Breaking & World News! III NO DISCUSSION!!


AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
I just saw this spin on CNN where they're upset that the two Michaels are only out on bail. They're mincing words because Meng can still be charged if she violates the conditions of her release which one is she can't talk to the media. Then CNN spun that China is going to treat her worse than Canada. How? Because of China's harsh COVID-19 quarantine rules upon entering China.
 

Petrolicious88

Junior Member
Registered Member
1. The Canadians could have presented this to the US, not China, telling the US that as an ally, Canada is letting it know that this is a fight it needs to find an escape for before it loses. China might not have heard anything except the US making the offer.

2. Even if Meng's lawyers were confident in a victory, they might still take 5-10 years with Meng under house arrest in the mean time.
This deal must have been under negotiation between all 3 countries for some time. In litigation, you don’t negotiate if you have a sure chance of winning the case. Winners don’t negotiate.

If that’s the case then China should have sensed that the extradition might fail when approached by the US. It could have then let it play out, win the case and have a huge PR victory.

None of that happened, which means China had little Intel on what was going to happen. And all sides decided to negotiate and settle the matter in a mutually beneficial manner
 

Overbom

Junior Member
Registered Member
This deal must have been under negotiation between all 3 countries for some time. In litigation, you don’t negotiate if you have a sure chance of winning the case. Winners don’t negotiate.

If that’s the case then China should have sensed that the extradition might fail when approached by the US. It could have then let it play out, win the case and have a huge PR victory.

None of that happened, which means China had little Intel on what was going to happen. And all sides decided to negotiate and settle the matter in a mutually beneficial manner
Its hilarious seeing people talk about "litigation", "extradition trial" etc. Its like they think that this is a normal case.

In important cases like these, trials dont matter. What matters is who has the biggest fist.

Imagine trying to lawyer your way out of, for example, bombs and missiles
 

plawolf

Brigadier
This deal must have been under negotiation between all 3 countries for some time. In litigation, you don’t negotiate if you have a sure chance of winning the case. Winners don’t negotiate.

If that’s the case then China should have sensed that the extradition might fail when approached by the US. It could have then let it play out, win the case and have a huge PR victory.

None of that happened, which means China had little Intel on what was going to happen. And all sides decided to negotiate and settle the matter in a mutually beneficial manner

The innocent negotiate all the time in western courts because in western courts, it’s plain pay to win.

Trump’s private business is built largely on that principle, where he would drag things out for so long in court that he wins by default when the other party runs out of money and cannot continue.

The US government takes that to a whole new level where it’s basically legalised extortion now. They go after big foreign companies with trumped up charges all the time and their victims settle because to fight the charges would be more damaging in terms of legal costs and reputational damage.

In this case the Canadians would have dragged things out for as long as the Americans wanted and it could literally be decades before it was all settled in western courts.

But the deal cut was basically as overwhelming a win as China could have hoped for, where the Americans essentially admitted they had fuck all evidence and got nothing in return.

I would not be surprised if this whole saga has made Chinese nationals essentially bulletproof to American extradition requests. Because you have to be a idiot to process such requests now after seeing how much damage Canada took for American political games which ultimately amounted to nothing.
 

solarz

Brigadier
This deal must have been under negotiation between all 3 countries for some time. In litigation, you don’t negotiate if you have a sure chance of winning the case. Winners don’t negotiate.

If that’s the case then China should have sensed that the extradition might fail when approached by the US. It could have then let it play out, win the case and have a huge PR victory.

None of that happened, which means China had little Intel on what was going to happen. And all sides decided to negotiate and settle the matter in a mutually beneficial manner

You're assuming this case would have played out like a normal litigation when it was clearly political.

When the Canadian judge refused to allow Meng's lawyers to present the evidence of those missing slides proving Meng did not mislead HSBC in her presentation, I knew she was not going to get a fair trial.

So I was quite surprised when the US offered to drop the charges, but it makes sense when you look at this whole thing as a hostage exchange.
 

Petrolicious88

Junior Member
Registered Member
In important cases like these, trials dont matter. What matters is who has the biggest fist
Who had “the bigger fist” in this case? Yet both sides decided to negotiate.

Youn don’t negotiate when you know you’re going to win, or in your words, have the bigger fist.
 

hashtagpls

Senior Member
Registered Member
Who had “the bigger fist” in this case? Yet both sides decided to negotiate.

Youn don’t negotiate when you know you’re going to win, or in your words, have the bigger fist.
Spoken like someone who’s never negotiated a business deal or any major large transaction; politics is about the art of the possible not “negotiating for the sake of negotiating” like indulging a loquacious Jai Hind in customer tech support
 

Top