2 ms·

What part of "justice has been served" do you not understand? The Justice Department had every opportunity to impose employment restrictions as part of the plea

What part of "justice has been served" do you not understand? The Justice Department had every opportunity to impose employment restrictions as part of the plea deal involving Cadence Design Systems. They chose not to. The case is closed. If they wanted more, they should have rejected the plea deal - but they didn’t. Now, what Donny Dictator is demanding is called double jeopardy - trying to punish someone again for a crime that’s already been adjudicated. The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution explicitly protects against that. Lip-Bu Tan was not personally charged, and even if he had been, the legal system resolved the matter. If you believe in the rule of law, then you must accept its outcomes - even when they don’t align with your political preferences.

bobthebuilders 1y ago
It may not be illegal for someone to have close ties with the Chinese, but we should also not let them control one of the most important companies for the US military and industrial advantage over our rivals.
- taylodl 1y ago
  > but we should also not let them America is supposed to be a nation of laws, not a nation of political purges. If we start punishing people based on vague suspicions or geopolitical anxieties rather than actual legal violations, we’re not defending democracy - we’re imitating the very authoritarian regimes we claim to oppose. Intel’s CEO isn’t accused of espionage or sabotage. The Justice Department accepted a plea bargain. Case closed. If that’s not good enough for you, maybe your problem isn’t with Intel, it’s with the Constitution. We don’t preserve our military and industrial advantage by abandoning due process. We preserve it by investing in strategic capabilities - like Intel’s foundry expansion - and by upholding the rule of law even when it’s inconvenient. If you want to beat authoritarianism, don’t become it.
rijoja 1y ago
Surely you are still allowed to raise criticism about a CEO even though the Justice Department closed one case?

bobthebuilders 1y ago

It may not be illegal for someone to have close ties with the Chinese, but we should also not let them control one of the most important companies for the US military and industrial advantage over our rivals.

taylodl 1y ago
> but we should also not let them America is supposed to be a nation of laws, not a nation of political purges. If we start punishing people based on vague suspicions or geopolitical anxieties rather than actual legal violations, we’re not defending democracy - we’re imitating the very authoritarian regimes we claim to oppose. Intel’s CEO isn’t accused of espionage or sabotage. The Justice Department accepted a plea bargain. Case closed. If that’s not good enough for you, maybe your problem isn’t with Intel, it’s with the Constitution. We don’t preserve our military and industrial advantage by abandoning due process. We preserve it by investing in strategic capabilities - like Intel’s foundry expansion - and by upholding the rule of law even when it’s inconvenient. If you want to beat authoritarianism, don’t become it.

rijoja 1y ago

Surely you are still allowed to raise criticism about a CEO even though the Justice Department closed one case?