Also not mentioned here AWS already has GovCloud- there are a number of agencies both federal and state that use AWS. Its not like this contract is the _only_ contract there is to win. Its just a big one. Jeff is a pretty damn sore loser.
Was sourced in Mattis's biography, written by a "former Mattis speechwriter and communications director". That is absolutely evidence. Now, proving it simply involves this lawsuit and then deposing Mattis to confirm the claim.
We don’t convict people in this country based on hearsay alone.
It's meant to prevent gossip as evidence.
Yes, and in your first example, Bob's statement is outside of court, and Jane's description of it is admissible. (Same as how mattis's description of Trump's admission would be admissible)
There are also cases where Jack's statement would be admissible (for example if Jane was unable to be called as a witness).
Close, but that's missing an important piece. Hearsay is an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
> If Bob confesses to Jane that he killed someone, and Jane is called in a witness in the criminal trial, that's not hearsay.
If offered to prove that Bob killed someone, that would be hearsay. That doesn't mean it couldn't be admitted, though. There are a whole bunch of exceptions to the rule that hearsay is inadmissible [1] [2].
That statement would probably be admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence as a "statement against interest" (804(b)(3)) if Bob was not available to testify. It might also be admissible as an "excited utterance" if made right after the killing (803(2)).
> It's hearsay if Jack is called because he heard Jane say Bob told her about the murder.
This one is a good example to illustrate the "offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted" part.
It's hearsay if offered to prove that Bob murdered some. If offered to prove that Jane knew Bob, it would not be hearsay.
Who’s getting convicted in this case?
On Twitter it sounds like Trump has animosity for Bezos, but is there evidence Trump was involved in the process or the process was biased?
why not just call a spade a spade?
It's a vendetta
Rather Trump has a vendetta against Bezos (instead of personal bias).
You have in fact described exactly how most long-term DoD contracts are decided.
There's almost always a losing party who sues.
This is an underrated commentary.
I'm continually amazed at what transpires in the public forum, leading me to believe that the US Government has been corrupt for quite some time, but never out in the open.
Or, it could be like this https://youtu.be/aI0euMFAWF8
I feel the same way - Trump is not different from other presidents, except that he does everything right out in the open, while the other Presidents kept a veneer of respectability on things.
Turns out most people really prefer to believe that everything is above board.
Believing that the absence of visible corruption is still proof of equivalent invisible corruption is unreasonable.
And side note: corruption in politics is a weighted term. From one perspective, politics is literally the business of corruption. I.e. how to use democratic support to influence policy and procurement.
In the US, until ~1878 (Rutherford B. Hayes presidency), it was the overt policy of both parties that political contributions were the price of office.
And it took the assassination of James A. Garfield in 1881 by a spurned, insane spoils seeker to finally pass reform into law.
Or, "ignorance is bliss."
It's one thing to not be secretive of impropriety--it's another thing to boast about it.