back to article Jeff Bezos: I will depose King Trump

Amazon has taken the extraordinary step of moving to depose the President of the United States as part of its appeal against the Pentagon's decision to award the $10bn JEDI cloud contract to Microsoft. Attorneys for the internet shopping giant on Monday filed a motion [PDF] to depose Donald Trump, and senior government …

Page:

  1. jake Silver badge

    To be honest ...

    ... Trump wasn't so much "acquitted by Republican senators" as he was whitewashed by them. To call that farce a "trial" stretches the truth way past the breaking point.

    I'm no fan of Bezos (not by a long shot!), but I wish him luck in this endeavor.

    1. Snake Silver badge

      Re: Luck to Bezos

      as do I. If anyone as the money to pursue a lawsuit against Das Cheeto and the Booted Minions, and get some type of results, it's Bezos, so I've got my popcorn out.

      1. This post has been deleted by a moderator

        1. Chris G Silver badge

          Re: Luck to Bezos

          I hereby volunteer my services as a second to either one.

          As an independent and unbiased observer, I would ensure their weapons are functioning perfectly and their sights accurate.

          1. This post has been deleted by a moderator

            1. This post has been deleted by a moderator

      2. Rich 11 Silver badge

        Re: Luck to Bezos

        If a fraction of my hard-earned dosh should go to support this case I might even renew my Amazon Prime subscription.

    2. HildyJ Silver badge
      Go

      Re: To be honest ...

      I'll second that. Bezos' ability to get under Trump's orange skin (and his Washington Post newspaper) are endearing qualities (Amazon, not so much).

      Trump and his minions were able to dodge House and Senate testimony but it seems like Bezos has a much better case to compel it.

      1. cyke1

        Re: To be honest ...

        Spoken like a true liberal that is blind to the fact the case was a shame from the get go in the house after they violated so many house rules by not letting republicans call any witnesses or give them their required minority hear day. Not even starting on fact that of 77 or so days it was going on, 70 of those days trump's legal team was denied the ability to be there to cross examine witnesses. Not only were house rules violated but even basic Due process was.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: To be honest ...

          Meanwhile...in the real world...

        2. Snake Silver badge

          Re: To be honest ...

          If I must say anything, I'm ashamed (as usual) of the job that the Democrats did in PR'ing the case.

          As proof by your reply, the sad fact is that the impeachment changed nothing; not many people changed their (extremely predetermined) minds. This was the complete failure of the Democrats: every presentation that they did, any and all discussions they had about any facts they had, they brought to the fore in liberal-friendly, liberal facing presentations. Read: any time they got out of their protected enclosure of the House, they kumbaya'ed together with friendly media and similar talking heads.

          The Democrats needed to charge DIRECTLY into enemy territory and crush any and all bullshit brought up against evidence, which was being used as a distraction: if you can't disprove the point, come up with "Lock her up!" and "Where's the whistleblower!".

          But as usual the Democrats didn't do that. They allow the conservatives to make talking points without direct, in-your-face replies, and expect everyone to come around to the Democrat way by faith and hope.

          The conservatives have long ago learned to fight dirty, and the best the Democrats can answer is a weak "But look!" while they argue with one another.

          Look back on my profile and I've been saying this for YEARS, but only now do (some) "liberals" / moderates now understand that you need to grab a baseball bat when you're confronted with a knife, rather than a rose. Look up on YouTube "Bill Maher Do the Wrong Thing", only posted a week ago, to realize that they need to WAKE UP before its too late - as Germany proved, authoritarianism is enticing to the weak-minded and scared when a "strongman" tells you he can fix things...because it's all someone else making your problems.

          1. jake Silver badge

            Re: To be honest ...

            The impeachment did nothing for one reason, and one reason only: The completely emasculated Republicans control the Senate, but not their own convictions. Well, not completely emasculated. Romney seems to have managed to grow one ... I was hoping he'd grow a pair.

            (Edit: Now THAT typoe was a strange bit o'dyslexia ... )

            1. notathome

              Re: To be honest ...

              Vs the dog and pony show in the house.

              Don't care which side you swing on, it is a fast and waste of money.

              Bank on subject - AWS is not the only player in town and maybe microsoft has more to offer then aws in this case and a better fit.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: To be honest ...

                AWS is not the only player in town and maybe microsoft has more to offer then aws in this case and a better fit

                Definitely, especially now Microsoft have helped the Cloud Act 2018 into existence they can just transfer any data the US government wants to have inhouse, no third parties involved. However, when it comes to security I wouldn't trust Microsoft to keep anything safer than when stored in a barn with no doors.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: To be honest ...

                  Would you care to explain how the Cloud Act 2018 applies to GovCloud hosting? Whether it is in AWS or Azure, GovCloud appears to be completely outside of this act.

                  You're likely equating GovCloud facilities with public cloud when they are separate facilities (physical/location/operational/etc) covered by strict federal requirements. Requirements that Microsoft hasn't quite reached yet... Requirements Google has only recently agreed to meet necessary GovCloud requirements after previously withdrawing from JEDI. As Oracle/IBM have yet to build facilities for their proposed JEDI bids it was safe to assume they would be compliant in 2-3 years time.

                  Meanwhile, AWS has been compliant with the necessary requirements for ~3 years when they came into existence. Still...clearly Microsoft will be a better fit. When it eventually completes its resilient facilities.

              2. Fluffy Cactus

                Re: To be honest ...

                I am not sure.

                Honestly, I hate Microsoft, and Bezos almost equally, but I disdain the evil orange greed-monster even more, so is it wrong to say that I want all three of them disappear from the planet, all at the same time?

                Like, poooof!

                But then again, I don't want to give Apple, Google, Oracle an unfair advantage either, so I am really, really confused about the situation. Would it be allowable to say: "May they all die and roast in hell or at least in the core of the sun, or something?" Is that such a bad thing to wish for?

                Is this what Pink Floyd meant, when they made that song: "Set the controls for the heart of the sun"?

                Let me know!

                1. Colin Bain

                  Re: To be honest ...

                  You mentioned Pink Floyd.....guaranteed up vote...oh and a cogent comment, ...but mostly PF. Another brick in the wall of sanity!

            2. Amentheist

              Re: To be honest ...

              The impeachment didn't exactly do nothing, it gave Trump a second term on a silver platter.

              1. jake Silver badge

                Re: To be honest ...

                I see no platter yet. Silver or otherwise.

                1. Amentheist

                  Re: To be honest ...

                  Don't get me wrong I'm not saying it as a good thing, but as it could be a very likely outcome.

                2. keith_w

                  Re: To be honest ...

                  IMH <liberal> O, it''s the Democrat contenders for the nomination that are constructing the silver platter.

                  1. veti Silver badge

                    Re: To be honest ...

                    I'm not sure what's cause and what's effect, there.

                    The Democrats never expected there to be a primary in 2020. After the 2016 fiasco, there was no-one (serious) in the party who was remotely ready to step up and start their campaign - because they'd all assumed that Hillary, having won 2016, would coast to an automatic renomination in 2020.

                    The present contenders are a bunch of has-beens who feel it's now or never, and a couple of opportunists who are mostly interested in making names for themselves - putting down markers for 2024 or beyond, rather than seriously contesting this nomination. All of them, I think, are assuming they'll lose.

                    But then, so was Trump in 2016. Politics is a tricky business, elections even more so.

                    1. Handle123456

                      Re: To be honest ...

                      "Hillary, having won 2016" ... you know, this is like saying that the team that scored more goals in NHL playoff won ... despite it losing more games. The rules of the playoff say that you need to win four GAMES within the round, the total number of goals is irrelevant, the number of US presidential elections are a bit more complex, but again you need to win the games (states), not score the most goals (get most votes) in total.

                      This affects the strategy in both cases and in case of Trump vs. Clinton it also heavily affected the voters' decision to bother voting or not.

                      Hillary Clinton lost. Fullstop.

                      1. veti Silver badge

                        Re: To be honest ...

                        Yes. I know. My point is, that outcome came as a surprise to leading Democrats. They hadn't planned on it.

                        Hence, in part, their present disarray.

            3. Carpet Deal 'em Bronze badge

              Re: To be honest ...

              The Dems have been braying about impeachment since before Trump was inaugurated(if they even waited until the election). The issue's been party-lined so long that they'd have to come up with something extra-heinous to make it stick(and I'm not terribly convinced the Ukraine business would actually rock a more normal president's boat in the first place).

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: To be honest ...

                Oh come on. If they can impeach and remove a president for finding the only girl in town who can't wash out a stain, Trump's activities must have offered multiple opportunities to do the same. The problem is that all have been sucked into the mob family.

                1. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

                  Re: To be honest ...

                  Er... impeached, but not convicted, in that case. No US president has been impeached and convicted, so none has been removed by impeachment.

                  Johnson was found guilty by a majority but it fell a vote short of conviction. Clinton was found not guilty by a small majority on one charge; the vote was split 50/50 on the second. You know what happened with Trump.

                  Nixon resigned before he could be impeached.

              2. Alan_Peery

                Re: To be honest ...

                With even a slight understanding of Trump's history it was pretty obvious that he would follow neither the non-mandated norms nor the laws surrounding the Presidency. Given this, early talk of impeachment was a simple matter of anticipation of a necessary and unpleasant task, and not "braying for impeachment".

                There's more to come, because Trump clearly feels emboldened -- but laws still apply.

            4. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

              Re: To be honest ...

              Impeachment was intended to rile up Democrat voters and improve turnout in November. There's no way to know whether that worked at this point, and really we won't even know come Election Day.

              At this point, it's all about turnout. Turnout will by far be the major determining factor in the swing states.

              As I've noted in other threads, a conviction would have been bad for the Democrats (however good it might have been for the rule of law and endorsement of Constitutional principals), because Trump loyalists would almost certainly have supported Pence in November, and he's less divisive (though at least as dangerous), so Democratic voters would likely have been less motivated.

          2. bombastic bob Silver badge
            WTF?

            Re: To be honest ...

            "The conservatives have long ago learned to fight dirty"

            W.T.F. planet and universe are YOU on???

            Donald Trump's primary reason for GETTING elected is becauwe Conservatives were *NOT* fighting back, at all, and us voters were SICK of that, so we elected Trump because he *WOULD* fight and we're very very happy about it! 95% approval in the Republican party, 80% or so among INDEPENDENTS.

            That says a LOT, you know...

            1. Snake Silver badge

              Re: To be honest ...

              Just HOW do you MORONS think that you weren't, constantly, getting what YOU wanted, screw everyone else?

              Is it TRUE that the conservative tax cut agenda has been the status quo of America since Reagan...EVEN THOUGH [you've] done nothing but increase the national debt EVERY TIME you've had a president in office??

              Is it TRUE that conservative supply-side economics has been king for 30+ years, even to Trump's tax cuts...yet BY FACTS middle class quality of life has stalled thanks to STAGNANT WAGES but yet through ALL that the conservatives CONSTANTLY deny an increase in the minimum wage? WHILE CORPORATE PROFITS AND CEO WAGES go ever higher??

              That we have not only more corporate money scandals than ever before, the life expectancy of Americans has gone DOWN but yet (you) somehow deny health care reform??

              Deny climate change, fundamentally and without lying due to the fact that you simply don't want to pay for any type of necessary change, in any way that might personally inconvenience your pocketbook??

              Yell out "Support life!" in regards to unborn... while cutting support programs to help them once they ARE born??

              Please.

              If anyone missed my point from before, I'm only pissed that the liberals never seem to want to insult people to the level that the conservatives always do. A conservative gets on the media and yells out "libtard!", and the Democrats sit and take it.

              I'm sick of the Dems lack of backbone for a fight. Stand up and crush the stupid opposition - the "conservatives" make their stand on THE INTERNET, using COMPUTERS, after their 40 HOUR WORKWEEK, with MIDDLE CLASS TAKE HOME PAY, and more - ALL existing ONLY due to historical progressivism - and they think they are "winners". While there are the castrated lap dogs of the rich, who prime class warfare while sitting aside, sipping their champagne.

            2. veti Silver badge

              Re: To be honest ...

              What planet are you on? Trump's approval among independents has not peeked above 50% since about a week after his inauguration. Admittedly the most recent nationwide poll I could find showed it increasing markedly - to 42%.

              1. Rich 11 Silver badge

                Re: To be honest ...

                Planet Fox.

            3. AIBailey Silver badge

              Re: To be honest ...

              95% approval in the Republican party...

              95% approval amongst career politicians that have realised that the best, in fact the only way to get ahead and remain in a job is to back the orangeutan leader?

              Occasionally a few of the Republicans show a bit of backbone and actually resist (Romney being a recent example), but a public dressing down from the comedian in chief usually reminds them not to misbehave again.

              THAT says a lot, you know...

            4. jake Silver badge

              Re: To be honest ...

              Yeah, sure. He's done SUCH a good job of draining that ol' swamp, hasn't he. And all that other bullshit that the idiots who voted for him swallowed.

              Just admit you voted for a dud and move on, bob. It'll do you a world of good.

              If you're not just trolling, that is. Which I still suspect is the case.

              1. WonkoTheSane Silver badge
                Trollface

                Re: To be honest ...

                Trump did a PERFECT job of draining the swamp

                .

                .

                .

                .

                .

                .

                .

                .

                .

                INTO his administration!

            5. Alan_Peery

              Re: To be honest ... 95 & 42

              Yes, 95% of people identifying as Republicans. But

              "His approval among independents in this latest Gallup poll is 42% -- up 5 points from where he was among this group in January"

              https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/04/politics/donald-trump-gallup-poll/index.html

              And this is before many people are aware of Trump's latest proposals, which include serious cuts to Medicare (beloved of older voters), Medicaid, Social Security and basic medical research.

              https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/10/politics/trump-budget-health-care-safety-net/index.html

              https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-02-10/trump-budget-shreds-the-federal

              https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/02/trump-s-new-budget-cuts-all-favored-few-science-programs

              1. Fluffy Cactus

                Re: To be honest ... 95 & 42

                I can only hope that there are plenty of older people who, despite their racist republican hankering, would not like to have their Social Security cut.

          3. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: To be honest ...

            "The conservatives have long ago learned to fight dirty, and the best the Democrats can answer is a weak "But look!" while they argue with one another."

            There's a problem with wishing that Democrats use the same tactics: if they do and win, then nothing has changed. You have a new team in charge with a different label, but the same methods as the previous one. So how would that be better? The problem with Republicans is not the name of their party, it's what they do.

          4. Peter2 Silver badge

            Re: To be honest ...

            The conservatives have long ago learned to fight dirty, and the best the Democrats can answer is a weak "But look!" while they argue with one another.

            Look back on my profile and I've been saying this for YEARS, but only now do (some) "liberals" / moderates now understand that you need to grab a baseball bat when you're confronted with a knife, rather than a rose.

            For an alternative and unpopular view, Trump is the end result of people doing what you are suggesting.

            The media departed from the point that they reported on news on a relatively correct and impartial basis a long, long time ago. They now actively promote their own political agenda, and drive the agenda of the day through lying through omission, slander and the intimidation value of ruining any normal persons life through misrepresentation.

            The lack of balanced coverage by the media means that it is no longer possible for normal moderate people to get their concerns redressed by the political system or the media. It is also no longer possible for normal moderate people to get elected. Normal concerns are actively suppressed by the media with cries of variations of "wrongthinker!" or "throughtcrime!". Therefore, moderates are largely suppressed by two camps of extremists and their only value to either side is largely found at the point that they are expected to vote for one or the other set of extremists.

            Trump is a product of this. The media won't cover things fairly? Fine, use this against them. Just put your own messages out via twitter. That way, you can simply say (or do) something outrageous and displace anything that was going to be on the newspapers front cover, thereby denying the media the ability to run their own agenda. Media driven character assassinations on spurious grounds with no proof offered or existing? Fine, just deliberately whip their little bubbles up to the point that they burst. You know people actually need "digital detoxes" and give up on sticking in their bubbles for their health? That's your political movement fraying at the edges, and pushing out "traitors" who minutely disagree with something obviously absurd is a fairly good sign that the entire thing is coming apart at the seams.

            I said a couple of months after Trump was elected that I thought he'd get a second term based on how he was handling the US media, and how utterly incapable the opposition was at holding a basic level of introspection into why they lost. If they don't have that introspection before this election then they are losing again this time, and it's looking increasingly unlikely that anybody else is going to stop for at least 30 seconds and consider why he's about to beat them.

            Still plenty of time to hold that but there is a total disconnect of reality with these people who are making claim to being the intellectual elite, but is getting systematically outwitted and played by somebody they are deriding as being thick.

            Which to be fair, he is. But how does that reflect on the people getting played daily for almost 5 years(!?!) by El Thicko?

            1. Handle123456

              Re: To be honest ...

              The introspection is pointless if you can't dare to act on it, if "minutely disagreeing" brings the wrath of the masses of screaming activists on you, when straying from the one true path of "progressivism" is enough to turn you from a hero into a traitor, when everyone around you is trying to outprogress and outscream everyone else.

          5. Jamie Jones Silver badge

            Re: To be honest ...

            Some republicans have been more vocal against trump than the democrats! --> https://youtu.be/ULuC1dsqddY

        3. jake Silver badge

          Re: To be honest ...

          What flavo(u)r was the koolaide?

          1. WonkoTheSane Silver badge

            Re: To be honest ...

            Kompromat flavor obvs!

        4. bombastic bob Silver badge
          Thumb Up

          Re: To be honest ...

          up vote from ME, but you *know* the howler monkeys will ALWAYS throw poo at you if you don't tow the liberal line... (and hence all the downvotes). I wouldn't be surprised if they're all sock puppets of the same 1 or 2 individuals.

          1. jake Silver badge

            Re: To be honest ...

            "I wouldn't be surprised if they're all sock puppets of the same 1 or 2 individuals."

            Because you firmly believe that only one or two folks who read ElReg think Trump is a blustering, bumbling, bulbous buffoon with delusions of grandeur? And that the vast majority of ElReg readers are firmly on the side of Trump?

            Either you are trolling very badly (and getting worse at it as you go), or you're just as deluded as the idiot in chief. Do you worship his blessed senility?

            1. hplasm Silver badge
              Facepalm

              Re: To be honest ...

              "Do you worship his blessed senility?"

              Government by the senile, for the senile.

              q.v. senate...

        5. eldakka Silver badge

          Re: To be honest ...

          by not letting republicans call any witnesses
          Just like in the senate, the House can vote on whether to call witnesses or not. The Republicans had their chance to vote for witnesses in the democratic House voting process, where a motion is raised and voted on, and the majority vote wins. Just like in the Senate where the Deomcrats called for witnesses, but the democratic voting process in the Senate rejected that motion based on a simple majority vote. Of course, since the Democrats control the House, and the Repulicans the Senate, then each party in effect can do what they want in that part of Congress. Therefore the Democrats could call what witnesses they liked - and ignore the rest - in the House. And vice-versa, the Republicans could have called - but chose not to - any witnesses they liked in the Senate. Therefore it was the Republicans own chose to not call any witnesses during the impeachment process.

          Not even starting on fact that of 77 or so days it was going on, 70 of those days trump's legal team was denied the ability to be there to cross examine witnesses.
          The House portion of the impeachment process is an investigation, not a trial. Therefore why would an investigation allow the targets lawyers to cross-examine witnesses? That is what a trial is for. And, guess what? The Republicans denied the right for cross examination of the witnesses by using their majority in the Senate to prevent the calling of witnesses whom could then be cross-examined.

        6. Just An Engineer

          Re: To be honest ...

          You really should stop watching Faux News. These are all talking points presented by the entertainment division of that lofty and august network.

          Unfortunately you are wrong. The Presidents "legal" team is not a relevant partner in these proceedings. The opposition party was in the room at all times, and had an equal amount of time to question the witnesses. This was not a Court of Law it was an Impeachment Inquiry.

          If the president Cheeto wanted equal time he should have allow the witnesses that were called to testify.But as that would have been under oath, they would not want to run the risk of perjury, so they would have had to tell the truth. Based on the evidence presented, even the shame the Senate perpetrated would have been difficult to pull off.

          1. Fluffy Cactus

            Re: To be honest ...

            To be honest, it gets really difficult to be honest anymore, if you fight a bunch of White Old Republican Men (a.k.a WORMs) with zero conscience and too much cash...

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020