Trump Let's Rival Boeing Listen in on Call With Lockheed Martin... Secretly.

[Lewdog]

If this is true, which it seems that Boeing's CEO confirms it, then Trump has either helped commit corporate espionage or he's committed a government ethics violation. Aren't all government deals done sealed? Isn't this a show of favoritism from Trump for Boeing's CEO by doing this? A government official isn't supposed to give one company an unfair advantage over another when doing government contracts.

"even if it means letting Boeing C.E.O.Dennis Muilenburg listen in on a call discussing the F-35, without announcing Muilenburg’s presence to the person on the other line:"

Trump Let a Rival C.E.O. Secretly Listen In on a Call About the F-35

...and before it starts, don't give me any bullshit about "well so and so did it!" This isn't about what other people did, this is about Trump, the man that ran his whole campaign on changing DC for the better and draining the swamp of people that do this kind of shit.

 

[TNHarley]

meh idk man. I do know sometimes we don't even do bids and just award contracts. I don't see much of a difference.
Plus, I doubt a lot of people will care. They hired him to run a business.
I am curious if it actually does break any laws. And actually break laws. Not "a hotel room is a gift" bullshit.

 

[NightFox]

If this is true, which it seems that Boeing's CEO confirms it, then Trump has either helped commit corporate espionage or he's committed a government ethics violation.

How do you figure he's guilty of either one of those things? Corporate espionage would require the covert theft of proprietary information and what government ethics policies or statutes would this violate?

Aren't all government deals done sealed? Isn't this a show of favoritism from Trump for Boeing's CEO by doing this? A government official isn't supposed to give one company an unfair advantage over another when doing government contracts.

"even if it means letting Boeing C.E.O.Dennis Muilenburg listen in on a call discussing the F-35, without announcing Muilenburg’s presence to the person on the other line:"

Trump Let a Rival C.E.O. Secretly Listen In on a Call About the F-35

...and before it starts, don't give me any bullshit about "well so and so did it!" This isn't about what other people did, this is about Trump, the man that ran his whole campaign on changing DC for the better and draining the swamp of people that do this kind of shit.

If true; it's a good thing for the tax payer, play competitors off one another is an excellent strategy for the buyer pursuant to getting the best deal. Personally I don't really care what he discloses to any particular competitor as long as he secures the best possible deal when spending MY money, it's long past time somebody in Washington starts doing it.

 

[Fenton Lum]

If this is true, which it seems that Boeing's CEO confirms it, then Trump has either helped commit corporate espionage or he's committed a government ethics violation.

How do you figure he's guilty of either one of those things? Corporate espionage would require the covert theft of proprietary information and what government ethics policies or statutes would this violate?

Aren't all government deals done sealed? Isn't this a show of favoritism from Trump for Boeing's CEO by doing this? A government official isn't supposed to give one company an unfair advantage over another when doing government contracts.

"even if it means letting Boeing C.E.O.Dennis Muilenburg listen in on a call discussing the F-35, without announcing Muilenburg’s presence to the person on the other line:"

Trump Let a Rival C.E.O. Secretly Listen In on a Call About the F-35

...and before it starts, don't give me any bullshit about "well so and so did it!" This isn't about what other people did, this is about Trump, the man that ran his whole campaign on changing DC for the better and draining the swamp of people that do this kind of shit.

If true; it's a good thing for the tax payer, play competitors off one another is an excellent strategy for the buyer pursuant to getting the best deal. Personally I don't really care what he discloses to any particular competitor as long as he secures the best possible deal when spending MY money, it's long past time somebody in Washington starts doing it.

The citizens of this society aren't even allowed to know how much we spend on the military/industrial or surveillance/industrial complexes.

 

[Lewdog]

If this is true, which it seems that Boeing's CEO confirms it, then Trump has either helped commit corporate espionage or he's committed a government ethics violation.

How do you figure he's guilty of either one of those things? Corporate espionage would require the covert theft of proprietary information and what government ethics policies or statutes would this violate?

Aren't all government deals done sealed? Isn't this a show of favoritism from Trump for Boeing's CEO by doing this? A government official isn't supposed to give one company an unfair advantage over another when doing government contracts.

"even if it means letting Boeing C.E.O.Dennis Muilenburg listen in on a call discussing the F-35, without announcing Muilenburg’s presence to the person on the other line:"

Trump Let a Rival C.E.O. Secretly Listen In on a Call About the F-35

...and before it starts, don't give me any bullshit about "well so and so did it!" This isn't about what other people did, this is about Trump, the man that ran his whole campaign on changing DC for the better and draining the swamp of people that do this kind of shit.

If true; it's a good thing for the tax payer, play competitors off one another is an excellent strategy for the buyer pursuant to getting the best deal. Personally I don't really care what he discloses to any particular competitor as long as he secures the best possible deal when spending MY money, it's long past time somebody in Washington starts doing it.

Corporate espionage because he was able to be privy to what Lockheed Martin's CEO thought was a private conversation when in actuality Boeing's CEO was listening in on the call.

No, it isn't good for the tax payer when you have government officials, especially the President, giving preferential treatment to one business over another. This would be a good reason to know Trump's tax returns... does he have stock in Boeing??? Is he going to let Lockheed Martin's CEO listen in on his conversations with Boeing's CEO without Boeing's CEO knowing it?

 

[NightFox]

If this is true, which it seems that Boeing's CEO confirms it, then Trump has either helped commit corporate espionage or he's committed a government ethics violation.

How do you figure he's guilty of either one of those things? Corporate espionage would require the covert theft of proprietary information and what government ethics policies or statutes would this violate?

Aren't all government deals done sealed? Isn't this a show of favoritism from Trump for Boeing's CEO by doing this? A government official isn't supposed to give one company an unfair advantage over another when doing government contracts.

"even if it means letting Boeing C.E.O.Dennis Muilenburg listen in on a call discussing the F-35, without announcing Muilenburg’s presence to the person on the other line:"

Trump Let a Rival C.E.O. Secretly Listen In on a Call About the F-35

...and before it starts, don't give me any bullshit about "well so and so did it!" This isn't about what other people did, this is about Trump, the man that ran his whole campaign on changing DC for the better and draining the swamp of people that do this kind of shit.

If true; it's a good thing for the tax payer, play competitors off one another is an excellent strategy for the buyer pursuant to getting the best deal. Personally I don't really care what he discloses to any particular competitor as long as he secures the best possible deal when spending MY money, it's long past time somebody in Washington starts doing it.

Corporate espionage because he was able to be privy to what Lockheed Martin's CEO thought was a private conversation when in actuality Boeing's CEO was listening in on the call.

Ummm...no, corporate espionage doesn't work that way, if a vendor discloses something to me absent an NDA I can tell anybody I want what the vendor disclosed and so can the President, it's up to the corporate representative to protect proprietary information when making disclosures in the absence of an NDA or other confidentiality agreement, what he did wasn't legally actionable and what the Lockheed Martin CEO "thought" is completely immaterial.

No, it isn't good for the tax payer when you have government officials, especially the President, giving preferential treatment to one business over another. This would be a good reason to know Trump's tax returns... does he have stock in Boeing???

You're making unsubstantiated allegations with respect to "preferential treatment" and stock ownership, there's nothing wrong with disclosing the details of a bid from vendor to another vendor pursuant to "they offered this, can you do better?", especially for bids where the details are already in the public domain. I would have done the exact same thing in this case since I want an expert on the line (in this case the Boeing CEO) to tell me whether or not the Lockheed CEO was full of shit or not.

Is he going to let Lockheed Martin's CEO listen in on his conversations with Boeing's CEO without Boeing's CEO knowing it?

I certainly hope so, since it'll help keep all of these companies on their toes and break all the no-bid/locked in bid nonsense that goes on in government now.

 

[Lewdog]

If this is true, which it seems that Boeing's CEO confirms it, then Trump has either helped commit corporate espionage or he's committed a government ethics violation.

How do you figure he's guilty of either one of those things? Corporate espionage would require the covert theft of proprietary information and what government ethics policies or statutes would this violate?

Aren't all government deals done sealed? Isn't this a show of favoritism from Trump for Boeing's CEO by doing this? A government official isn't supposed to give one company an unfair advantage over another when doing government contracts.

"even if it means letting Boeing C.E.O.Dennis Muilenburg listen in on a call discussing the F-35, without announcing Muilenburg’s presence to the person on the other line:"

Trump Let a Rival C.E.O. Secretly Listen In on a Call About the F-35

...and before it starts, don't give me any bullshit about "well so and so did it!" This isn't about what other people did, this is about Trump, the man that ran his whole campaign on changing DC for the better and draining the swamp of people that do this kind of shit.

If true; it's a good thing for the tax payer, play competitors off one another is an excellent strategy for the buyer pursuant to getting the best deal. Personally I don't really care what he discloses to any particular competitor as long as he secures the best possible deal when spending MY money, it's long past time somebody in Washington starts doing it.

Corporate espionage because he was able to be privy to what Lockheed Martin's CEO thought was a private conversation when in actuality Boeing's CEO was listening in on the call.

Ummm...no, corporate espionage doesn't work that way, if a vendor discloses something to me absent an NDA I can tell anybody I want what the vendor disclosed and so can the President, it's up to the corporate representative to protect proprietary information when making disclosures in the absence of an NDA or other confidentiality agreement, what he did wasn't legally actionable and what the Lockheed Martin CEO "thought" is completely immaterial.

No, it isn't good for the tax payer when you have government officials, especially the President, giving preferential treatment to one business over another. This would be a good reason to know Trump's tax returns... does he have stock in Boeing???

You're making unsubstantiated allegations with respect to "preferential treatment" and stock ownership, there's nothing wrong with disclosing the details of a bid from vendor to another vendor pursuant to "they offered this, can you do better?", especially for bids where the details are already in the public domain. I would have done the exact same thing in this case since I want an expert on the line (in this case the Boeing CEO) to tell me whether or not the Lockheed CEO was full of shit or not.

Is he going to let Lockheed Martin's CEO listen in on his conversations with Boeing's CEO without Boeing's CEO knowing it?

I certainly hope so, since it'll help keep all of these companies on their toes and break all the no-bid/locked in bid nonsense that goes on in government now.

WRONG. Not only is it unethical, but potentially illegal for the CEO of a company to knowingly secretly, listen into the private phone call of another CEO discussing business with a potential client. It's amazing to watch you try to defend Trump on this.

And I wouldn't have to make allegations of preferential treatment of a company if Trump had disclosed his tax returns like he said he would. This is EXACTLY the kind of problems that would be solved if he had done it. You Trumpbots say they aren't important, when in fact they are, for this VERY reason.

 

[NightFox]

If this is true, which it seems that Boeing's CEO confirms it, then Trump has either helped commit corporate espionage or he's committed a government ethics violation.

How do you figure he's guilty of either one of those things? Corporate espionage would require the covert theft of proprietary information and what government ethics policies or statutes would this violate?

Aren't all government deals done sealed? Isn't this a show of favoritism from Trump for Boeing's CEO by doing this? A government official isn't supposed to give one company an unfair advantage over another when doing government contracts.

"even if it means letting Boeing C.E.O.Dennis Muilenburg listen in on a call discussing the F-35, without announcing Muilenburg’s presence to the person on the other line:"

Trump Let a Rival C.E.O. Secretly Listen In on a Call About the F-35

...and before it starts, don't give me any bullshit about "well so and so did it!" This isn't about what other people did, this is about Trump, the man that ran his whole campaign on changing DC for the better and draining the swamp of people that do this kind of shit.

If true; it's a good thing for the tax payer, play competitors off one another is an excellent strategy for the buyer pursuant to getting the best deal. Personally I don't really care what he discloses to any particular competitor as long as he secures the best possible deal when spending MY money, it's long past time somebody in Washington starts doing it.

Corporate espionage because he was able to be privy to what Lockheed Martin's CEO thought was a private conversation when in actuality Boeing's CEO was listening in on the call.

Ummm...no, corporate espionage doesn't work that way, if a vendor discloses something to me absent an NDA I can tell anybody I want what the vendor disclosed and so can the President, it's up to the corporate representative to protect proprietary information when making disclosures in the absence of an NDA or other confidentiality agreement, what he did wasn't legally actionable and what the Lockheed Martin CEO "thought" is completely immaterial.

No, it isn't good for the tax payer when you have government officials, especially the President, giving preferential treatment to one business over another. This would be a good reason to know Trump's tax returns... does he have stock in Boeing???

You're making unsubstantiated allegations with respect to "preferential treatment" and stock ownership, there's nothing wrong with disclosing the details of a bid from vendor to another vendor pursuant to "they offered this, can you do better?", especially for bids where the details are already in the public domain. I would have done the exact same thing in this case since I want an expert on the line (in this case the Boeing CEO) to tell me whether or not the Lockheed CEO was full of shit or not.

Is he going to let Lockheed Martin's CEO listen in on his conversations with Boeing's CEO without Boeing's CEO knowing it?

I certainly hope so, since it'll help keep all of these companies on their toes and break all the no-bid/locked in bid nonsense that goes on in government now.

WRONG. Not only is it unethical, but potentially illegal for the CEO of a company to knowingly secretly, listen into the private phone call of another CEO discussing business with a potential client.

ROFLMAO! according to what , the Lilliputian Code of Justice? Since when did CEO's become a special protected class of citizens? In case you haven't figured it out yet this wasn't an illegal wiretap.

It's amazing to watch you try to defend Trump on this.

Yeah I know it's amazing for you, since unlike you I still have my reason and objectivity intact and thus I will defend his actions when based on the available evidence I believe them to be correct and I will criticize and mock him when based on the available evidence I think he's done the wrong thing. You hyper-partisan lemmings aren't capable of being objective, all you do is look at the headlines and base your praise or criticism on the letter behind the politicians name, evidence and reason play ZERO part in your decisions regarding right and wrong.

And I wouldn't have to make allegations of preferential treatment of a company if Trump had disclosed his tax returns like he said he would. This is EXACTLY the kind of problems that would be solved if he had done it.

Ummm yes you would since you just got through making allegations up out of thin air with absolutely ZERO evidence to support them.

You Trumpbots say they aren't important, when in fact they are, for this VERY reason.

LOL, what I'm a "Trumpbot" because I don't immediately criticize him for everything he does? I guess it'll come as a shock to you that I have been one of Trumps harshest critics on this board before and after the election, didn't vote for him and never supported his candidacy but that doesn't mean I won't give him credit when I think he's done something right.

 

[Dschrute3]

Democrat Fake News Bullshite. Movin on...

 

[Lewdog]

If this is true, which it seems that Boeing's CEO confirms it, then Trump has either helped commit corporate espionage or he's committed a government ethics violation.

How do you figure he's guilty of either one of those things? Corporate espionage would require the covert theft of proprietary information and what government ethics policies or statutes would this violate?

Aren't all government deals done sealed? Isn't this a show of favoritism from Trump for Boeing's CEO by doing this? A government official isn't supposed to give one company an unfair advantage over another when doing government contracts.

"even if it means letting Boeing C.E.O.Dennis Muilenburg listen in on a call discussing the F-35, without announcing Muilenburg’s presence to the person on the other line:"

Trump Let a Rival C.E.O. Secretly Listen In on a Call About the F-35

...and before it starts, don't give me any bullshit about "well so and so did it!" This isn't about what other people did, this is about Trump, the man that ran his whole campaign on changing DC for the better and draining the swamp of people that do this kind of shit.

If true; it's a good thing for the tax payer, play competitors off one another is an excellent strategy for the buyer pursuant to getting the best deal. Personally I don't really care what he discloses to any particular competitor as long as he secures the best possible deal when spending MY money, it's long past time somebody in Washington starts doing it.

Corporate espionage because he was able to be privy to what Lockheed Martin's CEO thought was a private conversation when in actuality Boeing's CEO was listening in on the call.

Ummm...no, corporate espionage doesn't work that way, if a vendor discloses something to me absent an NDA I can tell anybody I want what the vendor disclosed and so can the President, it's up to the corporate representative to protect proprietary information when making disclosures in the absence of an NDA or other confidentiality agreement, what he did wasn't legally actionable and what the Lockheed Martin CEO "thought" is completely immaterial.

No, it isn't good for the tax payer when you have government officials, especially the President, giving preferential treatment to one business over another. This would be a good reason to know Trump's tax returns... does he have stock in Boeing???

You're making unsubstantiated allegations with respect to "preferential treatment" and stock ownership, there's nothing wrong with disclosing the details of a bid from vendor to another vendor pursuant to "they offered this, can you do better?", especially for bids where the details are already in the public domain. I would have done the exact same thing in this case since I want an expert on the line (in this case the Boeing CEO) to tell me whether or not the Lockheed CEO was full of shit or not.

Is he going to let Lockheed Martin's CEO listen in on his conversations with Boeing's CEO without Boeing's CEO knowing it?

I certainly hope so, since it'll help keep all of these companies on their toes and break all the no-bid/locked in bid nonsense that goes on in government now.

WRONG. Not only is it unethical, but potentially illegal for the CEO of a company to knowingly secretly, listen into the private phone call of another CEO discussing business with a potential client.

ROFLMAO! according to what , the Lilliputian Code of Justice? Since when did CEO's become a special protected class of citizens? In case you haven't figured it out yet this wasn't an illegal wiretap.

It's amazing to watch you try to defend Trump on this.

Yeah I know it's amazing for you, since unlike you I still have my reason and objectivity intact and thus I will defend his actions when based on the available evidence I believe them to be correct and I will criticize and mock him when based on the available evidence I think he's done the wrong thing. You hyper-partisan lemmings aren't capable of being objective, all you do is look at the headlines and base your praise or criticism on the letter behind the politicians name, evidence and reason play ZERO part in your decisions regarding right and wrong.

And I wouldn't have to make allegations of preferential treatment of a company if Trump had disclosed his tax returns like he said he would. This is EXACTLY the kind of problems that would be solved if he had done it.

Ummm yes you would since you just got through making allegations up out of thin air with absolutely ZERO evidence to support them.

You Trumpbots say they aren't important, when in fact they are, for this VERY reason.

LOL, what I'm a "Trumpbot" because I don't immediately criticize him for everything he does? I guess it'll come as a shock to you that I have been one of Trumps harshest critics on this board before and after the election, didn't vote for him and never supported his candidacy but that doesn't mean I won't give him credit when I think he's done something right.

Yes, there are special protections for businesses and their leaders.

 

[NightFox]

How do you figure he's guilty of either one of those things? Corporate espionage would require the covert theft of proprietary information and what government ethics policies or statutes would this violate?

If true; it's a good thing for the tax payer, play competitors off one another is an excellent strategy for the buyer pursuant to getting the best deal. Personally I don't really care what he discloses to any particular competitor as long as he secures the best possible deal when spending MY money, it's long past time somebody in Washington starts doing it.

Corporate espionage because he was able to be privy to what Lockheed Martin's CEO thought was a private conversation when in actuality Boeing's CEO was listening in on the call.

Ummm...no, corporate espionage doesn't work that way, if a vendor discloses something to me absent an NDA I can tell anybody I want what the vendor disclosed and so can the President, it's up to the corporate representative to protect proprietary information when making disclosures in the absence of an NDA or other confidentiality agreement, what he did wasn't legally actionable and what the Lockheed Martin CEO "thought" is completely immaterial.

No, it isn't good for the tax payer when you have government officials, especially the President, giving preferential treatment to one business over another. This would be a good reason to know Trump's tax returns... does he have stock in Boeing???

You're making unsubstantiated allegations with respect to "preferential treatment" and stock ownership, there's nothing wrong with disclosing the details of a bid from vendor to another vendor pursuant to "they offered this, can you do better?", especially for bids where the details are already in the public domain. I would have done the exact same thing in this case since I want an expert on the line (in this case the Boeing CEO) to tell me whether or not the Lockheed CEO was full of shit or not.

Is he going to let Lockheed Martin's CEO listen in on his conversations with Boeing's CEO without Boeing's CEO knowing it?

I certainly hope so, since it'll help keep all of these companies on their toes and break all the no-bid/locked in bid nonsense that goes on in government now.

WRONG. Not only is it unethical, but potentially illegal for the CEO of a company to knowingly secretly, listen into the private phone call of another CEO discussing business with a potential client.

ROFLMAO! according to what , the Lilliputian Code of Justice? Since when did CEO's become a special protected class of citizens? In case you haven't figured it out yet this wasn't an illegal wiretap.

It's amazing to watch you try to defend Trump on this.

Yeah I know it's amazing for you, since unlike you I still have my reason and objectivity intact and thus I will defend his actions when based on the available evidence I believe them to be correct and I will criticize and mock him when based on the available evidence I think he's done the wrong thing. You hyper-partisan lemmings aren't capable of being objective, all you do is look at the headlines and base your praise or criticism on the letter behind the politicians name, evidence and reason play ZERO part in your decisions regarding right and wrong.

And I wouldn't have to make allegations of preferential treatment of a company if Trump had disclosed his tax returns like he said he would. This is EXACTLY the kind of problems that would be solved if he had done it.

Ummm yes you would since you just got through making allegations up out of thin air with absolutely ZERO evidence to support them.

You Trumpbots say they aren't important, when in fact they are, for this VERY reason.

LOL, what I'm a "Trumpbot" because I don't immediately criticize him for everything he does? I guess it'll come as a shock to you that I have been one of Trumps harshest critics on this board before and after the election, didn't vote for him and never supported his candidacy but that doesn't mean I won't give him credit when I think he's done something right.

Yes, there are special protections for businesses and their leaders.

Which statue(s) grant special protection in the case of a CEO covertly listening in on the phone call of another CEO with a "client" (potential or otherwise) with said "clients" knowledge and permission?

 

[Lewdog]

Corporate espionage because he was able to be privy to what Lockheed Martin's CEO thought was a private conversation when in actuality Boeing's CEO was listening in on the call.

Ummm...no, corporate espionage doesn't work that way, if a vendor discloses something to me absent an NDA I can tell anybody I want what the vendor disclosed and so can the President, it's up to the corporate representative to protect proprietary information when making disclosures in the absence of an NDA or other confidentiality agreement, what he did wasn't legally actionable and what the Lockheed Martin CEO "thought" is completely immaterial.

No, it isn't good for the tax payer when you have government officials, especially the President, giving preferential treatment to one business over another. This would be a good reason to know Trump's tax returns... does he have stock in Boeing???

You're making unsubstantiated allegations with respect to "preferential treatment" and stock ownership, there's nothing wrong with disclosing the details of a bid from vendor to another vendor pursuant to "they offered this, can you do better?", especially for bids where the details are already in the public domain. I would have done the exact same thing in this case since I want an expert on the line (in this case the Boeing CEO) to tell me whether or not the Lockheed CEO was full of shit or not.

Is he going to let Lockheed Martin's CEO listen in on his conversations with Boeing's CEO without Boeing's CEO knowing it?

I certainly hope so, since it'll help keep all of these companies on their toes and break all the no-bid/locked in bid nonsense that goes on in government now.

WRONG. Not only is it unethical, but potentially illegal for the CEO of a company to knowingly secretly, listen into the private phone call of another CEO discussing business with a potential client.

ROFLMAO! according to what , the Lilliputian Code of Justice? Since when did CEO's become a special protected class of citizens? In case you haven't figured it out yet this wasn't an illegal wiretap.

It's amazing to watch you try to defend Trump on this.

Yeah I know it's amazing for you, since unlike you I still have my reason and objectivity intact and thus I will defend his actions when based on the available evidence I believe them to be correct and I will criticize and mock him when based on the available evidence I think he's done the wrong thing. You hyper-partisan lemmings aren't capable of being objective, all you do is look at the headlines and base your praise or criticism on the letter behind the politicians name, evidence and reason play ZERO part in your decisions regarding right and wrong.

And I wouldn't have to make allegations of preferential treatment of a company if Trump had disclosed his tax returns like he said he would. This is EXACTLY the kind of problems that would be solved if he had done it.

Ummm yes you would since you just got through making allegations up out of thin air with absolutely ZERO evidence to support them.

You Trumpbots say they aren't important, when in fact they are, for this VERY reason.

LOL, what I'm a "Trumpbot" because I don't immediately criticize him for everything he does? I guess it'll come as a shock to you that I have been one of Trumps harshest critics on this board before and after the election, didn't vote for him and never supported his candidacy but that doesn't mean I won't give him credit when I think he's done something right.

Yes, there are special protections for businesses and their leaders.

Which statue(s) grant special protection in the case of a CEO covertly listening in on the phone call of another CEO with a "client" (potential or otherwise) with said "clients" knowledge and permission?

Let me ask you a simple question to ask yourself to answer your own question... if it wasn't unethical or potentially illegal, then why did Trump NOT mention that he was present and listening to the phone call?

 

[Iceweasel]

LOL @ the libtard.

"He appeared caught off-guard but was able to listen in on the call, according to two people familiar with the calls, who asked to remain anonymous discussing sensitive information."

 

[NightFox]

Ummm...no, corporate espionage doesn't work that way, if a vendor discloses something to me absent an NDA I can tell anybody I want what the vendor disclosed and so can the President, it's up to the corporate representative to protect proprietary information when making disclosures in the absence of an NDA or other confidentiality agreement, what he did wasn't legally actionable and what the Lockheed Martin CEO "thought" is completely immaterial.

You're making unsubstantiated allegations with respect to "preferential treatment" and stock ownership, there's nothing wrong with disclosing the details of a bid from vendor to another vendor pursuant to "they offered this, can you do better?", especially for bids where the details are already in the public domain. I would have done the exact same thing in this case since I want an expert on the line (in this case the Boeing CEO) to tell me whether or not the Lockheed CEO was full of shit or not.

I certainly hope so, since it'll help keep all of these companies on their toes and break all the no-bid/locked in bid nonsense that goes on in government now.

WRONG. Not only is it unethical, but potentially illegal for the CEO of a company to knowingly secretly, listen into the private phone call of another CEO discussing business with a potential client.

ROFLMAO! according to what , the Lilliputian Code of Justice? Since when did CEO's become a special protected class of citizens? In case you haven't figured it out yet this wasn't an illegal wiretap.

It's amazing to watch you try to defend Trump on this.

Yeah I know it's amazing for you, since unlike you I still have my reason and objectivity intact and thus I will defend his actions when based on the available evidence I believe them to be correct and I will criticize and mock him when based on the available evidence I think he's done the wrong thing. You hyper-partisan lemmings aren't capable of being objective, all you do is look at the headlines and base your praise or criticism on the letter behind the politicians name, evidence and reason play ZERO part in your decisions regarding right and wrong.

And I wouldn't have to make allegations of preferential treatment of a company if Trump had disclosed his tax returns like he said he would. This is EXACTLY the kind of problems that would be solved if he had done it.

Ummm yes you would since you just got through making allegations up out of thin air with absolutely ZERO evidence to support them.

You Trumpbots say they aren't important, when in fact they are, for this VERY reason.

LOL, what I'm a "Trumpbot" because I don't immediately criticize him for everything he does? I guess it'll come as a shock to you that I have been one of Trumps harshest critics on this board before and after the election, didn't vote for him and never supported his candidacy but that doesn't mean I won't give him credit when I think he's done something right.

Yes, there are special protections for businesses and their leaders.

Which statue(s) grant special protection in the case of a CEO covertly listening in on the phone call of another CEO with a "client" (potential or otherwise) with said "clients" knowledge and permission?

Let me ask you a simple question to ask yourself to answer your own question...

I asked YOU to back up your assertion by citing the statutes detailing the "special protections for CEO's" with respect to this situation that you claim to exist. STILL WAITING ...... .

if it wasn't unethical or potentially illegal, then why did Trump NOT mention that he was present and listening to the phone call?

Probably because that would defeat the entire purpose of having the Boeing CEO on the line, I've already pointed out to you why a customer would do this in the first place, go back and read it again.

 

[Lewdog]

WRONG. Not only is it unethical, but potentially illegal for the CEO of a company to knowingly secretly, listen into the private phone call of another CEO discussing business with a potential client.

ROFLMAO! according to what , the Lilliputian Code of Justice? Since when did CEO's become a special protected class of citizens? In case you haven't figured it out yet this wasn't an illegal wiretap.

It's amazing to watch you try to defend Trump on this.

Yeah I know it's amazing for you, since unlike you I still have my reason and objectivity intact and thus I will defend his actions when based on the available evidence I believe them to be correct and I will criticize and mock him when based on the available evidence I think he's done the wrong thing. You hyper-partisan lemmings aren't capable of being objective, all you do is look at the headlines and base your praise or criticism on the letter behind the politicians name, evidence and reason play ZERO part in your decisions regarding right and wrong.

And I wouldn't have to make allegations of preferential treatment of a company if Trump had disclosed his tax returns like he said he would. This is EXACTLY the kind of problems that would be solved if he had done it.

Ummm yes you would since you just got through making allegations up out of thin air with absolutely ZERO evidence to support them.

You Trumpbots say they aren't important, when in fact they are, for this VERY reason.

LOL, what I'm a "Trumpbot" because I don't immediately criticize him for everything he does? I guess it'll come as a shock to you that I have been one of Trumps harshest critics on this board before and after the election, didn't vote for him and never supported his candidacy but that doesn't mean I won't give him credit when I think he's done something right.

Yes, there are special protections for businesses and their leaders.

Which statue(s) grant special protection in the case of a CEO covertly listening in on the phone call of another CEO with a "client" (potential or otherwise) with said "clients" knowledge and permission?

Let me ask you a simple question to ask yourself to answer your own question...

I asked YOU to back up your assertion by citing the statutes detailing the "special protections for CEO's" with respect to this situation that you claim to exist. STILL WAITING ...... .

if it wasn't unethical or potentially illegal, then why did Trump NOT mention that he was present and listening to the phone call?

Probably because that would defeat the entire purpose of having the Boeing CEO on the line, I've already pointed out to you why a customer would do this in the first place, go back and read it again.

...and a wise person once told me, if you have to stop and think whether something is wrong or right, then you already know, it's wrong.

 

[Lewdog]

LOL @ the libtard.

"He appeared caught off-guard but was able to listen in on the call, according to two people familiar with the calls, who asked to remain anonymous discussing sensitive information."

LOL @ the libtard.

"He appeared caught off-guard but was able to listen in on the call, according to two people familiar with the calls, who asked to remain anonymous discussing sensitive information."

Go away and quit trolling. If you don't have anything to say about the thread, then go away. This is a zone 2 thread. Quit stalking me, seriously. I'm no longer joking.

 

[HenryBHough]

I tried to read the OP but my Fake News Filter wiped it out after the first few words.

Small loss.....

 

[Iceweasel]

LOL @ the libtard.

"He appeared caught off-guard but was able to listen in on the call, according to two people familiar with the calls, who asked to remain anonymous discussing sensitive information."

LOL @ the libtard.

"He appeared caught off-guard but was able to listen in on the call, according to two people familiar with the calls, who asked to remain anonymous discussing sensitive information."

Go away and quit trolling. If you don't have anything to say about the thread, then go away. This is a zone 2 thread. Quit stalking me, seriously. I'm no longer joking.

Oh fuck off. I just pointed out the fact that you are relying on a he said he said "report" from an anonymous source. Come back when you stumble across a fact.

 

[Iceweasel]

I tried to read the OP but my Fake News Filter wiped it out after the first few words.

Small loss.....

It was a Vanity Fair hit piece based on a Bloomberg drive by. Good enough for Lewdog!

 

[Lewdog]

LOL @ the libtard.

"He appeared caught off-guard but was able to listen in on the call, according to two people familiar with the calls, who asked to remain anonymous discussing sensitive information."

LOL @ the libtard.

"He appeared caught off-guard but was able to listen in on the call, according to two people familiar with the calls, who asked to remain anonymous discussing sensitive information."

Go away and quit trolling. If you don't have anything to say about the thread, then go away. This is a zone 2 thread. Quit stalking me, seriously. I'm no longer joking.

Oh fuck off. I just pointed out the fact that you are relying on a he said he said "report" from an anonymous source. Come back when you stumble across a fact.

You follow me around thread to thread trolling. You even felt the need to post in my thread about container homes, just to troll.

And there is no he said he said shit. The CEO literally said it in a three page memo.