6 ms·

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

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.
    - joshuamorton 7y ago
      Eyewitness testimony is hearsay. Hearsay is quite often admissible.
      - rpiguy 7y ago
        It absolutely is but it’s not sufficient if both sides have credible witnesses. All we have now is an unverified claim in a biography. I am not arguing that Trump didn’t say it, he may have. We just shouldn’t rush to judgement on anything like this regardless of who is President. Let the court do it’s job.
      - throwaway5752 7y ago
        It isn't, it isn't. Hearsay is testimony about a declarant's statement outside of court. If Bob confesses to Jane that he killed someone, and Jane is called in a witness in the criminal trial, that's not hearsay. It's hearsay if Jack is called because he heard Jane say Bob told her about the murder. It's meant to prevent gossip as evidence.
        joshuamorton 7y ago
        > Hearsay is testimony about a declarant's statement outside of court. Yes, and in your first example, Bob's statement is outside of court, and Jane's description of it is admissible. (Same as how mattis's description of Trump's admission would be admissible) There are also cases where Jack's statement would be admissible (for example if Jane was unable to be called as a witness).
        tynpeddler 7y ago
        Hearsay rules are quite complicated and there are many instances where it is allowed.
        tzs 7y ago
        > Hearsay is testimony about a declarant's statement outside of court Close, but that's missing an important piece. Hearsay is an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. > If Bob confesses to Jane that he killed someone, and Jane is called in a witness in the criminal trial, that's not hearsay. If offered to prove that Bob killed someone, that would be hearsay. That doesn't mean it couldn't be admitted, though. There are a whole bunch of exceptions to the rule that hearsay is inadmissible [1] [2]. That statement would probably be admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence as a "statement against interest" (804(b)(3)) if Bob was not available to testify. It might also be admissible as an "excited utterance" if made right after the killing (803(2)). > It's hearsay if Jack is called because he heard Jane say Bob told her about the murder. This one is a good example to illustrate the "offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted" part. It's hearsay if offered to prove that Bob murdered some. If offered to prove that Jane knew Bob, it would not be hearsay. [1] https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-viii/rule-803/ https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-viii/rule-803/ [2] https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-viii/rule-804/ https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-viii/rule-804/
    - mcphage 7y ago
      > We don’t convict people in this country based on hearsay alone. Who’s getting convicted in this case?
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?

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.
  - joshuamorton 7y ago
    Eyewitness testimony is hearsay. Hearsay is quite often admissible.
    - rpiguy 7y ago
      It absolutely is but it’s not sufficient if both sides have credible witnesses. All we have now is an unverified claim in a biography. I am not arguing that Trump didn’t say it, he may have. We just shouldn’t rush to judgement on anything like this regardless of who is President. Let the court do it’s job.
    - throwaway5752 7y ago
      It isn't, it isn't. Hearsay is testimony about a declarant's statement outside of court. If Bob confesses to Jane that he killed someone, and Jane is called in a witness in the criminal trial, that's not hearsay. It's hearsay if Jack is called because he heard Jane say Bob told her about the murder. It's meant to prevent gossip as evidence.
      - joshuamorton 7y ago
        > Hearsay is testimony about a declarant's statement outside of court. Yes, and in your first example, Bob's statement is outside of court, and Jane's description of it is admissible. (Same as how mattis's description of Trump's admission would be admissible) There are also cases where Jack's statement would be admissible (for example if Jane was unable to be called as a witness).
      - tynpeddler 7y ago
        Hearsay rules are quite complicated and there are many instances where it is allowed.
      - tzs 7y ago
        > Hearsay is testimony about a declarant's statement outside of court Close, but that's missing an important piece. Hearsay is an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. > If Bob confesses to Jane that he killed someone, and Jane is called in a witness in the criminal trial, that's not hearsay. If offered to prove that Bob killed someone, that would be hearsay. That doesn't mean it couldn't be admitted, though. There are a whole bunch of exceptions to the rule that hearsay is inadmissible [1] [2]. That statement would probably be admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence as a "statement against interest" (804(b)(3)) if Bob was not available to testify. It might also be admissible as an "excited utterance" if made right after the killing (803(2)). > It's hearsay if Jack is called because he heard Jane say Bob told her about the murder. This one is a good example to illustrate the "offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted" part. It's hearsay if offered to prove that Bob murdered some. If offered to prove that Jane knew Bob, it would not be hearsay. [1] https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-viii/rule-803/ https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-viii/rule-803/ [2] https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-viii/rule-804/ https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-viii/rule-804/
  - mcphage 7y ago
    > We don’t convict people in this country based on hearsay alone. Who’s getting convicted in this case?

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?