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 …

  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 Bronze badge

                  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

              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
                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

            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
              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...

        7. EnviableOne Silver badge

          Re: To be honest ...

          Please understand the impeachment process:

          The house hearings are akin to a grand jury, where they decide if there is a case to answer and are held in closed sessions with the bi-partisan members of those comittees

          they call witnesses and subpoena evidence to weigh guilt or innocence

          the relevant house comites then vote to propose charges or not to the house floor

          The house then votes to impeach or not, a simple simple majority leads to impeachment

          this leads to a trial by the senate:

          the House appoints managers to act as the prosecution

          the defendant appoints their own leagal team as the defence

          The chief Justice of the Supreme court presides as Judge

          The Senate sit as the jury

          the first act is the trial rules are agreed upon by the senate

          previous impeachments have proceded similar to a trial, where both sides have opening arguments, present evidence, may call witnesses and these may be cross examined, followed by closing arguments.

          The senators then have a chance to speak as to their reasons

          there is then a vote to convict or not

          a simple majority convicts, a two thirds majority convicts and removes the defendant from office.

          if full co-operation is given at each stage and the entire process is carried out in a fair and balanced manner, there is no doubt as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant.

          the problem is in this case subpoenas were ignored and witnesses prevented from testifying at all stages, so the full facts were not available to the country and the senators at large, so the guilt or innocence can not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt

        8. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: To be honest ...

          Heil Cheetolini! First of his name! Our Divine Glorious Dotard Leader! Of the Proudly Willfully Ignorant Cult45!

        9. NerryTutkins

          Re: To be honest ...

          I love it when Trumpies go on a rant about "liberals".

          I would suggest that if you're absolutely fine with a guy running the country who fucks porn stars while his third wife is pregnant with his nth child, that would probably make you erm.... pretty liberal?

        10. WonkoTheSane
          Headmaster

          Re: To be honest ...

          A hearing is NOT a trial.

        11. Kurt 4

          Re: To be honest ...

          cyke1 speaks the truth witnesses are to be called in the house where the democrats denied republicans the right to call any witnesses. This article is fake news and judging by the number of down votes on the truth, it shows people are totally clueless.

        12. steviebuk Silver badge

          Re: To be honest ...

          Trump was invited, Trump chose not to go.

          And anyway. In the impeachment trial, even some of the Republicans in the same of a process have stated "Yes, he did abuse his power but we're gonna let him off anyway".

    3. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Trollface

      Re: To be honest ...

      When I see what the Trump haters say about our president, and who it is that they are, it makes me LIKE TRUMP EVEN MORE!!

      In the mean time, you KNOW Bezos would NEVER do this against a president of "the other party". That makes it PARTISAN, POLITICAL, and therefore, FRIVOLOUS. He and his RIDICULOUS lawsuit should be LAUGHED out of the court room.

      "Sore loser" indeed.

      1. veti Silver badge

        Re: To be honest ...

        Bezos is no Democrat. He's donated to politicians and causes dear to both parties.

        But it's part of Trump's magic that he can make an enemy of anyone who is not sufficiently blindly devoted to him. See, e.g., Jeff Sessions, John Bolton, Gary Cohn, Gen. McMaster.

        1. stiine Silver badge

          Re: To be honest ...

          Wrong, he's donated to parties and candidates that he expects will get his company favourable fiscal policies, nothing more and nothing less.

          1. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

            Re: To be honest ...

            In what way does that contradict what veti posted?

      2. jake Silver badge

        Re: To be honest ...

        "That makes it PARTISAN, POLITICAL, and therefore, FRIVOLOUS."

        Don't be silly, bob. It's capitalistic, pure and simple. Hate capitalism, bob? What are you, a commie lover like the idiot in chief?

      3. phuzz Silver badge

        Re: To be honest ...

        "you KNOW Bezos would NEVER do this against a president of "the other party""

        Mate, they'd sue anyone if they thought it would make them half a wooden nickel. If they could find profit in stealing candy from babies, then Amazon would be straight down the local kindergarten.

      4. Roger Kynaston Bronze badge

        Re: To be honest ... Bob

        We can hear you without shouting.

      5. anonanonanon

        Re: To be honest ...

        You're country is an international joke

        1. phuzz Silver badge
          Trollface

          Re: To be honest ...

          Your spelling is funnier.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: To be honest ...

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

      #notme

    5. martinusher Silver badge

      Re: To be honest ...

      "acquitted by Republican senators" -- no. its what's called in this part of the world "jury nullification".

      The reason for the impeachment proceedings wasn't really anything specific like Ukraine but trying to deal with this creeping 'rule by decree'. Trump could express an opinion on the matter of this contract -- anyone can -- but the idea that a President could intervene directly in a contract to favor one party over another is just plain wrong, it opens the door to steering contracts to 'friends and family' and a whole sewer's worth of corruption. The GoP as a party goes along with the current situation because they think its currently to their advantage, both personally and as a party, and they think they can control Trump if and when they need to. They're making the same mistake others have throughout history -- they won't be able to control the person, he will end up controlling them, and then we're in real trouble.

    6. Handle123456

      Re: To be honest ...

      To be honest the whole "trial" was a farce set up by "democrats" that never accepted the result of the elections. The "crime" of asking the Ukrainians to restart the investigation that was stopped due to Joe Biden's threat of stopping the aid. The senile nepotist's boasting about how they sacked the attorney after he ordered them to is recorded and online. But yeah funneling US taxpayers' money through Burisma to his son's bank account is absolutely fine, forcing a foreign government to stop investigation is fine, telling them they are free to restart the investigation is a high crime.

      1. deadlockvictim

        Re: To be honest ...

        So true!

        When Bill Clinton was being impeached, I thought the exact same thing.

        To be honest the whole "trial" was a farce set up by "trial" set up by "republicans" that never accepted the results of the elections. The president was just doing what presidents always have done. It is a part of the presidential privilege and what they did was simply a partisan attack on the office.

      2. khjohansen

        Re: To be honest ...

        .. You need to read up on the details around Ukrainian prosecutor general Victor Shokin and his resignation.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: To be honest ...

        Why are spouting the completely debunked Biden bullshit? Are you trolling, or incredibly ignorant?

        1. jake Silver badge

          Re: To be honest ...

          Check the spelling. If they can spell, they are probably trolling (bob, for example). If their spall chucker don't do reel gud, they probably believe the bullshit they are parroting.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: To be honest ...

            How should we "view" the people "who" overuse "quotation" marks throught "their" posts?

            Are THEY as bad as the RANDOM caps-LOCKERS?

      4. veti Silver badge

        Re: To be honest ...

        If there is any evidence that Biden did the things you attribute to him, then Trump could have directed the Department of Justice to investigate him. He could have appointed anyone he liked to head that investigation. (I keep hearing that Rudy Giuliani is a great corruption prosecutor.) That's what he would do, if he were serious about investigating corruption.

        But Trump didn't do that. Instead, he called the president of a foreign country -, a country that was at that moment particularly vulnerable and dependent on US aid that had already been duly voted through by a bipartisan consensus in Congress - and made it clear that they wouldn't be getting this aid unless they made a public statement that appeared to incriminate the Bidens.

        (Whether or not there was any actual investigation, or whatever the outcome of that investigation may be, was completely immaterial to him. All he wanted was the announcement.)

  2. Beau
    Devil

    It's about time those Republican Senators, permitted King Trump, to issue simple commands like; off with their heads, or to the gallows with him.

    At least then everyone would know exactly what is happening in Washington, instead of all this constant nonsense!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Yes, but then they'd have to have another revolution...

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        At least Bezos could count on the French on his side and being anti-monarchy again.

        Probably along with the British these days, as long as it was more than 52% ;)

        1. IGotOut Silver badge

          Sorry it would take the 52% at least 3 years to even start to get involved...

        2. Mike 16 Silver badge

          Anti Monarchy?

          The most famous French participant in the U.S. War of independence, the Marquis de Layfayette, was a French Nobleman, and was apparently put up to it by Mad George's younger brother. _Much_ later (1830?) although he helped dispose of one (corrupt) french king, it was to install another (less corrupt) one (Louis Phillipe?), albeit as a constitutional Monarch. So it was not exactly full throated anti-monarchism that motivated him (and others).

        3. Aladdin Sane Silver badge

          It's time for Revolution 2: Electric Boogaloo.

          1. Citizens untied

            I love the idea of the confrontation escalating, and then one day, all of the prime delivery trucks transform into urban assault vehicles, deliver millions of prime "revolution boxes" to every porch that DIDN'T use Alexa...

      2. jake Silver badge

        Nah.

        "they'd have to have another revolution..."

        No need in that example ... SCotUS would never approve.

        Probably.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It must really rankle Il Douchie

    ... that Bezo has way more cash than him.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: It must really rankle Il Douchie

      Na, it's Bezos' success that really grates.

      And that he's not filed for bankruptcy. Four times.

      1. jake Silver badge

        Re: It must really rankle Il Douchie

        "And that he's not filed for bankruptcy. Four times."

        Not yet, anyway. He's young, there's still time.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: It must really rankle Il Douchie

          Good point.

          The Donald had his 1st bankruptcy by the age of 46 and Bezos is now 56.

          Loooooser!

          1. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

            Re: It must really rankle Il Douchie

            We have the best bankruptcies. The biggest bankruptcies. Let me tell you, the whole world is envious of our bankruptcies.

    2. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge

      Re: It must really rankle Il Douchie

      It's not just Bezos that's rattling him now - he's started on Bloomberg too given the polls.

      Time for some popcorn...

  4. <script>alert('the register');</script>

    Let's be real here. AWS is by far the best 'all in' Cloud provider in terms of features, Azure's File Storage doesn't even support custom domain HTTPS yet unless you proxy it.

    No matter what you think of Amazon, they had this boxed.

    I was firmly against Richard Branson sueing the NHS off the back of no evidence, but this is a different matter entirely.

    1. rajivdx

      Am I missing something here? Azure seems to support Custom domain HTTPS, even for file storage:

      https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/cdn/cdn-custom-ssl?tabs=option-1-default-enable-https-with-a-cdn-managed-certificate

      https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/cdn/cdn-storage-custom-domain-https

      Less fake news, more facts please.

      1. <script>alert('the register');</script>

        Look at the date of the post! Last month. I've been using Azure for 2 years

  5. cyke1

    Bezo's is mad that original contract which was tailored for AMAZON was shutdown when MS, google and oracle if i remember correctly complained about how it was designed that only amazon could meat the requirements.

    1. Inventor of the Marmite Laser Silver badge

      meat the requirements.

      Sausages!

      1. jake Silver badge

        Re: meat the requirements.

        Bacon, Shirley.

        1. Aladdin Sane Silver badge

          Re: meat the requirements.

          Spam, bacon, sausage and Spam

          #GNUTerryJones

  6. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge
    Joke

    Mrs Merton

    “So Mr President, what first attracted you to the billionaire Jeff Bezos?”

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Mrs Merton

      perhaps his walleyed stare?

  7. marcusbennett

    Go Jeff Go!

  8. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

    Rather than crying over spilt soured milk, get down to the nitty gritty of the feast.

    There is absolutely nothing to stop a Jeff Bezos championing a Private Shadow JEDI Program, which because it is not bound up in mountains of military pork red tape and secret executive third party requirements, easily leaves a perceived to be publicly funded competition behind and struggling in its wake.

    Well, absolutely nothing of course, apart from a lack of necessary intelligence.

  9. Jonjonz

    Bozo on Bozo Action

    So one Bozo is going to take another Bozo to court, to yield several hours of "I don't recall" type statements. Lawyer frenzy at 9.

  10. Pete 2 Silver badge

    Meaning what?

    > depose the President of the United States

    The English (original) meaning of depose is to overthrow.

    It seems to me that american lawyers should choose a better word for interviewing someone under oath.

    1. Rich 11 Silver badge

      Re: Meaning what?

      Just imagine how much fun the Faux News crowd will have with that one.

    2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: Meaning what?

      Oh, thanks for that. I was assuming the English primary meaning of the word too. Blloody yanks, taking our language and changing it! ;-)

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Who voted for Bezos as President?

    "President Trump has repeatedly demonstrated his willingness to use his position as President and Commander in Chief to interfere with government functions – including federal procurements – [bold] to advance his personal agenda [/bold]," a spokesperson for AWS said in a statement to The Register.

    So presumably anyone supporting Bezos is okay with allowing a private corporation to override the wishes of the electorate? Y'all do understand the difference between a Democracy and a Corporatocracy, yes? I bet you supported the UK Remaining in the EU too (for those who are a bit slow to understand how the concept is supposed to work, Democracy means whichever side gets the most votes, wins. It does not mean whichever side gets the most votes as long as it is the one YOU want, else we keep voting until you get your own way).

    1. Franco Silver badge

      Re: Who voted for Bezos as President?

      " Democracy means whichever side gets the most votes, wins."

      By that argument, your leader is Hillary Clinton who won the popular vote, despite what Trump says.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Who voted for Bezos as President?

        Franco, the media has shown time and again they cannot be trusted to report accurately on anything like this. If they were actually telling the truth then nearly everyone in the country must have voted for Hillary, or to remain in the EU, or for anyone else who the media support but who still managed to get beat.

        And then there's the people who say "the only reason anyone would vote for [insert winner here] is because they are a stupid, racist idiot" - which totally ignores the fact that we looked at the issue from both sides, judged one against the other and decided which we would rather support.

        If you want an example of the intelligence of the sort of person who voted Remain, look at how many of them still insist that the Treaty of Lisbon is a fiction created by the rabid, idiotic Leave supporters - which is funny because the Treaty of Lisbon, with the Treaties of Rome and Maastricht, is what is supposed to guide the European Union into the glorious Fourth Rei... oh sorry, set of non-national Administrative Regions with "One Citizenship, One Flag and One Leader" (allowing for some latitude in translation, obviously).

        And one final thing - even if she somehow managed to fool enough of the electorate and somehow get herself elected, Hillary will NEVER be my leader.

        1. Franco Silver badge

          Re: Who voted for Bezos as President?

          Good to see the Chewbacca defence is alive and well.

    2. khjohansen

      Re: Who voted for Bezos as President?

      ... you DO realise that Hillary got more votes than mr. Trump, right??

      An you're on pretty thin ice with the Corporatocracy as well, see "Citizens United v. FEC"

      1. Eric Kimminau TREG

        Hillary and the "majority vote"

        You do realize that Hillary and the Democratic party as a hole continuously receives more fraudulent ballots than any other party. Hillary received far more fraudulent ballots than any other candidate in history. Case in point, when Michigan was withheld from calling the state for Trump and they demanded a recount, that recount was almost immediately stopped after 16 districts in Detroit were discovered to have in many cases to have submitted a count of more than 3X the actual number of physical ballots received at those polling locations. In one location, 306 votes were reported with only 50 physical ballots.

        https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/07/election-issues/95121934/

        Hillary didn't win shit. You want to claim she did, the first thing to demand is a physical ballot recount. When the fraudulent tallies and illegal ballots by dead people are eliminated her "popular vote" win would be proven just as fake as the rest of her campaign.

        In addition, in the United states, there is another reason that popular vote is meaningless. Its called the electoral college and its purpose is to prevent a single city or a small number of cities controlled by one party from overturning the will of the majority of the country.

        There is a reson that the Democrats win in Democrat controlled districts and nowhere else. Thats where the crime is.

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/pbox.php?url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/files/2016/11/map-crime-election.jpg&w=1484&op=resize&opt=1&filter=antialias&t=20170517

  12. Crisp

    Corruption in the USA?

    Not surprising from the man that goes golfing every other day at his own golf courses while he lines his own pockets by charging the white house for his secret service guards entry.

    1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: Corruption in the USA?

      Has anyone calculated the difference between Trump and Obamas time spent of the golf course? IIRC, it was one of Trumps complaints that Obama played too much golf!

      1. Crisp

        Re: "Has anyone calculated the difference between Trump and Obamas time spent"

        Trump Golf Count

        Turns out there's a website for that.

        1. jake Silver badge

          Re: "Has anyone calculated the difference between Trump and Obamas time spent"

          The tl;dr and/or "I never follow links" version:

          114 games of golf played during this Presidency, at a cost to US taxpayers in excess of $125,000,000 ... and counting.

          "I'm going to be working for you. I'm not going to have time to go play golf." —-Donald J. Trump lies his ass off, as usual ... This time August 2nd, 2016 in Ashburn VA.

        2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

          Re: "Has anyone calculated the difference between Trump and Obamas time spent"

          "Turns out there's a website for that."

          Wow! Thanks for that!

  13. Mr F&*king Grumpy

    Merkin vs. Merkin

    Damn. I've run out of popcorn.

  14. Packet

    This does seem like sour grapes. Like almost everything else, biases play a part.

    Plus, MSFT products are used extensively in the govt - and their cloud offering would seem to offer better integration with their products.

    Now, as goes the current POTUS and views for/against him, it would help to keep in mind that the political climate in the US has become very polarized over the past so many years (even before his winning the presidency in 2016)

    So much so, that people voted for him to keep the other ones out - those they considered to be against their way of life, going just by the public statements made by such political figures.

    To echo the words of another president, "a house divided against itself, cannot stand."

    However, in this case, it's identity politics creating the divisions by catering to fringe / populism.

    Well, populism goes both ways...

    Those of you who do not live in the US cannot understand - you're like obstetricians (from the outside, looking in)

  15. Abdul-Alhazred

    If you are a political ally of the richest man in the world ...

    ... which side of the class struggle are you on?

    That is all. :)

    1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: If you are a political ally of the richest man in the world ...

      I thought the USA was proudly a classless society?

      </sarc>

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Pot calling Kettle?

    Fun to see all these anti-Trump comments coming from a country that just elected Johnson with a much larger majority than Trump achieved. In the UK 70% of the population voted for Boris ... oh wait a moment - it was only 43% that voted for Boris but that's British democracy for you - you only need about 30% of the population to support your rule over the entire country. And you think the US has problems?

    1. Rich 11 Silver badge

      Re: Pot calling Kettle?

      You seem to have overlooked the possibility that some people might think both systems are badly flawed.

    2. Franco Silver badge

      Re: Pot calling Kettle?

      No one ever said that the UK was free of issues, that's not the argument here and only a total fuckwit would try and defend his country by comparing it to the situation in another.

      By your logic we in the UK can justify our own situation by saying that France is gridlocked by Mouvement des Gilets jaunes protests so we're OK. That's an utterly false equivalence, or "twitter logic" if you prefer. The sort of thing Trump does when confronted about gun control, when he says it's not as bad as knife crime in London.

      1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
        Facepalm

        Re: Pot calling Kettle?

        Yeah, only an idiot would bring a gun to a knife fight. Wait...what?

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Pot calling Kettle?

      There are too many people who don't get off their arses and vote, then complain when things don't go their way.

      That might have been "only" 43% of the population, but it wasn't 100% of the population who voted. Getting nearly half of the votes in a place where there are often 4, 5, or more choices is a lot harder than it sounds. America has a choice of 2.

      To be fair, some of this is down to the way our glorious politicians promise one thing in their pre-election campaigns then do choose to do something completely different once elected. Which is not the same as, for example, Boris saying he would take us out of the EU but then getting blocked at every turn by the voter-hating political elitists infesting the Houses of Parliament (Go to SCOTLAND to overturn the voters' decision? Tell your constituents that it doesn't matter how they voted in the Referendum, you're going to keep them in the EU regardless? And then wonder why they turn around and kick you out of office at the next election. And you thought their votes didn't matter...)

      1. Version 1.0 Silver badge

        Re: Pot calling Kettle?

        There are too many people who don't get off their arses and vote, then complain when things don't go their way. - I agree, but it's politicians on both sides of the Atlantic that keep telling us that their victory is democracy in action and any opposition to them is antidemocratic. A 30% approval is politicians in action, not democracy.

  17. HammerOn1024

    Go away kid...

    Per the legendary W.C. Fields: Go away kid, you bother me.

  18. EnviableOne Silver badge
    Stop

    Back to the point in hand

    Oracle et all challenged the original award as they knew they could not provide the entire contract and the "legacy systems" being replaced were mostly theres

    their suit was frivolous.

    There are only 3 firms that might have been able to provide the entire contract: AWS, Azure and GCP

    GCP didnt really have the capability, Microsoft pulled out of the process first time around, that left AWS to win it.

    Trump then got involved, then all of a sudden MS were winning a contract they gave up on...

  19. TheMole

    Err... democracy ?

    Am I the only one here uncomfortable that the world's richest man is trying to depose a democratically elected president because the president denied him the chance to become even richer ? Or is Bezos saying that AWS is so superior to the alternatives that it trumps democracy itself ?

    The USA has a collegiate system and he won that, live with it, POTUS has a lot of executive power. Thats the point of having one. Elect a crap one and you have to accept the consequences for 4 years until you get to choose again. That's the downside to democracy but its a lot better than the alternatives.

    1. General Purpose

      Re: Err... democracy ?

      "Depose" is used here in its legal sense of taking testimony, usually from a witness that isn't being brought to court. It's a normal part of the American legal system, but it also allows for amusing headlines that (sadly or hilariously, depending on your point of view) confuse people who don't know about the American legal system, have never heard of a deposition and would rather lecture fellow readers on the nature of democracy than actually read the article.

    2. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

      Re: Erring Democracy ? A Old Sign of Absent Leadership in a Wayward Escapade

      And when the alternative is to replace democracy wholesale with something immediately available altogether better and infinitely smarter?

      Which all brings us back or propels us again forward into this possibility with the expertise to do it all clearly enough on show and showboating on El Reg ..... https://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/all/2020/02/10/amazon_trump_deposition/#c_3973027

      For now when all the necessary lacks of intelligence are easily provided to worthy novel intellectual property stakeholders.

      There is ample abundance of caution in supplying for all such necessary lacks of intelligence and information are almighty secrets that easily destroy all discovered unworthy of powers uncovered and levers revealed for an Almost Absolute Phorm of Real Command and Virtual Control with Earthed Assets Trading Freely and Openly in Pioneering AI Markets ..... a Wet Dream Come True for Investors in Venture Capitalists Adding Valuable Programs and Valued Projects ..... for just such as can easily be this Right Royal Gem of Mighty Munificent Vision/Intelligent See ..... https://vision2030.gov.sa/en

      I Kid U Not :-)

  20. Eric Kimminau TREG

    3 words

    Commander In Chief.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powers_of_the_president_of_the_United_States

    The Constitution explicitly assigns the president the power to sign or veto legislation, command the armed forces, ask for the written opinion of their Cabinet, convene or adjourn Congress, grant reprieves and pardons, and receive ambassadors. The president shall take care that the laws are faithfully executed and the president has the power to appoint and remove executive officers. The president may make treaties, which need to be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate, and is accorded those foreign-affairs functions not otherwise granted to Congress or shared with the Senate. Thus, the president can control the formation and communication of foreign policy and can direct the nation's diplomatic corps. The president may also appoint Article III judges and some officers with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate. In the condition of a Senate recess, the president may make a temporary appointment.

    and

    Executive powers

    Within the executive branch itself, the president has broad powers to manage national affairs and the priorities of the government. The president can issue rules, regulations, and instructions called executive orders, which have the binding force of law upon federal agencies but do not require approval of the United States Congress. Executive orders are subject to judicial review and interpretation.

    The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 put additional responsibilities on the presidency for the preparation of the United States federal budget, although Congress was required to approve it.[31] The act required the Office of Management and Budget to assist the president with the preparation of the budget. Previous presidents had the privilege of impounding funds as they saw fit, however the United States Supreme Court revoked the privilege in 1998 as a violation of the Presentment Clause. The power was available to all presidents and was regarded as a power inherent to the office. The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 was passed in response to large-scale power exercises by President Nixon. The act also created the Congressional Budget Office as a legislative counterpoint to the Office of Management and Budget.

    Mr. Jeff Bezos can pound sand. The President can tell you so directly or simply dismiss your request outright. He doesnt have to tell you anything.

    1. AndyMulhearn

      Re: 3 words

      How about two of the words you quoted - Judicial Review. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review which is a link from the page you reference.

      Judicial review is a process under which executive or legislative actions are subject to review by the judiciary. A court with authority for judicial review may invalidate laws, acts and governmental actions that are incompatible with a higher authority: an executive decision may be invalidated for being unlawful or a statute may be invalidated for violating the terms of a constitution. Judicial review is one of the checks and balances in the separation of powers: the power of the judiciary to supervise the legislative and executive branches when the latter exceed their authority. The doctrine varies between jurisdictions, so the procedure and scope of judicial review may differ between and within countries.

      Does that not suggest there are controls in place to prevent this kind of unilateral action?

  21. Cynic_999 Silver badge

    Power vs wealth

    Should be a good fight. But both sides could cheat. Instead of faffing about with a legal system designed for plebs, a person who controls state agencies may feel it's easier & quicker to cheat and arrange for his adversary to be charged with a terrorist or paedophile offence. When you are a billionaire, instead of hiring an army of very expensive lawyers you could cheat and hire one highly competant assasin.

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    We are lead by fuckwits

    See title

    1. Aladdin Sane Silver badge
      Headmaster

      Re: We are lead by fuckwits

      Your comment contains Alanis Morissette levels of irony.

  23. VulcanV5

    Ain't gonna happen. . .

    If Bozos via The Washington Post cannot do to Trump what the dear old WP managed to do to Nixon, then forget it. Bozos knows deposing the President is an absurd idea, and the sooner he backs off from it, the better. Investigative journalism still has the potential to wreak havoc on Trump and his reign, not least because he himself has but a limited comprehension of what Deep Throating can actually be.

  24. aqk
    Alien

    For further disturbing info on this Amazon Borg-

    Just watch PBS FRONTLINE next Tuesday. SCARY!

    Or watch it online- ( https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/ )

    That is, if you or your IP address lives in the USA.

    Your IP is not in the USA? Well, you know what to do, right?

  25. Colin Bain
    Devil

    Long game

    Trump played the long game. Democrats in disarray and harmless. The most dangerous was Biden. Called Zelensky, knowing it wasn't private, knew it would be public. He's an expert confuser that knows confusion works and has the Senate won. End result? Pleases base and ensures they will vote. Biden fights for 3rd place having been the front runner. Trump sure knows how to play the political game better than the politicians!

    Please note, applause for playing the game is not an endorsement of the player!

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