Trump Defends ZTE Concession After Sparking Bipartisan Rebuke

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-14/trump-s-reversal-on-china-s-zte-penalty-sparks-bipartisan-rebuke

by Ihmahr • 8 years ago

51 43 8 years ago

eganist• 8 years ago

It was the huffington post which first pointed out the timing of Trump's ZTE concessions relative to a Trump Organization-affiliated project the Chinese government agreed to finance.

Financing article: http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/southeast-asia/article/2145808...

HuffPo correlation story: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-china-zte_us_5af9...

This is not to say that the two are necessarily connected so much as it's to say that not investigating the timing of the two is to exhibit a lack of due diligence.

wyldfire• 8 years ago

This is not to say that the two are necessarily connected so much as it's to say that not investigating the timing of the two is to exhibit a lack of due diligence.

They don't even have to be connected with any explicit quid pro quo between the parties. It could all be implicit from the Chinese government knowing full well who the owner of the Trump Organization is.

Trump had a recourse, he could have easily put his assets in a blind trust. Instead, he should suffer the consequences.

toufka• 8 years ago

Further, when it comes to other high offices, like judges, the appearance of conflicts are as problematic as actual conflicts. Such that care beyond standard conflict checks is required to prevent having to investigate every relationship and decision.

r00fus• 8 years ago

How is this not pure corruption? How is it legal?

Do we live in a banana republic?

simcop2387• 8 years ago

I've seen it argued that it is illegal, a direct violation of the emoluments clause of the constitution. I'm not a lawyer, let along a constitutional one, so I can't say that with any authority, but everything about it certainly screams that it is a violation. And it certainly does seem like we're moving towards (if not already being there) a banana republic.

berberous2• 8 years ago

Forcing a company that employees 75,000 people in China out of business doesn't seem like the right outcome. I would expect the U.S. and China to negotiate some sort of more appropriate remedy that is better for all sides.

olliej3• 8 years ago

No the company made itself go out of business. First they violated export restrictions, then after apologizing and paying a fine it turned out they had explicit intent to continue violating export restrictions.

In response they were told they could no longer purchase American technology. Then they chose to go out of business.

They chose to go out of business. No one required that they break the law, and if they hadn’t they would be fine. The alternative is that companies can break the law however much they want if they’re large enough.

cthalupa5• 8 years ago

A company that has repeatedly violated sanctions against Iran and North Korea. A company that all of the three letter agencies are sure is using it's phones to perform state sponsored surveillance.

I don't think we should be engaging in a trade war with China, but of all of the companies we should be offering concessions to, ZTE is not anywhere near the top of that list. Call the whole thing off, but don't single out ZTE as someone to alleviate the pains for.

Hostile behavior is hostile behavior, regardless of how many people they employee.

OscarCunningham• 8 years ago

Won't ZTE's factories be sold off to people who will employ the same workers to do the same things?

maxerickson• 8 years ago

Never let a good tax cut go to waste. Or something like that anyway.

throwaway847422• 8 years ago

Trade negotiations are underway. This is a part of that, as was the initial ban. Trump does this again and again: he creates leverage in the form of negative consequences should he walk away from the table. Then he gives some of it back much to the relief of the other side, in exchange for something else he needs. He negotiated thousands of deals, some of which were very complicated. It could well be that he’s the strongest negotiator we ever had in that position.

cthalupa5• 8 years ago

It could well be that he’s the strongest negotiator we ever had in that position.

So strong that he can't negotiate deals beneficial enough for him that he can afford to hold up his end of them, and instead files for bankruptcy so that he doesn't have to pay for it. He's taken such good care of all of the hard working US citizens he's interacted with in his days as a business man.

throwaway847422• 8 years ago

And yet he still has 4 billion dollars and is a president of the US. Must be pretty good at negotiating.

chatmasta2• 8 years ago

Do you think Trump played no part in negotiating peace between the Koreas? No president has been able to accomplish that in 53 years...

Looks like good negotiation to me. South Korea’s foreign minister even credited him for his work on the deal (which is still ongoing).

Hate Trump all you want, but fact of the matter is he’s a damn good salesman, marketer and negotiator. It’s how he won the primaries and the presidency. And now it’s how he’s winning diplomacy.

You can have a problem with his tactics, but at this point the results are really starting to speak for themselves.

mttyng• 8 years ago

What deals? What complications?

Trump Defends ZTE Concession After Sparking Bipartisan Rebuke

Related Stories