Incoming shareholder derivative action against board in 3, 2
Not sure everyone here thinks about Boeing ;)
Either way, I don't know how such a public action against Boeing would benefit anyone by any means.
...well, except SpaceX of course, who could then pick up more of the governmental Boeing contracts...
That's wrong and it's an absurd thing to assume.
westpfelia•2d ago
jo6gwb•2d ago
taylodl•2d ago
PKop•2d ago
rickdeckard•2d ago
The case details outline pretty well what happened [0], the company supported the investigations and plead guilty to the charges.
The letter from Sen. Tom Cotton [1] is reasonable ("In the interest of transparency and national security, I respectfully request a response to the following questions by August 15, 2025. (..)"),
the Judge/Jury/Executioner approach of the POTUS attacking the entire Intel company is not.
[0] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/cadence-design-systems-agrees...
[1] https://www.cotton.senate.gov/news/press-releases/cotton-to-...
PKop•2d ago
What are you talking about? He was CEO for 12 years coinciding with when this occurred. Of course the CEO is responsible for these types of decisions if simply that he didn't stop it.
"He didn't know this was happening" is kindergarten type excuse making. And in any case, if true is evidence of incompetence meaning he should not be permitted to lead a company so critical to US technology and national security concerns given his incompetence could allow that type of thing to happen again.rickdeckard•2d ago
Quite a strawman argument as no-one in this thread stated that. The case was closed, so it also doesn't make sense to speculate whether he was personally aware of this or not, e.g. the verdict also describes this:
Anyway, as said, the letter with questions to Intel is a reasonable reaction, the social media post of the president is not.> And in any case, if true is evidence of incompetence meaning he should not be permitted to lead a company so critical to US technology and national security concerns given his incompetence could allow that type of thing to happen again.
Accidentally proving my point. If this is such a company "critical to US technology and national security concerns", ESPECIALLY then the president shouldn't make such public statements without a prior due process.
tiahura•2d ago
Further, your assumption that the president isn't privy to additional details is a big one.
rickdeckard•1d ago
taylodl•2d ago
Now, what Donny Dictator is demanding is called double jeopardy - trying to punish someone again for a crime that’s already been adjudicated. The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution explicitly protects against that.
Lip-Bu Tan was not personally charged, and even if he had been, the legal system resolved the matter. If you believe in the rule of law, then you must accept its outcomes - even when they don’t align with your political preferences.
bobthebuilders•2d ago
taylodl•2d ago
America is supposed to be a nation of laws, not a nation of political purges. If we start punishing people based on vague suspicions or geopolitical anxieties rather than actual legal violations, we’re not defending democracy - we’re imitating the very authoritarian regimes we claim to oppose.
Intel’s CEO isn’t accused of espionage or sabotage. The Justice Department accepted a plea bargain. Case closed. If that’s not good enough for you, maybe your problem isn’t with Intel, it’s with the Constitution.
We don’t preserve our military and industrial advantage by abandoning due process. We preserve it by investing in strategic capabilities - like Intel’s foundry expansion - and by upholding the rule of law even when it’s inconvenient.
If you want to beat authoritarianism, don’t become it.
rijoja•21h ago