6 ms·

The pissing contest between Jeff and Larry (AWS and Oracle) has only resulted in MS getting Oracle + Azure. That may not seem like much, but to most enterprise

The pissing contest between Jeff and Larry (AWS and Oracle) has only resulted in MS getting Oracle + Azure. That may not seem like much, but to most enterprise and government bodies that is a huge + on the MS side is it not? Also not mentioned here AWS already has GovCloud- there are a number of agencies both federal and state that use AWS. Its not like this contract is the _only_ contract there is to win. Its just a big one. Jeff is a pretty damn sore loser.

fooey 7y ago
Oracle is a McGuffin, they're only mentioned at all in this drama as an excuse for Trump to interfere. They were never any kind of contender for the contract.
throwaway5752 7y ago
The president told the secretary of defense to "screw" one vendor in a competition for a $10B contract because of personal biases unrelated to the contract. In any normal time, that would be an administration ending scandal. Right now, it hardly rates, but on an absolute scale it's still a big deal and completely justifies this lawsuit.
- outside1234 7y ago
  There is no evidence that he actually did this. People have speculated that he might have and he clearly doesn't like Bezos, but that is not proof.
  - throwaway5752 7y ago
    https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/26/politics/amazon-donald-trump-jim-mattis-pentagon-contract/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/26/politics/amazon-donald-trump-... Was sourced in Mattis's biography, written by a "former Mattis speechwriter and communications director". That is absolutely evidence. Now, proving it simply involves this lawsuit and then deposing Mattis to confirm the claim.
    - rpiguy 7y ago
      It is not evidence, it is hearsay. Even if Mattis testified that Trump said it Trump may have witnesses who’d say he didn’t say it. We don’t convict people in this country based on hearsay alone.
      - rpiguy 7y ago
        Ahh Hackernews, where you get downvoted advocating for the rule of law. Apologies, comrades.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        throwaway5752 7y ago
        I didn't downvote your parent comment, but I was preparing to send you a couple of links that educate you about what hearsay actually is, like https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_801 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_801, https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_802 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_802, and https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/hearsay-evidence.html https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/hearsay-evid... to correct what you mistakenly think hearsay is. In this case, Mattis is a witness and would be called to testify under oath, under penalty of perjury and subject to cross examination, about statements the president made to him. The president or other witnesses could dispute that, also under oath and subject to perjury charges/cross examination. If they conflict, as they often do, the judge or jury as the case may be decides the case on the merits. It would be hearsay if they called the biographer and asked him about Mattis's statement. Furthermore, hearsay is admissible evidence in a number of exceptions that are described in the links I gave you (including excited utterances or statements against interest which may apply here)
      - jnwatson 7y ago
        The public realm isn’t a legal trial. The standards of evidence are different. We can’t subpoena anyone, as presumably a competent attorney would do to verify Mattis’ claim.
- awb 7y ago
  > The president told the secretary of defense to "screw" one vendor in a competition for a $10B contract because of personal biases unrelated to the contract. On Twitter it sounds like Trump has animosity for Bezos, but is there evidence Trump was involved in the process or the process was biased?
  - ticmasta 7y ago
    Based on character it would seem the last thing Trump would have the attention span for would be messing with government IT contracts. He would quickly loose interest and flip the TV to Fox News...
    - MFLoon 7y ago
      That's a shallow reading of his character. Trump loves few things more than being petty and vindictive towards his perceived enemies, and if big money is involved all the better.
- unlinked_dll 7y ago
  Not to be too cynical, but if we started investigating every DoD contract where personal biases decided who won and who lost... the military industrial complex would probably crumble overnight.
  - throwaway5752 7y ago
    Perhaps, but they should meet some minimal bar of effort to avoid the appearance of impropriety. And on contracts of this size, I would expect the standard of fairness to be higher.
    - dnautics 7y ago
      > they should meet some minimal bar of effort to avoid the appearance of impropriety why not just call a spade a spade?
  - lostcolony 7y ago
    This isn't that though. This isn't every individual's personal bias; this is a publicly declared bias by the commander in chief. A little different.
    - balls187 7y ago
      It's not even bias. It's a vendetta
      - chrisco255 7y ago
        Awarding a perfectly capable competitor (Microsoft) a contract isn't a vendetta. Somehow I think Amazon will continue to thrive with or without the JEDI contract.
        nkozyra 7y ago
        Why does Amazon's survival preclude a vendetta?
        7y ago
- balls187 7y ago
  > Right now, it hardly rates This is an underrated commentary. I'm continually amazed at what transpires in the public forum, leading me to believe that the US Government has been corrupt for quite some time, but never out in the open. Or, it could be like this https://youtu.be/aI0euMFAWF8 https://youtu.be/aI0euMFAWF8
  - ars 7y ago
    > leading me to believe that the US Government has been corrupt for quite some time, but never out in the open. I feel the same way - Trump is not different from other presidents, except that he does everything right out in the open, while the other Presidents kept a veneer of respectability on things. Turns out most people really prefer to believe that everything is above board.
    - ethbro 7y ago
      There is variance in all things. Believing that the absence of visible corruption is still proof of equivalent invisible corruption is unreasonable. And side note: corruption in politics is a weighted term. From one perspective, politics is literally the business of corruption. I.e. how to use democratic support to influence policy and procurement. In the US, until ~1878 (Rutherford B. Hayes presidency), it was the overt policy of both parties that political contributions were the price of office. And it took the assassination of James A. Garfield in 1881 by a spurned, insane spoils seeker to finally pass reform into law.
    - balls187 7y ago
      We only have to look at our stance on eating meat vs factory farming. Or, "ignorance is bliss." It's one thing to not be secretive of impropriety--it's another thing to boast about it.
- rpiguy 7y ago
  This not a true statement. If Obama blocked a Halliburton contract and told his cabinet they were going to screw Haliburton both the press and most of leftists on this forum would have stood up and cheered.
  - pacofvf 7y ago
    But that didn't happen, because Obama understood the rule of law, you can't defend Trump illegal actions by saying that if Obama had done that then the "leftists" would be cheering that.
    - rpiguy 7y ago
      Obama did not understand the rule of law. DACA is completely unconstitutional. The President cannot change immigration law as written by congress. If you believe Obama had the right to create DACA then the same broad executive powers to rewrite immigration laws should apply to Trump, right?
txcwpalpha 7y ago
I have seen multiple people saw "Jeff is a sore loser" and I truly don't get it. Do you not understand how these businesses work? Every single one of the executives at Amazon (and AWS) are under a fiduciary duty to make sure their business is protected, which includes pursuing legal action when a contract is possibly wrongfully awarded. This isn't Jeff just being salty (I honestly doubt Bezos even cares as AFAIK he isn't very involved in AWS at all). Hell, these same legal cases happen in countless government contracts all the time, they just aren't as publicized as this one because they aren't as large.

fooey 7y ago

Oracle is a McGuffin, they're only mentioned at all in this drama as an excuse for Trump to interfere. They were never any kind of contender for the contract.

throwaway5752 7y ago

The president told the secretary of defense to "screw" one vendor in a competition for a $10B contract because of personal biases unrelated to the contract. In any normal time, that would be an administration ending scandal. Right now, it hardly rates, but on an absolute scale it's still a big deal and completely justifies this lawsuit.

outside1234 7y ago
There is no evidence that he actually did this. People have speculated that he might have and he clearly doesn't like Bezos, but that is not proof.
- throwaway5752 7y ago
  https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/26/politics/amazon-donald-trump-jim-mattis-pentagon-contract/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/26/politics/amazon-donald-trump-... Was sourced in Mattis's biography, written by a "former Mattis speechwriter and communications director". That is absolutely evidence. Now, proving it simply involves this lawsuit and then deposing Mattis to confirm the claim.
  - rpiguy 7y ago
    It is not evidence, it is hearsay. Even if Mattis testified that Trump said it Trump may have witnesses who’d say he didn’t say it. We don’t convict people in this country based on hearsay alone.
    - rpiguy 7y ago
      Ahh Hackernews, where you get downvoted advocating for the rule of law. Apologies, comrades.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - throwaway5752 7y ago
        I didn't downvote your parent comment, but I was preparing to send you a couple of links that educate you about what hearsay actually is, like https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_801 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_801, https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_802 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_802, and https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/hearsay-evidence.html https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/hearsay-evid... to correct what you mistakenly think hearsay is. In this case, Mattis is a witness and would be called to testify under oath, under penalty of perjury and subject to cross examination, about statements the president made to him. The president or other witnesses could dispute that, also under oath and subject to perjury charges/cross examination. If they conflict, as they often do, the judge or jury as the case may be decides the case on the merits. It would be hearsay if they called the biographer and asked him about Mattis's statement. Furthermore, hearsay is admissible evidence in a number of exceptions that are described in the links I gave you (including excited utterances or statements against interest which may apply here)
    - jnwatson 7y ago
      The public realm isn’t a legal trial. The standards of evidence are different. We can’t subpoena anyone, as presumably a competent attorney would do to verify Mattis’ claim.
awb 7y ago
> The president told the secretary of defense to "screw" one vendor in a competition for a $10B contract because of personal biases unrelated to the contract. On Twitter it sounds like Trump has animosity for Bezos, but is there evidence Trump was involved in the process or the process was biased?
- ticmasta 7y ago
  Based on character it would seem the last thing Trump would have the attention span for would be messing with government IT contracts. He would quickly loose interest and flip the TV to Fox News...
  - MFLoon 7y ago
    That's a shallow reading of his character. Trump loves few things more than being petty and vindictive towards his perceived enemies, and if big money is involved all the better.
unlinked_dll 7y ago
Not to be too cynical, but if we started investigating every DoD contract where personal biases decided who won and who lost... the military industrial complex would probably crumble overnight.
- throwaway5752 7y ago
  Perhaps, but they should meet some minimal bar of effort to avoid the appearance of impropriety. And on contracts of this size, I would expect the standard of fairness to be higher.
  - dnautics 7y ago
    > they should meet some minimal bar of effort to avoid the appearance of impropriety why not just call a spade a spade?
- lostcolony 7y ago
  This isn't that though. This isn't every individual's personal bias; this is a publicly declared bias by the commander in chief. A little different.
  - balls187 7y ago
    It's not even bias. It's a vendetta
    - chrisco255 7y ago
      Awarding a perfectly capable competitor (Microsoft) a contract isn't a vendetta. Somehow I think Amazon will continue to thrive with or without the JEDI contract.
      - nkozyra 7y ago
        Why does Amazon's survival preclude a vendetta?
      - 7y ago
balls187 7y ago
> Right now, it hardly rates This is an underrated commentary. I'm continually amazed at what transpires in the public forum, leading me to believe that the US Government has been corrupt for quite some time, but never out in the open. Or, it could be like this https://youtu.be/aI0euMFAWF8 https://youtu.be/aI0euMFAWF8
- ars 7y ago
  > leading me to believe that the US Government has been corrupt for quite some time, but never out in the open. I feel the same way - Trump is not different from other presidents, except that he does everything right out in the open, while the other Presidents kept a veneer of respectability on things. Turns out most people really prefer to believe that everything is above board.
  - ethbro 7y ago
    There is variance in all things. Believing that the absence of visible corruption is still proof of equivalent invisible corruption is unreasonable. And side note: corruption in politics is a weighted term. From one perspective, politics is literally the business of corruption. I.e. how to use democratic support to influence policy and procurement. In the US, until ~1878 (Rutherford B. Hayes presidency), it was the overt policy of both parties that political contributions were the price of office. And it took the assassination of James A. Garfield in 1881 by a spurned, insane spoils seeker to finally pass reform into law.
  - balls187 7y ago
    We only have to look at our stance on eating meat vs factory farming. Or, "ignorance is bliss." It's one thing to not be secretive of impropriety--it's another thing to boast about it.
rpiguy 7y ago
This not a true statement. If Obama blocked a Halliburton contract and told his cabinet they were going to screw Haliburton both the press and most of leftists on this forum would have stood up and cheered.
- pacofvf 7y ago
  But that didn't happen, because Obama understood the rule of law, you can't defend Trump illegal actions by saying that if Obama had done that then the "leftists" would be cheering that.
  - rpiguy 7y ago
    Obama did not understand the rule of law. DACA is completely unconstitutional. The President cannot change immigration law as written by congress. If you believe Obama had the right to create DACA then the same broad executive powers to rewrite immigration laws should apply to Trump, right?

txcwpalpha 7y ago

I have seen multiple people saw "Jeff is a sore loser" and I truly don't get it. Do you not understand how these businesses work? Every single one of the executives at Amazon (and AWS) are under a fiduciary duty to make sure their business is protected, which includes pursuing legal action when a contract is possibly wrongfully awarded. This isn't Jeff just being salty (I honestly doubt Bezos even cares as AFAIK he isn't very involved in AWS at all). Hell, these same legal cases happen in countless government contracts all the time, they just aren't as publicized as this one because they aren't as large.