Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Cloud United States Politics

Amazon Wants Trump To Testify in Battle Over $10 Billion Pentagon Contract (cnn.com) 82

Posted by msmash from the tussle-continues dept.
Amazon has asked a federal court for permission to get testimony from President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Mark Esper as part of its ongoing protest over the Defense Department's handling of a multibillion-dollar cloud computing contract, according to a court filing unsealed Monday. From a report: The document also seeks permission to depose former Defense Secretary James Mattis and what he may have known about Trump's attitude toward the contract, known as the Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure. The decision on the motion to depose is expected in the coming weeks. It is incredibly rare, if not unprecedented, for a sitting US president to be deposed in a contract protest. In a footnote of the court filing, Amazon notes that "a deposition of a sitting President of the United States presents unique circumstances." Amazon argues in the document that the Pentagon's explanation for awarding the contract to Microsoft left out "crucial information and details that led to this flawed and potentially detrimental decision regarding DoD's future cloud infrastructure."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Amazon Wants Trump To Testify in Battle Over $10 Billion Pentagon Contract More

Amazon Wants Trump To Testify in Battle Over $10 Billion Pentagon Contract

Comments Filter:

  • Do you ever feel like... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by BringsApples ( 3418089 ) on Monday February 10, 2020 @12:26PM (#59711464)

    ...politics and big business is, like, the same thing?

    /sarcasm

  • Yeah good luck with that.
    • The Trump Administration has used "The President is busy" line in other lawsuits against him and the other lawyers said they be happy to meet him at his resorts / golf clubs and interview him between rounds of golf [buzzfeednews.com].

      President Trump's lawyers argued Tuesday that he's too busy to participate in a defamation lawsuit filed against him in New York state court — but the lawyer for the woman suing him shot back that she would interview Trump around golf outings.

      Note: To date, Trump as spent 246 (22%) of his days as President playing golf [trumpgolfcount.com] as well as additional days at his resorts. The golfing has cost the US taxpayers an estimated $127,000,000. This from a guy who repeatedly said during his campaign he's "not going to have time to go play golf" because

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Dunbal ( 464142 ) *
        Do you work on your day off? One thing is a national emergency. Another thing is a sad butthurt Jeff Bezos. He can get in line.
        • The point is that if he has time for golf and visits to his resorts, especially this much time, he has time for legal depositions and interviews.
  • Let us know how it works out.

  • Alien vs Predator (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Thud457 ( 234763 ) on Monday February 10, 2020 @12:45PM (#59711594) Homepage Journal
    "No matter who wins, we all lose."

    • Re:Alien vs Predator (Score:5, Insightful)

      by EmagGeek ( 574360 ) on Monday February 10, 2020 @12:47PM (#59711606) Journal

      That's about what it boils down to. Society has devolved to the point that every time there is a winner, there is also a plaintiff.

      The founders never intended for the courts to become an "undo" button for people who don't get their way.

      • Re:Alien vs Predator (Score:5, Interesting)

        by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Monday February 10, 2020 @12:54PM (#59711648)
        That's why the courts routinely toss motions or even entire lawsuits. Unless you're representing yourself, the whole thing is so hideously expensive that anyone with a bit of sense realizes it's not a wise use of their money to drag that kind of frivolity before the court.

        But you can't differentiate that sort of idiocy from injustice without bringing them both before the court. Sure we'd like to stop the people who try to use it as an "undo" button, but I don't think we could do so without also excluding people who have suffered some injustice that the courts could redress but are simply mistaken as wanting an "undo" button of their own.

      • That's about what it boils down to. Society has devolved to the point that every time there is a winner, there is also a plaintiff.

        The founders never intended for the courts to become an "undo" button for people who don't get their way.

        It's hilarious to find people still using terms like "founders" when referring to the legal system by and for lawyers.

        We don't even bother calling it a "Justice" system anymore. Greed is the only winner.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Tablizer ( 95088 )

        If you can propose a better way to provide checks and balances, I'm all ears. Human politics has always been a messy endeavor and I'm not sure there's a simple fix, beyond giving cockroaches a chance. Even kingdoms had chaos whenever there was a transition of power, or lack of, being emperors don't live forever.

    • Predators are the good guys in the arcade game

  • Bidding Contracts are rigged. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Monday February 10, 2020 @12:48PM (#59711616)

    As much as I want to make this an I hate Trump post, this is actually part of a much bigger and longer reaching problem with the Government Bidding process.

    If you are a small business and try to get on to these open bids for government services, you will find that finding a bid to win is extremely difficult.
    1. The bid is often written for the winner in mind. For this new Web Based application they may require 10 years experience in LISP.
    2. There are the bonus modifiers that weight higher, which are often targeted towards a particular company.
    3. They can stop the bid and start it again. You met all the criteria, and even better then the one they want. So they will stop the bid, and reissue a new one over and over again until you as a small business give up.
    4. They over value the project. So your business will need a high credit to cover failures.

    The Government wanted Microsoft from day one. The contract was a formality for Microsoft to win.
    Why would the government want Microsoft over Amazon? Probably due to the fact they already have a lot of contracts with them and know how they work. While Amazon may be different to deal with.

    • Re:Bidding Contracts are rigged. (Score:5, Informative)

      by arbiter1 ( 1204146 ) on Monday February 10, 2020 @01:06PM (#59711716)
      Um gov wanted MS to win? Yea you clearly weren't around for the when the first JEDI contract requirements were wrote up. When they wrote it up originally it was ONLY amazon that met the requirements. It was companies like MS, oracle and google that filed a complaint against the matter cause it was clearly requirements designed that ONLY amazon at the time met.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by guruevi ( 827432 )

        Prior to that contracts were written specifically to fit Oracle, prior to that it was Microsoft, prior to that IBM. What comes around goes around.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Rob Y. ( 110975 )

        It's not that they're rigged - it's about why they're rigged in a certain way.

        If the original spec was written by folks who were AWS fans, and so looked like it was AWS-specific, well I guess that could be a problem. But rewriting it to be MS-specific is a lousy solution. If it's fairness you want, maybe you split it up some.

        In this case, if reports are to be believed, it was reawarded because Trump was mad at The Washington Post. Now that may not be true (though who'd be surprised), but if it is, this g

        • The changes in the JEDI contract were to focus more on hybrid clouds. At the time of the request AWS did not offer much in the way of solutions for that, Azure did.
    • Then, when the do pick the right company to do it, all the others will contest the hell out of it. I happened to me, my company created the program and was doing satisfying work, and making budget, but each time it would get contested by companies that didn't even have the basics to support it at the time. Technicalities caused us to loose out to another company, and they sub'd it out back to us. However, they caused so much red tape for us, and pissed off the customer that the partnership all fell apart
  • Regardless of it being Trump (who I hate), how arrogant do you have to be to demand a sitting POTUS to testify in a civil case? Or is it because it's Trump? I'd sooner believe that.
    Regardless of the reason(s), Trump won't do it. He has a death allergy to being subjected to legal proceedings. Likely because he's constitutionally (pun not intended) incapable of uttering even one complete sentence without lying about something. How ironic would it be for Trump, after all that's happened in the last few months

    • Re:The unparalleled arrogance of Amazon (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Nidi62 ( 1525137 ) on Monday February 10, 2020 @01:07PM (#59711724)

      Regardless of it being Trump (who I hate), how arrogant do you have to be to demand a sitting POTUS to testify in a civil case? Or is it because it's Trump? I'd sooner believe that.

      Because he has publicly railed and attacked both Amazon and Jeff Bezos? There is a reasonable argument to be made that his public comments could have affected what is (nominally) an unbiased bidding process. There's also a track record of trump seemingly targeting Amazon through government channels, such as starting a task force to look at USPS rates combined with the following quote from a tweet:

      I have stated my concerns with Amazon long before the Election. Unlike others, they pay little or no taxes to state & local governments, use our Postal System as their Delivery Boy (causing tremendous loss to the U.S.), and are putting many thousands of retailers out of business!

      That being said, he won't testify. Amazon would get at best a written deposition, and they still won't get the contract. but kudos to them for trying.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by 110010001000 ( 697113 )

        "an unbiased bidding process"
         
        I come here for the comedy.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Nidi62 ( 1525137 )

          "an unbiased bidding process"

          I come here for the comedy.

          That's why I preceded it with "(nominally)". Unless they are no-bid contracts, government procurement should be the best capabilities for the best price, even though in practice they tend to know who the winner is going to be even before the contract is up for bid.

    • Hey, Trump is a bull in a China shop. We all know that. But we're rooting because the condescending people who own the china shop have it coming. Hopefully we can sweep up all the broken ceramic when it's over and mix it with cement to make something useful.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

      Regardless of it being Trump (who I hate), how arrogant do you have to be to demand a sitting POTUS to testify in a civil case? Or is it because it's Trump? I'd sooner believe that.

      Not very. The Commander in Chief publicly stated [cnbc.com] that he was "going to take a close look at it." He also has a years long running feud [dailymail.co.uk] with Amazon and Bezos. And he's obsessed with punishing everyone [cnn.com] who dares slight him.

      Regardless of the reason(s), Trump won't do it. He has a death allergy to being subjected to legal proceedi

      • He'll claim 'executive privilege' or somesuch and weasel out of it.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by sconeu ( 64226 )

          Shouldn't be able to. Precedent: Bill Clinton had to provide a deposition for the Paula Jones trial.

          • Since when does Trump give a shit about laws?

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

              Since when does Trump give a shit about laws?

              Since people gave a damn about blaming Trump for his actions rather than attacking his victims as you have (in case you've forgotten, you wrote "how arrogant do you have to be to demand a sitting POTUS to testify in a civil case?").

              Oh, wait... it hasn't happened yet and you're happy about it, aren't you?

    • He can do a deposition. He has done them before.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by fermion ( 181285 )
      In this case Trump has made specific remarks against Amazon and has in the past made himself part of the bidding process. While he is clearly a dictator, there still seems to be rules in government procurement, and if those rules has been violated then Amazon deserves a fair chance. It is unprecedented, but it is also unheard of for a sitting president to promotes personal businesses and vendetta. Trump will not testify because he cant help but lie, which is perjury. On the other hand, because trump acts li
  • Seriously? Trump wouldn't testify over his impeachment, and that had great ratings. He's not going to consider testifying over something as silly as this.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • He'll testify (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    but plead 'The 5th' to every question including his name, age and address.

    As much as I don't like Trump, I hate Amazon a lot,lot, lot more.
    A plague on both their shoulders.

    • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

      by arbiter1 ( 1204146 )
      Bezo's is using trump as a scape goat cause well he is an ultra liberal.

      • .. an ultra liberal to whom the rules of course do not apply. He's happy for other people to pay more in taxes while he pays nothing.

  • We as humans learn during our school years to figure out ambiguity when our friends play pranks and word puns on us. Now these researchers are playing pranks on AI. its all good. Part of the learning process. of course sometimes the victis learns enough to prank you back

  • Considering that between 1/3 and 1/2 the spam coming into local systems here comes via Amazon AWS I don't think I want sensitive Pentagon data anywhere near Amazon systems. It appears that they cannot control their systems nearly adequately enough. This situation makes it look like they have an attitude of, "Security? Wazzzat? We don't need no steenkin' security?"

    {o.o}

  • Alleging that the process was rigged to favor Amazon from the start, by officials corrupted by Amazon? I sure do. And I wonder if maybe the DoD found some merit to those allegations and took the reasonable step of quietly throwing Amazon's bid in the trash.

Slashdot Top Deals

All warranty and guarantee clauses become null and void upon payment of invoice.

Close