Hacker News Reader

Comment by PKop | Hacker News Reader

No serious state would ignore potential conflicts of interest with their biggest adversary related to advanced technology and military affairs:

https://www.cotton.senate.gov/news/press-releases/cotton-to-...

No, a CEO should not be able to tell the government to pound sand in this type of situation.

The company he ran for over a decade just plead guilty to illegal chip design sales to China. You may not care, but that the government does is just common sense:

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/cadence-plead-guilty-pay...

View on HN

Then the company should fire him for these actions (assuming they weren't aware), and probably at least some portion of the board for botching the hire.

The questions Cotton asks are valid, and the legislative branch of the government, SEC, and federal law enforcement should be interested in the answers to the extent that they don't know already (given that the DOJ already negotiated the settlement).

The President of the US should have no say over who is the CEO of any private company.

How in the world did the board get in this position? Every potential skeleton in his closet should have been cleared with US Government.

> No serious state would ignore potential conflicts of interest with their biggest adversary related to advanced technology and military affairs:

I agree with you, but then we're not a serious state since we've been doing this near constantly recently. Apply it equally or don't apply it at all.

Whether it should be that way or not, the United States remains the primary global military, political and economic superpower. As such, US politics also kinda dictate what a "sane state" does; by nature of their stature, they set the bar.

Sounds like Trump's Justice Department settled for a plea deal rather than continue prosecution. That's their prerogative, but justice has been served, and Trump can STFU.

Honest question: do you think this is a case of "the state cares because of legitimate and obvious national security concerns", or a case of Trump being Trump?

Both because I also think Trump cares.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com