[rickdeckard]

There is no evidence the CEO was personally responsible, there was a case for that export violation of Cadence Design Systems and the case was closed.

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]

> There is no evidence the CEO was personally responsible

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.

    from February 2015 to April 2021, Cadence and its indirectly owned and wholly controlled subsidiary in the PRC, Cadence Design Systems Management (Shanghai) Co. Ltd. (Cadence China), engaged in a conspiracy to commit export control violations in connection with the provision of EDA tools that were subject to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to NUDT through Central South CAD Center (CSCC), an alias for NUDT, and another associated entity, Phytium Technology Co. Ltd. (Phytium), without seeking or obtaining the requisite licenses from BIS. Specifically, Cadence, Cadence China, and their employees exported, reexported, and transferred in-country U.S.-origin EDA tools to CSCC in the PRC, despite having knowledge that CSCC was an alias for NUDT. As a result, Cadence and Cadence China exported and caused to be exported EDA tools at least 59 times through September 2020


    In court documents, Cadence admitted that Cadence China employees installed EDA hardware on NUDT’s Changsha, China, campus and that NUDT personnel downloaded EDA software and IP technology from Cadence’s download portals while Cadence and Cadence China, through its employees, had knowledge that NUDT had been added to the Entity List. On Feb. 18, 2015, the same day that NUDT was added to the Entity List, Cadence’s export control officer emailed Cadence and Cadence China employees that NUDT had been added to the Entity List “meaning that export licenses will be required if sales are made.” Further, in March 2016, a Cadence China employee authored a presentation for a quarterly sales review meeting with her colleagues stating (as translated from Chinese) that as of Feb. 18, 2015, the U.S. Department of Commerce had “embargoed” four national supercomputer centers in the PRC, including NUDT, due to U.S. microprocessor chips being used in the “TianHe” supercomputing systems believed to be used for nuclear explosion simulation. Cadence also admitted that its employees who conducted work at CSCC’s location on NUDT’s campus knew about connections between CSCC and the PRC military.

"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]

> "He didn't know this was happening" is kindergarten type excuse making.

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:

   According to Cadence’s admissions and court documents, employees of Cadence China did not disclose to and/or concealed from other Cadence personnel, including Cadence’s export compliance personnel, that exports to CSCC were in fact intended for delivery to NUDT and/or the PRC military.

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]

You dismiss the criticism of the "he didn't know" defense, and then proceed to try to prove he didn't know. Lack of institutional control is not a defense for apex personnel.

Further, your assumption that the president isn't privy to additional details is a big one.

[rickdeckard]

I'm not dismissing it, I'm literally stating that it "doesn't make sense to speculate whether he was personally aware of this or not", citing that same document you cited which points in the opposite direction as quotes you shared.