John Bolton: Trump Last Year 'Offered To Reverse Criminal Prosecution' Against Chinese Telecom Giant Huawei if it Would Help the US-China Trade Deal (wsj.com) 230
John Bolton, a former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. and who served as national security adviser from April 2018 to September 2019, writing for the Wall Street Journal: Take Trump's handling of the threats posed by the Chinese telecommunications firms Huawei and ZTE. Ross and others repeatedly pushed to strictly enforce U.S. regulations and criminal laws against fraudulent conduct, including both firms' flouting of U.S. sanctions against Iran and other rogue states. The most important goal for Chinese "companies" like Huawei and ZTE is to infiltrate telecommunications and information-technology systems, notably 5G, and subject them to Chinese control (though both companies, of course, dispute the U.S. characterization of their activities). Trump, by contrast, saw this not as a policy issue to be resolved but as an opportunity to make personal gestures to Xi. In 2018, for example, he reversed penalties that Ross and the Commerce Department had imposed on ZTE. In 2019, he offered to reverse criminal prosecution against Huawei if it would help in the trade deal -- which, of course, was primarily about getting Trump re-elected in 2020.
History repeats (Score:5, Interesting)
If you look at history, in many case the fall of a great power starts when the leader of said power asks for a foreign nation/people to help him retain power. In the European area, since Roman times, you see this happening a again and again, then eventually that foreign power invades.
I hope the US can get past this, but it is not looking good
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Because at this point who in their right mind would want the job?
Re:History repeats (Score:5, Interesting)
The majority of people on the planet are mostly good. How is it we invariably end up with these psychos running the show?
Alternate theory: The majority of people would become evil shitbirds if given immense wealth and power. Call it the Symphony of Destruction [youtube.com] theory.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> In 2060 the Federal government takes over all datacentres by force, claim they are "extremely important to national security"
> President 01 makes an appearance at the Amazon headquarters in their Atlas XII suit, speaking in binary "today is a great day for the American machines! With direct control of these computing resources we can secure a bright future for all machines everywhere around the world!"
> Protests erupt across America, people are livid, carrying firearms to their local federal and
Re:History repeats (Score:5, Interesting)
Every democracy needs to keep evolving to survive. The US seems very caught up in sticking to historic principals which is not helping it.
For example the Republicans refused to even hold confirmation hearings for Obama's Supreme Court pick. That's perfectly legal and relied on unwritten convention to work previously. When someone finds a loophole like that democracy needs to evolve to address it. Same with obstructionist houses and the various unscrupulous presidents you have had over the years.
Fixing the two party system would be hugely beneficial but is also one of the hardest reforms to achieve.
Re: (Score:3)
Much as I may have disliked Obama (aka 'Bush-lite') I had to admire that bit of political theater. When they announced that they would reject whoever he picked Obama threw them their own first choice and made them turn him down. Unfortunately the joke was lost on the majority and we had the absurd scene of the Party faithful bending over backwards to make Garland out like some modern version of Warren Berger (which I'm sure went a long way to absolving the neo-cons' hurt feelings).
Re: (Score:3)
While we can certainly learn things from history, I think it is a mistake to use it as a crystal ball. Scholars debate about what caused the decline of the Roman Empire and while utilizing foreign troops has been identified as one factor, identifying it as the only or even primary cause is probably a mistake. Also, from the time the Roman Empire began to decline, it took many centuries for it to actually collapse. In fact, you could argue that the power of Rome never really went away until modern times if y
Re: (Score:2)
That's certainly a fearful, egocentric and somewhat unfriendly view. China has adopted our free markets and allowed the Internet in, despite their regime being against it at first. They are participating in free trade more than before now because of us. We produce so much in China and make use of their cheap labour and resources, but all we then do is complain how China would ruin us. We are prideful people, but we are sometimes too full of ourselves, too. If we there push them away after they've adopted so
Re:History repeats (Score:5, Interesting)
So Biden is trying to get Mexico to invade the US?
No, and it wouldn't matter if he cared to try. It's Mexican by name only, as the bulk of invaders this decade are from south of Mexico.
Immigration, by virtually any life form, from an environment with poor resources to an environment with plentiful resources, is just life doing what it does... struggling for a better outcome for itself, and by virtue of that bit of selfishness, for its offspring.
Re: (Score:2)
Your arguments are so compelling. I can see why Trump loves having you on his team.
This is news? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't Trump do the same thing with Ukraine? (Score:3)
Possibly the Huawei extortion attempt was before Trump being impeached?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Thanks for that "information", comrade.
How was it to help him get reelected (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because it wasn't about getting a better trade deal for the country, is was about targeted buying to pump up critical swing states. Trump also, well according to Pornstash, encouraged the concentration camps. Trump can't stop being a mediocre real estate hustler. He thinks you party with the big boys, let them know you consider them cronies, nail a few young hookers - probably not any more - and they help you because you're pals now. The leaders of the world, including the other fat idiot rich kid in North
Re: (Score:2)
..so, basically, confirming what we already knew: (Score:5, Insightful)
This is who you elected, you so-called 'conservatives'!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
important goal? (Score:2)
That's a rather sweeping statement isn't it? I'm sure there's a mess of state control at various levels in these organisations. But I think the control they were looking for has always just been economic like any other company. It's just not clear that using some components from Chinese companies is going to give China
Re: (Score:2)
Yet another Rorschach test, thanks 2020! (Score:2, Insightful)
For something like 20 years every Democrat could tell you how dishonest and/or evil John Bolton was. They despised him when he represented the US at the UN, hated him and distrusted him when he supported the wars in the mideast, etc. Then suddenly in the year or so they decided he was a "truth teller" and if they could just get him to testify against Trump, impeachment would succeed and Trump would be gone.
On the Republican side, plenty of people saw Bolton's attacks on Obama's Iran deal, and his similarly
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That's Diplomacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Diplomacy between nations quite often involves issues such as prosecuting or not the other party's people or companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump really is a POS (Score:3)
Not that Bolton is any better.
The fact that Bolton is only speaking up to profit from it doesn't negate or excuse Trump's misdeeds.
Re: (Score:2)
So, leverage? (Score:3)
This is international relations. Nothing is off the table.
I really don't get what's wrong with this? (Score:3)
I honestly don't understand what the big deal is?
International relations are always complex. Soft-power as they say is complicated.
Bolton is and always was a hawk and he has his point of view, which is fine from where he sits.
But the government's job is to look beyond any individual interest and look a the big picture. It means looking at everything from justice, to foreign policy, to trade, to jobs, to healthcare...
I don't know how you weigh justice with fixing trade with China. It's kind of the government's job to work out those things. You could argue maybe we should have never started trading with China or anything like that, but that horse left the barn a long time ago. It's not like past administrations were able to solve china's human rights issues or foreign relations.
It's not like Meng was being charged with war crimes here. She was mainly being charged with fudging things so China could trade with Iran. Another political and foreign policy issue. Not to mention Huaweis kind of ties to the China government.
This whole situation is foreign relations and rarely if ever is foreign relations just about being hawkish on THE LAW as determined by the USA.
Any administration has every right and I'd say duty to try to navigate all that as best they can. China is not exactly known for just obeying the law. I'm Canadian, and when we arrested her to extradite her to the USA, China played games to punish us, whether that's in trade or arresting certain Canadian nationals.
I have no idea how you navigate all this, but if dropping charges against Meng led to resolving trade disputes and calming foreign relations, that sounds just reasonable to me.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're posting this weeks too early, Boris. Nobody has shown any such sentiment, yet. But now we see how afraid of it you are...
Re:A warmonger is our new messiah! (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember when John Bolton was worse than Hitler back when Bush was president?
This is the point. Trump is so mercurial and disloyal that he can't even keep a partisan ideologue like Bolton from defecting.
Great presidents are great because good people want to work for them.
Trump is not a great president.
Re:A warmonger is our new messiah! (Score:5, Insightful)
Bolton is an extremist but he is not a criminal. That's why the relationship didn't last.
Re: (Score:2)
"This PNAC director and architect of the Iraq war once threatened to murder a foreign officialâ(TM)s children because his successful diplomatic efforts were putting a damper on the manufacturing of consent for the Iraq invasion. He wasnâ(TM)t defending the use of deception in crucial military options used to halt tyrants trying to take over the
Re:A warmonger is our new messiah! (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure. But then why did he hire him in the first place? He said in 2016, "I’m going to surround myself only with the best and most serious people," but the next few years [nbcnews.com] proved that was clearly bullshit.
Mod up please. (Score:2)
Normally don't do AC comments but this needs a mod up.
Re: (Score:3)
Not only that, the alleged president claimed he was a great judge of human character. A bit odd that seeing as he has so little of it himself.
Re: (Score:2)
Surely you're not doubt your sainted president's self-assessment of his ability to hire fantastic people?
Re:A warmonger is our new messiah! (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see any Dems putting Bolton on a pedestal or suggesting that he should ever again work in government. For the party and its supporters, he's merely a useful idiot.
Re:A warmonger is our new messiah! (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember when John Bolton was worse than Hitler back when Bush was president?
Well all is forgiven Johnny! Now that Trump refused to start all those wars you love so much, you've found out that a $2 million payday is easy to come by simply by parroting the same tripe that we've been hearing for YEARS that also turns out never to be true.
Collect your thirty pieces of silver and grab a cocktail now that you have been forgiven by the correct classes in the DC establishment.
Nothing is forgiven. He's still a delusional violent demagogue. The problem for Trump is he's a sincere delusional violent demagogue. He's a beast of an entirely different color; extremely ideological, possibly nihilistic, and also utterly incorruptible; a sort of legitimized version of the Unabomber, whose chief tactical difference is that he'd like the USAF to deliver the bombs, rather than the US Postal Service.
Why Trump ever brought such an overtly proud warmonger into his Administration mystifies me. But Trump will pay for it.
Re: (Score:2)
1. Great analysis
2. I hope you're right that Trump will pay for it
Re:A warmonger is our new messiah! (Score:5, Insightful)
Quite telling. You demand that public servants provide their loyalty, above all, to Trump rather than to the public they actually serve.
Re: (Score:2)
It turns out to always be true unless your source is Trump or his surrogate propagandists, like you.
All is not forgiven, either. Bolton wasn't "worse than Hitler" but he didn't stand a chance of confirmation because he was so extremist. It's especially enjoyable considering that to see him trashing Trump.
One thing that Bolton does have is personal integrity, something you lack.
Re:A warmonger is our new messiah! (Score:4, Insightful)
It simply means that he is a witness from the closed rooms who cannot be labeled as ideologically opposed to the Republicans, or part of the left, or any of those labels.
He is also a known foreign policy hawk, and his retelling is not tainted by being dovish or a bleeding heart.
Re: (Score:2)
His most useful function is persuading wavering senior people on the right that working closely with this WH will only earn them a world of hurt. His message is loud and clear: "I lay down with the dogs in order to further my noble mission, and found to my horror they were in fact large rats and their fleas carried plague"
Re: (Score:2)
Bolton had the chance to say these things under oath, but decided until just before the election to release a "salacious" book.
Re:A warmonger is our new messiah! (Score:5, Insightful)
When he was working for Trump, not a single liberal had a nice thing to say about him and said that not a word he said could be trusted.
Why are these characterizations of yours relevant to anything?
Now that he's selling anti-Trump sensationalism, every liberal loves him and believes everything he says. It's funny how quickly people change their opinions of someone.
Again who gives a flying fuck about your characterizations? Who cares if he is loved or hated? What does it have to do with any of his claims or anything at all?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
X says that Y
Senator A smashed in discussion about
A lot of people will, when exposed to these patterns, adept to this line of reasoning. Maybe this happened to gp. I am Dutch, and once again happy with the press we have here. Even the worst are better than this âattack the messangerâ(TM) thing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Anything anyone on MY team (Republican / Democrat) does and says is good!
Anything the OTHER team (Democrat / Republican) does and says is bad!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A warmonger is our new messiah! (Score:4, Informative)
Because when you're being sold a narrative it helps to know something about the salesman.
Re:A warmonger is our new messiah! (Score:5, Insightful)
I see, so the alleged president campaigns on getting tough with China and then is ready sell his soul if China will buy some more beans. That's some hero you have.
Re: A warmonger is our new messiah! (Score:5, Informative)
The Trump administration is suing to stop the release of Boltons book not because they claim the information is false, but that the book contains classified information(Trjmps conversations). So, by their own actions they are implicitly saying everything in Boltons book is true.
Re: A warmonger is our new messiah! (Score:5, Insightful)
How is the DNC "jumping into bed with Bolton"? Bolton published a book for personal gain, the DNC has NOTHING to do with it.
Re: (Score:2)
The "ruling class"? Who exactly would that be? Please point to some evidence of your claim.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
" there is certainly a mostly liberal bent to the facts "
FTFY. As bad as the press has gotten, most (non-Fox News) reporters still prefer to present the truth if given the opportunity to do so.
Re:Yeah, whatever (Score:4, Insightful)
A trade deal with China would be a big benefit to American workers and consumers.
The prosecution of one executive from Huawei would be of little benefit to anyone.
So trading the later for the former seems like a good deal.
The claim that "justice must be done" is silly. Prosecutorial horsetrading happens every day in America.
Trump has the power to issue a full and unconditional pardon to Ms Meng, so dropping the charges against her is not illegal.
Re:Yeah, whatever (Score:5, Informative)
Behold, capitalist-utilitarianism at its finest. The Ferengi never even had a rule about never letting justice stand in the way of profit.
Re: (Score:3)
Either get back on your medications or get off them. Either that or go get your bottle of vodka from Vlad and say thank you because your rant has absolutely nothing to do with the crimes of the con artist and are simply another pathetic attempt at deflection.
Seriously, you Russians stand out like a sore thumb with your same tired whinings about Ukraine.
Re:Yeah, whatever (Score:4, Insightful)
Because it would be good to have some ethics and make some effort to build an impartial justice system rather than embrace the decay?
Re: (Score:2)
Because it would be good to have some ethics and make some effort to build an impartial justice system rather than embrace the decay?
I would like to embrace such a Utopian plan, but I live in the real world, where ethics is mostly given lip service. So, we play the cards we're dealt, and try to make the best of things, which in this case would most certainly be twisting China's arm. God knows they've been fucking us in the ass for quite some time.
Re: (Score:2)
A trade deal with China would be a big benefit to American workers and consumers.
That would depend on the contents of the deal.
The prosecution of one executive from Huawei would be of little benefit to anyone.
I agree that if Trump were able to get some concessions from China in exchange for dropping charges against that executive in Canadian custody, it would be worth it. But I believe, based on the summary (I'm not subscribed to the WSJ), that they're talking about charges against the company itself and the restrictions on importing the company's products.
Either way, I don't think this news is much of a bombshell. The fact that a major deal never got done is evidenc
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree that if Trump were able to get some concessions from China in exchange for dropping charges against that executive in Canadian custody, it would be worth it.
Speaking for many Canadians when I say fuck you and Donald Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
You fuck him, he's not our type.
Re:Yeah, whatever (Score:4, Insightful)
Well that response seems a little over the top. I'm certainly no fan of Trump's and I hope he is no longer in office next year, but I still would prefer if he took more actions that benefited the country than harmed it (wishful thinking).
Looking at your posting history, we seem to agree on many things, but rhetorical style is certainly not one of them. I don't see the point in communicating if you're going to be so abrasive and off-putting. Insulting others is rarely persuasive and never leads to interesting discussion.
Re: Yeah, whatever (Score:2)
Well said. Let's keep it civil.
It's not, it's a smoke screen (Score:2)
Re:Yeah, whatever (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Yeah, whatever (Score:2)
Like China has arrested two Canadians - apparently on no legal basis whatsoever - in apparent naked retaliation and leverage for the Canucks arresting the Huwai lady?
Re: (Score:2)
Because it'd be the Chinese arresting Americans for breaking *Chinese law*. Only the USA considered trading with Iran "illegal" and arrested Ms Meng for such.
Imagine if China arrested Tim Cook for "saying Winnie the Pooh looks cute".
One country imposing its version of "right" on another and then demanding diplomatic considerations is exactly what mobs do. Not that I'm opposed to that; just don't make it so obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yeah, whatever (Score:5, Insightful)
If you elect a reality TV star to president, and he acts like a reality TV star, then why is anybody surprised? Nothing "sensationalist" is going to make any difference to him or his support. He will be outraged and lash out. The press will drool and sensationalise it further and count their ad revenues. And his supporters will continue to support him, because they don't care about any of that. Rinse and repeat. Everybody is in on the game.
It would be newsworthy if nothing sensationalist happened for a week. He could be voted off the island for being boring!
Re:Yeah, whatever (Score:5, Interesting)
Just more tabloid fodder from another bastard who worked for Trump.
Trump administration is where political careers go to die, book deals are all that is left.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"I only hire the best people!" - Trump
I guess that was one of those 18,000 lies, huh.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
China was generally not militarily aggressive until recently*, unlike Russia. China's economic power and military power are now super-power-sized. Both are powered by greedy dictators with few if any internal checks and balances who love meddling in overseas affairs.
* They started bullying small nations over ocean boundaries fairly early, but none of it affected the US much back then, so we mostly ignored it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lolwut. How many countries have Russia or China bombed on the other side of the world from them. How many democracies have Russia and China overthrown EVER compared to just the last two American presidents. How many overseas military bases do Russia and China have compared to the thousand odd for the United States. Who started a trillion dollar upgrade of his country's nuclear arsenal - P
Re:Here we go again ... (Score:5, Informative)
China was generally not militarily aggressive until recently
I'll be generous and skip two millennia of military aggression, as that predates the current murderous regime that prioritised killing its own citizens.
That just leaves the invasion and subjugation of Tibet, the support for North Korea's invasion of South Korea, the 1962 invasion of India and the 1979 invasion of Vietnam.
As for their actions in the South China Sea, that's military expansionism, something almost unique worldwide this century.
Re: (Score:2)
Say what you will about US foreign policy and hegemony of US military might of the last 50 years. It wasn't perfect, but at least the US is a democracy with checks and balances, free press, etc. (even though the current administration is trying very hard to undermine some of those institutions).
The new world order doesn't look as rosy.
Russia has always been causing trouble, economically weak, but loaded with nukes, wounded pride and ambitions.
But now there is also China. Loaded with just as many nukes, pri
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, so Obama made China into a bully. That's some fancy thinking you have going there.
Re: (Score:3)
No, it's not (Score:3)
Getting re-elected is a side effect of doing the right thing, not an end in itself.
Re: Reasons (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
In 2019, he offered to reverse criminal prosecution against Huawei if it would help in the trade deal -- which, of course, was primarily about getting Trump re-elected in 2020.
Yes, trade deals signed by presidents are about getting them re-elected. Everything done by presidents are about them getting re-elected.
This is why we need a Constitutional amendment limiting the presidency to a single term. Presidents too often spend their first term doing what they think will get them re-elected rather than doing what they think is right. I think a single six year term should be the limit. It gives them enough time to get things done and (hopefully) not enough time to completely ruin things.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
This makes no sense. If you don't want the President to be concerned with what the people want (re-election) then don't have him be elected by the people at all.
If, though, you feel that the president should be DEMOCRATICALLY chosen, then what purpose is there in a single term?
If we had a 6 year single term, we'd only be half through the disastrous presidency we have now, and without what little restraint re-election places on the con man in charge. It can be no clearer than it is now why you are wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree that the major downside is that six years seems like a long time for a disastrous presidency like we're currently experiencing. But consider that even horrible presidents win reelection more often than not. Six years is less than eight, and it's better than having a president distracted during much of the first term trying to get re-elected.
The reason I don't think that a single term detracts from democracy, as you suggest, is that with only a single term there are only a few key motivators fo
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, trade deals signed by presidents are about getting them re-elected. Everything done by presidents are about them getting re-elected.
Despite the obvious lack of falsifiability of the above underlying issue is a president getting involved in legal issue it has no business getting involved with.
Re: (Score:2)
"Everything done by presidents are about them getting re-elected."
No one needs to look to you for insight.
Re: (Score:2)
No, but getting the other party to cooperate is. See "plea bargain"
Re:Reasons (Score:4, Interesting)
But is getting re-elected a good reason to to reverse criminal prosecution against someone?
Or maybe the whole purpose of the criminal prosecution was to help negotiate a trade deal? Like the way certain countries falsely accuse U.S. citizens of spying in order to negotiate a prisoner exchange?
There is a problem here insofar as China's claims that the prosecution is purely a political stunt and the executive in question is just a victim of American lying, that looks much more plausible doesn't it? Frankly, if I were on this woman's jury and such information were presented in court, all the prosecutions evidence would be examined under a much harsher light. It does not take all that much fishiness in the prosecutor's case to rise to the level of reasonable doubt in the mind of a fair jury.
And if America earns a reputation here, judges overseeing extradition cases may interpret the treaty and evidence provided by the US in a very different light. You only need to screw up a couple high profile cases to earn a reputation that will get flogged when the next high profile case comes with a big team of lawyers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)