6 ms·

DoD officials are barred from answering questions about White House influence on the decision owing to its assertion of "presidential communications privilege"[

DoD officials are barred from answering questions about White House influence on the decision owing to its assertion of "presidential communications privilege"[1]. This is, quite simply, a confession. Nothing is solved by believing that the administration is somehow different than the dozen or so near identical leaders in other countries: that somehow this one uniquely is not pressuring companies hostile to it (in spite of the fact it has already publicly done so[2][3]). And while a deferential Amazon might be bad, it's really something you'd want to nip in the bud before Google or Facebook become too terrified of the white house. [1]https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/15/pentagon-amazon-trump-contract-187850 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/15/pentagon-amazon-tru... [2]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/07/06/would-the-trump-administration-block-a-merger-just-to-punish-cnn/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/07/06/w... [3]https://www.wsj.com/articles/snag-in-media-merger-stirs-tensions-over-trump-cnn-feud-1510354324 https://www.wsj.com/articles/snag-in-media-merger-stirs-tens...

23B1 6y ago
> This is, quite simply, a confession. That's like saying pleading the 5th is a confession...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- belltaco 6y ago
  I mean, the President himself said multiple times that pleading the 5th meant one was guilty.
- TomMckenny 6y ago
  It's not a trial, it's the public asking their government to tell them what's going on in this matter. And the government flatly refused. From this, it's absolutely reasonable for the public to think its government is hiding something now. And it's an order to _others_ in the DoD to remain silent. If it were a trial, this is ordering potential witnesses to remain silent on threat of termination. What the White House is saying by claiming presidential privileged is 1) the president did indeed discuss it, which in itself is problematic and 2) that discussion is on par with a national security issue, which is an additional abuse of power. As an aside, the 5th exists to prevent coerced confessions. In court, it is not to be taken as a sign of guilt because if it were, the point of the law would be moot. Where no court (or police) are involved, there is no possibility of coerced confession. Which is why everyone correctly views refusing to answer questions to friends, parents or reporters as very much a sign of guilt. And why confessions signed in police stations are very suspicious in many people's eyes. It certainly does not allow a government to refuse to answer to its people.
  - 23B1 6y ago
    There are other reasons, inside government, to maintain privileged information, e.g. 'legitimate secrets' and of course to protect precedent. You don't want to burn down those principles for just anything.
michaelcampbell 6y ago
> Nothing is solved by believing that the administration is somehow different than the dozen or so near identical leaders in other countries: Perhaps true, and relevant how, when talking about American companies bidding for work for the American govt?
- TomMckenny 6y ago
  Government contracts can be awarded to politically supportive entities and denied to those that aren't. Of course in a nicely functioning democracy there is little reason to believe this happening. But when the head of government intervenes in the process for no clear reasons and then refuses to explain what that intervention was or why it happened or allow anyone else to comment; and when this is defended as remaining silent because speaking "may tend to incriminate" ala the 5th amendment, then it is clear there was grossly inappropriate intervention. The issue is not whether Amazon or Microsoft win the contract. The issue is whether contract awards are going to be used to force companies to support and obey the party in power. That and the causally related "it can't happen here" mind set.

23B1 6y ago

> This is, quite simply, a confession. That's like saying pleading the 5th is a confession...

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
belltaco 6y ago
I mean, the President himself said multiple times that pleading the 5th meant one was guilty.
TomMckenny 6y ago
It's not a trial, it's the public asking their government to tell them what's going on in this matter. And the government flatly refused. From this, it's absolutely reasonable for the public to think its government is hiding something now. And it's an order to _others_ in the DoD to remain silent. If it were a trial, this is ordering potential witnesses to remain silent on threat of termination. What the White House is saying by claiming presidential privileged is 1) the president did indeed discuss it, which in itself is problematic and 2) that discussion is on par with a national security issue, which is an additional abuse of power. As an aside, the 5th exists to prevent coerced confessions. In court, it is not to be taken as a sign of guilt because if it were, the point of the law would be moot. Where no court (or police) are involved, there is no possibility of coerced confession. Which is why everyone correctly views refusing to answer questions to friends, parents or reporters as very much a sign of guilt. And why confessions signed in police stations are very suspicious in many people's eyes. It certainly does not allow a government to refuse to answer to its people.
- 23B1 6y ago
  There are other reasons, inside government, to maintain privileged information, e.g. 'legitimate secrets' and of course to protect precedent. You don't want to burn down those principles for just anything.

michaelcampbell 6y ago

> Nothing is solved by believing that the administration is somehow different than the dozen or so near identical leaders in other countries: Perhaps true, and relevant how, when talking about American companies bidding for work for the American govt?

TomMckenny 6y ago
Government contracts can be awarded to politically supportive entities and denied to those that aren't. Of course in a nicely functioning democracy there is little reason to believe this happening. But when the head of government intervenes in the process for no clear reasons and then refuses to explain what that intervention was or why it happened or allow anyone else to comment; and when this is defended as remaining silent because speaking "may tend to incriminate" ala the 5th amendment, then it is clear there was grossly inappropriate intervention. The issue is not whether Amazon or Microsoft win the contract. The issue is whether contract awards are going to be used to force companies to support and obey the party in power. That and the causally related "it can't happen here" mind set.