Senate Will Try To Reverse ZTE Deal Via a Must-Pass Defense Bill (politico.com) 139
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Senate leaders agreed Monday to include language in the annual defense spending bill that would reverse the Trump administration's decision to save Chinese telecommunications company ZTE after it was caught violating the terms of a 2017 penalty agreement by making illegal sales to Iran and North Korea. The language will be part of an amendment in the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act, a $716 billion defense policy bill, H.R. 5515 (115).
If the Senate amendment becomes law, it would automatically reinstate the seven-year prohibition until Trump has certified to Congress that ZTE has met certain conditions. It also would ban all U.S. government agencies from purchasing or leasing telecommunications equipment and/or services from ZTE, a second Chinese telecommunications firm, Huawei, or any subsidiaries or affiliates of those two companies. The amendment language "prohibits the federal government from doing business with ZTE or Huawei or other Chinese telecom companies" and puts the company back on the sanctions list and "holds ZTE accountable for violating their previous commitment," Cotton said. The senators supporting the amendment include Democratic minority leader Chuck Schumer and two Republican Senators -- Sen Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.). "I and obviously every other senator believes the death penalty is the appropriate punishment for their behavior," Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) told reporters after Ross briefed senators on the department's latest ZTE action. "They're a repeat bad actor that should be put out of business. For eight years, ZTE was able to run wild and be able to become the fourth-largest telecom company in the world." If the Senate amendment becomes law, "I would expect there wouldn't be a ZTE," Cotton added.
If the Senate amendment becomes law, it would automatically reinstate the seven-year prohibition until Trump has certified to Congress that ZTE has met certain conditions. It also would ban all U.S. government agencies from purchasing or leasing telecommunications equipment and/or services from ZTE, a second Chinese telecommunications firm, Huawei, or any subsidiaries or affiliates of those two companies. The amendment language "prohibits the federal government from doing business with ZTE or Huawei or other Chinese telecom companies" and puts the company back on the sanctions list and "holds ZTE accountable for violating their previous commitment," Cotton said. The senators supporting the amendment include Democratic minority leader Chuck Schumer and two Republican Senators -- Sen Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.). "I and obviously every other senator believes the death penalty is the appropriate punishment for their behavior," Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) told reporters after Ross briefed senators on the department's latest ZTE action. "They're a repeat bad actor that should be put out of business. For eight years, ZTE was able to run wild and be able to become the fourth-largest telecom company in the world." If the Senate amendment becomes law, "I would expect there wouldn't be a ZTE," Cotton added.
Treason (Score:2, Insightful)
Donald Trump is letting a Chinese company sell hacked phones used as surveillance department for the Chinese government.
The only explanation is that this is part of Trump's surrender to North Korea and China.
Re:Treason (Score:4, Informative)
He did it to get a $500 million Chinese investment in a Trump property and some Chinese trademarks for Princess Ivanka.
What about the past year and a half could possibly make you think Trump cares anything about "American jobs"?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Things got ugly when Conservatives replaced news with hate-radio, kook-blogs and Fox News, and were filled with misguided hatred of mainstream Americans and our values. Now they cry like babies when they reap what they've sown.
Re: Treason (Score:2, Insightful)
So, you're saying that the 500 million dollar deal doesn't exist or is a lefty story?
That's... Interesting, considering the national review is confirming it and the NR is one of the more conservative places on the internet.
But if you want to just strawman and ignore real events as lefty propeganda, I think you're doing a disservice to yourself.
wat (Score:2, Troll)
So, you're saying that the 500 million dollar deal doesn't exist or is a lefty story? [...] But if you want to just strawman
No. I called out the poster on his "fucking piece of neo-fascist enabling shit" comment, that's it. There is nowhere any mention of any deal in my comment, so if at some point you want to see what a real "strawman" is, read your own post.
to whoever modded that guy up: I hope you people are happy with the echo chamber you're building. Pretty soon there won't be discussions on this website, just a bunch of retards high-fiving each other and reacting to inflammatory op-eds. Bravo.
Re: (Score:1)
The guy invited Trump under false pretense, then took part in an ambush to attack him about the trade agreement, and finally "stood up" to him once Trump was gone.
If Trump had done even a fraction of that you'd presently be calling (even more) for impeachment.
no (Score:1)
Shut the fuck up, faggot
You don't get to decide that, and the fact that you don't realize it is the real tragedy.
See, you don't have to agree with people; if you want a civilized discussion all you have to do is reply and explain why. Resorting to name-calling, or even worse, modding down opinions you disagree with only leads to creating an environment of intolerance and bigotry.
I always disliked Trump (which I believe is a socipath), but ever since the election I realized that the real danger for america is not him and his clickb
CEO is a Job Too (Score:2, Troll)
What about the past year and a half could possibly make you think Trump cares anything about "American jobs"?
Lots...provided that "American job" is being CEO of a large company.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Treason (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know anything about Chinese trademark...
Manifestly not. I haven't really been following the story in detail, but I do know China. Ivanka's company had been trying to get that trademark for years, and the Chinese government was dragging its feet, then denying it, repeatedly. China's protectionism extends to all parts of their economy, including trademarks. They did not want to grant that trademark to a foreign-owned business. Them suddenly granting it is rather blatantly a payoff, under the circumstances.
Re: (Score:3)
Even if it's for the wrong reasons, Trump's decision is the right one.
It's in the US's interests to do a good trade deal with China. There are many mutual benefits. However, destroying a huge company like ZTE and putting hundreds of thousands of Chinese out of work is unlikely to help secure such a deal.
The crime is breaking sanctions. Sanctions that Trump may have already decided to end (it's not clear ATM what was agreed at the Kim/Trump meeting). The punishment is arbitrary, it's not calculated to offset
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yeah... I mean what does the party have anything to do with this being the right decision?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That is true, but Don't ignore the Qualcomm angle either.
This is the 3rd time Trump has intervened to protect Qualcomm's interests.
Remember when they almost got bought out by Broadcomm? Yeah turns out they asked Daddy Trump to intervene and didn't tell anyone about it.(And there's about to be a shareholder lawsuit because they did not disclose that to the SEC)
https://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2018/jun/11/qualcomm-secretly-contacted-us-government/
Qualcomm is looking to buy NXP semiconductors. The Chinese
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Treason (Score:4, Insightful)
So, what you're trying to say is that you don't have a single bit of evidence that Trump cares about American jobs.
Noted.
shame on you (Score:2)
^ for the record, anyone who upvoted that comment is adding another brick to the wall of ignorance that is infinitely more damaging to america than trump's fantasy mexican wall
Re: (Score:1)
And you still haven't offered any evidence that Trump cares about American jobs. You just pile foolishness on top of foolishness.
Re: (Score:1)
The cheeto has demonstrated that over and over. His merchandizing and his daughter-wife's aren't made in the US, for example.
But I do have to note that "the death penalty is the appropriate punishment for their behavior" is ironic, since it really applies to Rubio and Cotton themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
In a nutshell, everything he's done in the past year and a half
Which things, exactly has trump done in the past year-and-a-half that demonstrates he's cares anything about American jobs?
I realize "everything" is a huge list, so let's say 10 items to keep it easy for you. Be specific.
Re:Treason (Score:4, Insightful)
This doesn't relate to American jobs let alone that he cares about it. You and the orange narcissist in chief may find it amusing to burn good will by needlessly insulting allies, or even dismissing with air quotes the idea they are allies, in your own little circle jerks. However it hasn't achieved anything yet except to damage relationships that are also in your interest. Those countries you imply are false allies are the same ones who have lost one thousand lives and had over ten thousand more soldiers injured in Afghanistan in the NATO response to an attack on the US.
The depressing part of so much of Trump's support is that it comes for actions he takes that achieve only harm to America in the end but appeal to a certain demographic because the fact it annoys someone else or that it is done in a way that seems powerful. The hard to believe part is the groups that have defined themselves on fighting the very things he does who are lining up to do his bidding; the likes of the religious conservatives who would be trying to have anyone but a Republican removed from office for 10% of his immoral behaviour, the fiscal conservatives sticking their fingers in their ears while he explodes the debt, the free market supporters ignoring his clear disdain for their beliefs.
Re:Treason (Score:4, Insightful)
Canadian soldiers were wounded and died in Afghanistan because our ally - The United States - Was attacked.
We stood by our friend and military ally.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>> make you think Trump cares anything about "American jobs"?
>>> In a nutshell, everything he's done in the past year and a half
>> Which things, exactly has trump done in the
>> past year-and-a-half that demonstrates he's cares
>> anything about American jobs?
> He is demolishing the status quo that has only provided
> benefits to the top tier of society.
How many jobs did this create,
Re: (Score:2)
In a nutshell, everything he's done in the past year and a half, including taking some heat during phony summits and ignoring the hypocrisy of pussy-hurting liberals like you
Even the Koch brothers are against Trump at this point. Think about what that implies, and they're no liberals.
He's destroyed jobs and the middle/lower class in an effort to funnel yet more money to the small circle of his friends. Just take his campaign trail promise on coal. Even with solar panel tariffs destroying installer jobs coal has had no resurgence, as everyone but Trump expected. So now he wants to subsidize coal. Does he care about all the solar panel related jobs he's destroyed? Not a whit, b
Re: (Score:1)
Plus the fact he required them to pay a $1 billion dollar fine and place $400 million in escrow:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/zte-pays-1-billion-fine-after-allegedly-violating-u-s-sanctions-1528374558 [wsj.com]
in addition to buying from American suppliers as you mentioned.
Re:Treason (Score:4, Informative)
Donald Trump is letting a Chinese company sell hacked phones used as surveillance department for the Chinese government.
The only explanation is that this is part of Trump's surrender to North Korea and China.
Is this a troll as some mod thinks (possibly Russian) or is it the simple truth? Everybody remembers that Drump got paid off promptly in the form of $500 million [nationalreview.com] real estate "investment" right?
Re:Treason (Score:5, Insightful)
What exactly did Trump surrender to North Korea?
Legitimacy for a bloodthirsty despot. Next question?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't understand the legitimacy thing.
You do not understand the legitimacy thing because you do not understand the freedom thing or the rule of law thing. You want to give the despot money, and ignore the teachings of history that appeasement never works? Good thing nobody cares what you think.
Re: (Score:3)
Trump talked tough on NK, which Kim took advantage of to demonstrate that it was all just bluster and ultimately there was little the US could do because of China and the fact that NK had a viable nuclear deterrent.
Kim was able to use that as a bargaining chip when opening a dialogue with South Korea and the US. De-nuclearization suits NK, because it will include US nuclear weapons in the area too.
Kim quickly made concessions and progress with SK, which put pressure on Trump to not waste the opportunity. So
Re: (Score:2)
Trump talked tough on NK, which Kim took advantage of to demonstrate that it was all just bluster and ultimately there was little the US could do because of China and the fact that NK had a viable nuclear deterrent.
Kim was able to use that as a bargaining chip when opening a dialogue with South Korea and the US. De-nuclearization suits NK, because it will include US nuclear weapons in the area too.
Kim quickly made concessions and progress with SK, which put pressure on Trump to not waste the opportunity. So Trump went to that meeting ready to make big concessions - end the wargames, de-nuclearize, and start opening up NK's economy with sanctions relief. Kim has boosted himself to the level of international statesman, praised by the POTUS and with a path towards a post-dictatorship life that isn't rotting in jail or hanging from a noose.
There is a remarkable difference between Kim Jong Un and his father. He actually cares about his people. His actions are indeed self-serving to some extent, but there is no doubt that the north Korean people will benefit tremendously.
I can't think of a great reason why we need to be protecting South Korea militarily anyway. Wars in Asia between major powers aren't fought with guns anymore. They are fought with bankers, accountants, lawyers, and propagandists. As you said, the nuclear program was just
Re: (Score:2)
Wars in Asia between major powers aren't fought with guns anymore. They are fought with bankers, accountants, lawyers, and propagandists.
I question how many "bankers, accountants, lawyers, and propagandists" were working on the explosives under "Punggye-ri Nuclear Test Site".
Corporate Death Penalty? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Let's start by punishing the bad actors that we can. Build up a body of precedent. Then use that to go after other bad actors.
Re: (Score:2)
It is amazing to me that Wells Fargo stock still keeps going up, even after the fines, the stock price is almost back to the midpoint.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How about Facebook? They also were caught breaking the law, signed a consent decree with the government, and then went right on doing exactly what's they'd promised not to do.
There are times when a corporate death penalty might make sense. But only if it's applied uniformly. It can't be just for foreign companies, not American ones.
Re:What a bunch of dumbfucks on both sides of the. (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, that is wrong.
If someone needs a phone and doesn't get it from ZTE, they will simply buy another brand. And since every phone has a SoC, the number of SoCs sold will remain about the same.
There is no reason at all to support ZTE. They flout US laws, and there are many, many competitors who will be happy to make phones for us while following US law.
Re:U.S. megalomania strikes again (Score:5, Informative)
They were filing bankruptcy in the wake of the initial sanctions. The problem is not only being shut out of their 2nd-largest market. Sanctions also prohibit US companies from selling to ZTE, which restricts their ability to acquire components.
Maybe ZTE could survive, but that is far from certain. They have strong domestic competitors in Huawei and Xiaomi, and both of those companies enjoy full access to Western suppliers and markets.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This has been a bit of a wake-up call for the Chinese, and they are pushing hard to develop domestic tech to replace the US tech they currently rely on. Maybe if ZTE survives that effort will be lessened, but no matter what a lot of money is now going into R&D that directly harms US companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
One of the advantages of conscription - especially when the ruling class cannot get exemptions - is that the entire population has skin in the game. It's you, or your children, or your friends children who are at risk of dying. Wars become less tempting as a policy option.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:hard to see this passing. (Score:4, Insightful)
America cant have this cake and eat it too.
Yet, Trump, his administration and supporters believe they can (and deserve it).
... saddled with an illiterate profiteer as its head of state, and hes doing a rather poor job of keeping the curtain closed on who actually runs America.
Trump said he would "drain the swamp." He *never* said he wouldn't fill it back up again.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
ZTE is going dooooowwwwnnnnnn!!!! (Score:2)
ZTE is going down! Where will the Dollar Store source their phones from now?
Re: (Score:2)
If this happens (Score:2, Troll)
Can't wait to hear reactions from Trump minions. I'm sure Peter Navarro [thehill.com] will have some choice words about warm real-estate for the Senators (good thing they aren't also Canadian - whew) for going against Trump. ( Although, the imagery of Senators stabbing Trump in the back sounds a little familiar [wikipedia.org] ... How Similar are Trump and Caesar? [benjaminstudebaker.com] )
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Possible problem (Score:4, Informative)
No. ZTE was already caught and determined to be guilty of making illegal sales to North Korea. Trump prevented the sanctions from being imposed, but that didn't make ZTE innocent. Congress is just trying to impose the punishment that was already decided.
Re: (Score:1)
The classic definition for a bill of attainder is "A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial" (e.g., here [techlawjournal.com]).
Did ZTE receive a trial on this and we somehow all missed it? Specific citations welcome.
Re: (Score:1)
Read the denial order ( https://www.commerce.gov/sites/commerce.gov/files/zte_denial_order.pdf) .
ZTE _admitted_ that they sold the equipment, and lied during investigation. And there are _documents_ confirming that. If came to court, what would be the grounds to dismiss the penalty imposed? Or a trial is needed pro forma?
Re: (Score:1)
Attainer: not the word you wanted.
Re: (Score:2)
It avoids unconstitutional attainder since the punishment is a side-effect of the main goal of compliance. If and when ZTE meets the conditions they will not be sanctioned.
It also depends on how ZTE and Huawei are targeted: are they just specifically named or are they defined as a class?
Re: (Score:3)
I don't agree in this case, but I like your vigilance. Any bill that grants a pardon to an individual or company seems like it also should qualify as a Bill of Attainder. Here's why: Congress could get around the Bill of Attainder clause by passing a law that makes everyone a criminal, then passing a law exempting specific individuals. It would be the equivalent of a Bill of Attainder but circumventing the constitution.
IMHO, the telecom neutrality bill was similar to this tactic. In this case, the gover
Re: (Score:2)
A bill declaring everyone a criminal would also be unconstitutional since there would have been no due process to find people guilty of a crime.
Now that the USA and North Korea are friends (Score:2)
the only reasonable conclusion is that Donald is planning talks with Tehran.
Same mojo - tear up the Obama agreement and get into a rage over nucular then sign a document a year later.
Flippy McOrange (Score:1)
He hates China then he loves China then he hates Kim J. U. then he loves Kim then he's against gun background checks then he's for it then he's against it again...
Re: (Score:1)
In my observation, his ego drives him more than personal profits. Although, it's hard to really say with that guy.
That doesn't really reverse the decision. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Nor should anything Chinese be part of our infrastructure.
Tell that to California's High Speed Rail project.
Re: (Score:2)
But seriously, I don't know what you're referring to. Is California buying Chinese trains?
Re: (Score:2)
I stand corrected. I Looked back into it and it appears I had out of date info - while China was considered the favorite for quite a few years, DB (Germany) ultimately won the contract. A Chinese company had also formed a partnership to build part of the LA to Vegas high speed rail but cancelled the partnership due to the requirement that the trains be built here.
Re: (Score:2)
Bill of Attainder (Score:3)
What's this odd amendment crap? The Executive branch has the inherent authority to decide who to prosecute or whether to prosecute or not, But the Congress does not.
An "amendment" to a bill, Or a law Naming a specific person or company such as ZTE and stating that person or company are guilty of a crime or misdeed and/or applying a punishment to a specific company or individual is called a Bill of Attainder, And it is an Unconstitutional action for Congress to try and pass an instrument such as this (US Constitution, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed.").
Congress is specifically denied the ability to pass a law naming an Individual or Corporation (such as ZTE) and imposing a punishment ---- this authority is reserved to the courts and to the executive; Congress is specifically denied the authority to find anyone guilty of anything -- that's for other branches of government to handle. So I sure hope this gets challenged appropriately.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. They were already found guilty. This is about preventing them from continuing to do damage
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. They were already found guilty. This is about preventing them from continuing to do damage
Not wrong. Any law singling out a person (including a company) and assigning them for punishment by name ---
even if they are a foreigner who only does business in the US is by definition a Bill of Attainder, which is unconstitutional.
Also..... ZTE have not been given a trial and found guilty to any crime; there was some evidence of a violation, And
according to the Department of Commerce, they had fou