he amassed billions of dollars.
    - selectodude 8y ago
      Except Pablo Escobar was actually a very good businessman.
      - cthalupa 8y ago
        And actually had a net worth in the billions. Two traits Trump does not share with Escobar.