4 ms·

Your [3] is just a story reporting this story, citing nothing but Amazon’s complaint. Your [4] quotes Trump saying lots of companies are complaining, and an int

by zaroth 7y ago

Your [3] is just a story reporting this story, citing nothing but Amazon’s complaint. Your [4] quotes Trump saying lots of companies are complaining, and an internal ethics investigation at the DoD which turned up someone working on the contract who worked at AWS; > The Pentagon found potential ethical violations by a former Amazon Web Services employee who had worked on JEDI during a stint at the Defense Department, according to a New York Times story. Those potential violations were referred to Office of Inspector General for further investigation.

ineedasername 7y ago
Read more closely. #3 Has a direct quote from President Trump about wanting to "screw" Amazon. Again, #4 shows the President speaking in a way that could cause DoD to feel pressured and might indicate he took further more direct action, though also maybe not: that will come out in pre-trial discovery. You asked for citations that showed the President's involvement. Both of these provide it.
- m0zg 7y ago
  But it doesn't: "when a book charting then-Defense Secretary James Mattis’ tenure at the White House claimed the president told Mattis to “screw Amazon” out of the contract" That's not a "direct quote" by any stretch of imagination. This is "walls are closing in" and "sources familiar with president's thinking" style news reporting.
  - ineedasername 7y ago
    It doesn't have to be a spoken live on TV or written out on twitter for it to be true, accurate, verbatim quote. You're right, "direct" is not the correct word in such a case though. But there's nothing wrong with using sources for reporting, the quality of the reporting simply depends on the quality of the sources. And this one quote is not the only evidence of the President's involvement. There is the other source I cited, as well as plenty of other examples of President Trump expressing displeasure with Amazon for other reasons.
    - m0zg 7y ago
      All of which use either circular reasoning or mind reading to support their assertions. Face it, you have _zero_ evidence for what you stated (third hand account in a vehemently anti-trump publication does not reliable evidence make), but pretend to have bulletproof evidence. That's simply not the case.
      - ineedasername 7y ago
        It's not mind reading when the President himself has expressed animosity towards Amazon & Jeff Bezos. Comb through his twitter feed for amble examples. As for someone like Mattis, he has shown nothing in his career that I'm aware of that undermines his integrity and desire to serve his country. Yes, he may bear some ill will towards the president, but at least from an outsider view they parted over legitimate policy differences, and there's no reason to believe Mattis would have outright fabricated a quote like "screw Amazon". If we were talking about someone else (maybe John Bolton) I would be more skeptical. Mattis... I'm not saying it's %100, but I'd be more likely than not to believe he was honest in his recounting of that quote. That quote aside, instances where President Trump has bashed Amazon & Bezos are common-- again, the President's twitter feed is a good record on this topic. This is not the type of circular reasoning you refer to, but I acknowledge that can be an problem... one person speculates, another news source reports on it, a third uses both the first two to paint a picture of consensus. That Mattis quote and President Trumps direct statements elsewhere don't fit that mold. But lets link it back to the main point at hand: Could even the directly attributable statements from President Trump be taken as involvement, or as potentially influencing the procurement process? That is something reasonable people might disagree about. That is why there is this legal fight. At this point, there is simply too little publicly available information to say "yes" or "no". There is enough to suggest the possibility. The discovery portion of pre-trial will have to investigate to gather more evidence, or fail to do so and not prevail. Currently there's enough to suggest the possibility that a court agrees a case can move forward, but it's important to note this isn't some partisan "never Trumper" decision. The court was still skeptical enough to require nearly $50,000,000 be set aside against the possibility they are wrong and therefore need to cover damages resulting from the suit & project delay. Regardless, I think we've both said our piece here. I've clarified as best I can, as have you. I don't see much to be gained by going forward. I'll say only that I disagree with your assessment of the situation, but appreciate a dissenting point of to make me think more critically about the topic, and hope you can appreciate that my own opinions come from a place of honest opinion, not some partisan position (I don't fit the mold on either side, and am generally criticized by people on both sides when I don't reflexively support "the party line.) So, thanks for a thought provoking thread.

by zaroth 7y ago

ineedasername 7y ago

Read more closely. #3 Has a direct quote from President Trump about wanting to "screw" Amazon. Again, #4 shows the President speaking in a way that could cause DoD to feel pressured and might indicate he took further more direct action, though also maybe not: that will come out in pre-trial discovery. You asked for citations that showed the President's involvement. Both of these provide it.

m0zg 7y ago
But it doesn't: "when a book charting then-Defense Secretary James Mattis’ tenure at the White House claimed the president told Mattis to “screw Amazon” out of the contract" That's not a "direct quote" by any stretch of imagination. This is "walls are closing in" and "sources familiar with president's thinking" style news reporting.
- ineedasername 7y ago
  It doesn't have to be a spoken live on TV or written out on twitter for it to be true, accurate, verbatim quote. You're right, "direct" is not the correct word in such a case though. But there's nothing wrong with using sources for reporting, the quality of the reporting simply depends on the quality of the sources. And this one quote is not the only evidence of the President's involvement. There is the other source I cited, as well as plenty of other examples of President Trump expressing displeasure with Amazon for other reasons.
  - m0zg 7y ago
    All of which use either circular reasoning or mind reading to support their assertions. Face it, you have _zero_ evidence for what you stated (third hand account in a vehemently anti-trump publication does not reliable evidence make), but pretend to have bulletproof evidence. That's simply not the case.
    - ineedasername 7y ago
      It's not mind reading when the President himself has expressed animosity towards Amazon & Jeff Bezos. Comb through his twitter feed for amble examples. As for someone like Mattis, he has shown nothing in his career that I'm aware of that undermines his integrity and desire to serve his country. Yes, he may bear some ill will towards the president, but at least from an outsider view they parted over legitimate policy differences, and there's no reason to believe Mattis would have outright fabricated a quote like "screw Amazon". If we were talking about someone else (maybe John Bolton) I would be more skeptical. Mattis... I'm not saying it's %100, but I'd be more likely than not to believe he was honest in his recounting of that quote. That quote aside, instances where President Trump has bashed Amazon & Bezos are common-- again, the President's twitter feed is a good record on this topic. This is not the type of circular reasoning you refer to, but I acknowledge that can be an problem... one person speculates, another news source reports on it, a third uses both the first two to paint a picture of consensus. That Mattis quote and President Trumps direct statements elsewhere don't fit that mold. But lets link it back to the main point at hand: Could even the directly attributable statements from President Trump be taken as involvement, or as potentially influencing the procurement process? That is something reasonable people might disagree about. That is why there is this legal fight. At this point, there is simply too little publicly available information to say "yes" or "no". There is enough to suggest the possibility. The discovery portion of pre-trial will have to investigate to gather more evidence, or fail to do so and not prevail. Currently there's enough to suggest the possibility that a court agrees a case can move forward, but it's important to note this isn't some partisan "never Trumper" decision. The court was still skeptical enough to require nearly $50,000,000 be set aside against the possibility they are wrong and therefore need to cover damages resulting from the suit & project delay. Regardless, I think we've both said our piece here. I've clarified as best I can, as have you. I don't see much to be gained by going forward. I'll say only that I disagree with your assessment of the situation, but appreciate a dissenting point of to make me think more critically about the topic, and hope you can appreciate that my own opinions come from a place of honest opinion, not some partisan position (I don't fit the mold on either side, and am generally criticized by people on both sides when I don't reflexively support "the party line.) So, thanks for a thought provoking thread.