Considering the two relationships were in 2006, and the payoffs were done ten years later in 2016, just before the election, Trump will have an almost impossible task arguing that these payoffs weren't related to his candidacy in a federal election.
He won't have to. Instead he can argue:
- Cohen is a liar. Prove Cohen isn't lying. - Cohen was Trump's lawyer and he has a 6th Amendment right to attorney-client confidentiality. And any evidence discovered from privileged attorney-client communications is inadmissible. - There aren't 60 votes in the Senate to convict on impeachment - Campaign finance laws and the FEC process are so complicated that no one can ever be certain he obeyed them, and that makes them unconstitutional because they violate due process rights.
The argument goes that paying the hush money during the campaign was intended to further the goals of the campaign, and therefore is campaign related spending.
Thus, the laws are completely ridiculous. And it's only a matter of time before they are ruled unconstitutional because their ridiculousness violates due process and/or First Amendment rights.
Between now and then, we should all pretend they are very serious because they help to blue team and hurt the red team, and that's what matters for the next 6 months.
You should write the CEOs of these 3 companies a letter explaining what they are doing wrong and how things will be better if they do it your way. Maybe they will put you on the board of directors.
I'm seeing very self-serving comments from employers (without a commitment to adhere to a standard of behavior) and dismissive comments from applicants. Rudeness begets rudeness.
It's cool that you have more insight into what's best for those companies than all the people involved in making decisions there. It must be frustrating to be so smart and have all the answers regarding a subject where you have absolutely no direct involvement or experience.
We can't talk productively about problems because the people who decide what gets heard only care about their partisan agenda and about sending virtue signals to their tribe. They don't value fact or truth.
Between the 3 DRAM producers? Could be, but there are only 3 of them and they each make very good margins on massive, growing amounts of DRAM production. Why would one of them decide to raise production, cut margins, and flood the market with cheap DRAM? All they have to do is act rationally and be disciplined and the profits will continue to be huge for the foreseeable future.
When 3 guys are acting rationally, maybe they conspired. But more likely, they're just rational.
“Due to its relatively simple structure and high demand for higher capacity, NAND flash memory is the most aggressively scaled technology among electronic devices. The heavy competition among the top few manufacturers only adds to the aggressiveness in shrinking the design rule or process technology node.[34] While the expected shrink timeline is a factor of two every three years per original version of Moore's law, this has recently been accelerated in the case of NAND flash to a factor of two every two years."
Moore’s law is a different statement about different types of chips with different scaling factors.
The paragraph in this article is also several years old and applies to planar NAND, which isn't the majority of production any more. Modern NAND capacity increases much faster than Moore's Law because it is based on different mechanisms.
I disagree with TFA on that. The 3 DRAM makers have shown a very rational approach to increasing DRAM production — they try to prevent oversupply and keep margins up. They don’t have an incentive to change, and even if they did, the new generations of DRAMs are technologically very challenging to make, and DRAM bit density isn't growing very fast.
If NAND is in vast oversupply and it's reasonable to simply convert NAND production to DRAM, then why build new fabs? Answer: because the combination of those two things isn't true enough to make that decision economical.
Fabs mostly can't switch over to DRAM production. They aren’t technologically similar. And there are only 3 DRAM producers versus 6+ flash producers. Barriers to entry for competitive DRAM production for new producers are astronomically high.
It wasn't collusion. Moving production from planar to 3D NAND caused supplies to be limited as bit-demand was increasing. The transition to 3D NAND is set to be largely complete, but bit-demand isn't accelerating at current price points.
Supply will increase, prices will drop, bit-demand will go way up. Prices will stabilize. NAND storage for all at reasonable prices.
Margins at producers will fall, but not far enough for long enough for them to intentionally idle production.
Blue team people (including the news media) will repeat it if it's useful to advance blue team political goals. Red team people will disbelieve it and ridicule it if it's harmful to red team political goals. What really happened is not relevant to the response; this is America.
Slashdot Mirror
We have free speech. Paying money for speech or ideas or communication to voters during a campaign is free speech.
I'm confused
Everyone dealing with campaign finance laws is confused. Campaign finance laws are ridiculous. No candidate obeys them 100%.
The big questions would be did he encrypt the device itself, and did he use a strong passcode?
Most likely: the conversations were subpoenaed and Cohen responded to the subpoena rather than face Obstruction of Justice and other charges.
Considering the two relationships were in 2006, and the payoffs were done ten years later in 2016, just before the election, Trump will have an almost impossible task arguing that these payoffs weren't related to his candidacy in a federal election.
He won't have to. Instead he can argue:
- Cohen is a liar. Prove Cohen isn't lying.
- Cohen was Trump's lawyer and he has a 6th Amendment right to attorney-client confidentiality. And any evidence discovered from privileged attorney-client communications is inadmissible.
- There aren't 60 votes in the Senate to convict on impeachment
- Campaign finance laws and the FEC process are so complicated that no one can ever be certain he obeyed them, and that makes them unconstitutional because they violate due process rights.
and on from there.
The argument goes that paying the hush money during the campaign was intended to further the goals of the campaign, and therefore is campaign related spending.
Thus, the laws are completely ridiculous. And it's only a matter of time before they are ruled unconstitutional because their ridiculousness violates due process and/or First Amendment rights.
Between now and then, we should all pretend they are very serious because they help to blue team and hurt the red team, and that's what matters for the next 6 months.
You should write the CEOs of these 3 companies a letter explaining what they are doing wrong and how things will be better if they do it your way. Maybe they will put you on the board of directors.
I know if I decide to change jobs I won't be "last in, first out" at the new place.
he is making a major life choice based specifically on the people he has met.
He never met the people at the company he never applied to work at. Not having met them, he decided they would lay him off.
I'm seeing very self-serving comments from employers (without a commitment to adhere to a standard of behavior) and dismissive comments from applicants. Rudeness begets rudeness.
And when it does, the, "last in, first out" rule will kick in.
You should always make major life choices based on vague, fearful assumptions about the behavior of people you have never met.
Here are people trying to talk productively...
What's the product of all this productive talk?
It's cool that you have more insight into what's best for those companies than all the people involved in making decisions there. It must be frustrating to be so smart and have all the answers regarding a subject where you have absolutely no direct involvement or experience.
We can't fix a problem if we don't talk about it.
We can't talk productively about problems because the people who decide what gets heard only care about their partisan agenda and about sending virtue signals to their tribe. They don't value fact or truth.
Did you ever stop to think about what makes you entitled to benefit from other people’s labor? What did you do for them? What do you do for anyone?
Why should companies make excess DRAM as a favor to you?
Between the 3 DRAM producers? Could be, but there are only 3 of them and they each make very good margins on massive, growing amounts of DRAM production. Why would one of them decide to raise production, cut margins, and flood the market with cheap DRAM? All they have to do is act rationally and be disciplined and the profits will continue to be huge for the foreseeable future.
When 3 guys are acting rationally, maybe they conspired. But more likely, they're just rational.
Read the Wikipedia article you cited yourself:
“Due to its relatively simple structure and high demand for higher capacity, NAND flash memory is the most aggressively scaled technology among electronic devices. The heavy competition among the top few manufacturers only adds to the aggressiveness in shrinking the design rule or process technology node.[34] While the expected shrink timeline is a factor of two every three years per original version of Moore's law, this has recently been accelerated in the case of NAND flash to a factor of two every two years."
Moore’s law is a different statement about different types of chips with different scaling factors.
The paragraph in this article is also several years old and applies to planar NAND, which isn't the majority of production any more. Modern NAND capacity increases much faster than Moore's Law because it is based on different mechanisms.
Yes, rly.
No, Moore's Law doesn't apply to NAND storage.
I disagree with TFA on that. The 3 DRAM makers have shown a very rational approach to increasing DRAM production — they try to prevent oversupply and keep margins up. They don’t have an incentive to change, and even if they did, the new generations of DRAMs are technologically very challenging to make, and DRAM bit density isn't growing very fast.
SK Hynix just announced they are spending $3B on a new fab:
https://www.anandtech.com/show...
If NAND is in vast oversupply and it's reasonable to simply convert NAND production to DRAM, then why build new fabs? Answer: because the combination of those two things isn't true enough to make that decision economical.
Tell it to the market analysts. They aren't factoring in a huge demand increase at low prices.
Fabs mostly can't switch over to DRAM production. They aren’t technologically similar. And there are only 3 DRAM producers versus 6+ flash producers. Barriers to entry for competitive DRAM production for new producers are astronomically high.
Because of high bit-demand from data centers and smartphones.
It wasn't collusion. Moving production from planar to 3D NAND caused supplies to be limited as bit-demand was increasing. The transition to 3D NAND is set to be largely complete, but bit-demand isn't accelerating at current price points.
Supply will increase, prices will drop, bit-demand will go way up. Prices will stabilize. NAND storage for all at reasonable prices.
Margins at producers will fall, but not far enough for long enough for them to intentionally idle production.
Demand for flash storage will be very high if flash storage becomes very cheap. Equilibrium won't be at a very low price.
Blue team people (including the news media) will repeat it if it's useful to advance blue team political goals. Red team people will disbelieve it and ridicule it if it's harmful to red team political goals. What really happened is not relevant to the response; this is America.