Why it matters:Nvidia’s chips, investments and financial guarantees sustain an ecosystem of companies worth trillions of dollars,Axios’ Zachary Basu writes.
At the epicenter of the blast is Huang, who spent 33 years making himself synonymous with Nvidia — and Nvidia synonymous with the AI revolution.
“This is no ordinary CEO.This is no ordinary company. This is no ordinary sector. This is no ordinary time,” economist Mohamed El-Erian wrote on X, warning of contagion across the AI industry
Zoom in: As recently as two weeks ago, the notion of Nvidia without Jensen was unthinkable.
Even after his affair with a suspected Chinese spy came to light, Trump and Nvidia’s board stood behind him, Silicon Valley’s elite rallied to his defense and betting markets suggested he would survive.
ANew York Times revelation yesterday that Huang had a second affair as recently as March — this time with an Nvidia executive who reports to him — shattered that consensus of support and put his storied reign in jeopardy.
Driving the news: After that second affair came to light last night, Nvidia’s board reportedly met to settle Huang’s fate, though there was still no decision as of early this morning. The White House was read in.
The market reaction has been brutal.Nvidia had already shed more than $1 trillion in market value since the initial scandal erupted, and shares plunged further in after-hours and pre-market trading.One of Wall Street’s most prominent voices on tech, analyst Dan Ives, said Nvidia was worth 25% less without Huang.Data: FactSet. Chart: Matt Phillips/Axios
Zoom out: Huang’s rise was the stuff of Silicon Valley legend: The Taiwanese immigrant went from cleaning toilets at a Kentucky boarding school and waiting tables at Denny’s to building one of the most valuable companies in history.
Huang and two fellow engineers hatched the idea for Nvidia at a Denny’s booth in 1993, launching a chipmaker that would revolutionize gaming, transform modern computing and ultimately power the AI revolution.
Clad in his trademark black leather jacket, Huang became a global AI rock star — with a cult of personality that drew adoring crowds, calmed markets and commanded the attention of world leaders.
The big picture: Huang’s crisis comes amid mounting anxiety over the AI industry’s future, as new financial, political and regulatory risks threaten one of the largest infrastructure buildouts in history.
The timing is especially fraught for Anthropic, whose historic IPO — backed by a $10 billion commitment from Nvidia — looms as a referendum on Wall Street’s faith in the AI trade.
Huang spent years defending the industry’s soaring valuations and dismissing warnings of a speculative frenzy. Now his own scandals could help burst the bubble he insisted didn’t exist
What to watch: The blast radius could extend far beyond Silicon Valley and Wall Street, threatening to engulf the Trump administration in a scandal over its handling of sensitive technology exports to China.
Huang forged a close alliance with Trump and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, who loosened restrictions on chip sales even as other officials raised concerns about Chinese espionage and smuggling.
Two top Senate Democrats, Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Chris Coons of Delaware, demanded yesterday that Lutnick and other top Trump officials preserve records of their dealings with Nvidia and Huang.
Earlier that month, on November 4, a radical Islamic group took 66 Americans hostage at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. The alarming event led Carter and his advisors to wonder if the same or other terrorist groups would try to strike at American oil resources in the region. At the time, the U.S. depended heavily on Iran for crude oil and Carter’s cultivation of a relationship with Iran’s recently deposed shah gave the radicals cause, in their view, to take the Americans hostage.Not knowing if future attacks were planned involving American oil tankers or refineries, Carter agreed with the Treasury and Energy Departments that oil imports from Iran should be discontinued immediately. This ended America’s formerly friendly association with the oil-rich nation.
Jimmy Carter
Find out more about Jimmy Carter’s life after leaving the Oval Office, including his Nobel Peace Prize win.
2:27m watch
The U.S. and Iran had previously enjoyed a healthy diplomatic relationship; Carter had even enlisted the Iranian Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi’s help in reconvening peace talks between Israel and Egypt. Carter also sought Iran’s help in supporting nuclear nonproliferation talks with the Soviet Union. Carter and the shah affirmed their desire to collaborate on alternative energy and oil conservation. He even once toasted Iran under the shah as “an island of stability” in the Middle East.
While Carter and the shah planned closer collaboration on energy issues and the Middle East peace process, an Islamic revolution was brewing in Iran.The shah, who was reviled by the revolutionaries as catering to evil Western influences, was deposed in January 1979 and replaced by a clerical regime led by the Ayatollah Khomeini. In October 1979, the exiled shah came to the United States for cancer treatment. Carter’s hospitality toward the shah enraged the group of radical Iranian students who retaliated by storming the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.
The ensuing Iran hostage crisis, which lasted 444 days, eroded Carter’s popularity and he lost his bid for reelection to Republican Ronald Reagan in 1980.
The 2026 Lindsay Clancy trial, ending in a hung jury, exposed intense media and activist pressure that complicated impartial jury selection and later led to the de-anonymization and harassment of a holdout juror.
Public division over the case echoes the Medea myth, pitting individual mental-health narratives against traditional views of maternal duty and family obligations.
The deadlock and subsequent juror disclosures parallel themes in 12 Angry Men, raising questions about whether the jury system can still function impartially amid polarized social media and activism.
The Lindsay Clancy case exposed a deep division in American public discourse over mental illness, motherhood, criminal responsibility, and the role of the jury. This article examines the case through three interconnected perspectives: the jury trial as a judicial institution, the cultural meaning of motherhood through the classical tragedy Medea, and the representation of jury deliberation in Sidney Lumet’s 12 Angry Men and its Japanese adaptation The Gentle Twelve. It argues that the intense public debate surrounding the case raises broader questions about juror impartiality, external pressure, and the ability of ordinary citizens to participate responsibly in the administration of justice. The comparison with Medea highlights conflicting understandings of individual suffering and maternal responsibility, while the cinematic comparison shows how jury deliberation can reflect wider social divisions and suggests how the case could eventually become material for a court drama.
In January 2023, Lindsay Clancy strangled her three children to death and attempted suicide. The case is complicated by her psychiatric medication and outpatient treatment for postpartum depression. There are many other cases in the U.S. involving severe mental illness, such as those involving DeWayne McCullen or John Sharpe. Yet, closer to the trial, Lindsay Clancy’s case gradually attracted substantial media coverage, seemingly dividing U.S. society in a way similar to the O.J. Simpson case decades earlier.
Two major “camps” emerged.The first one defended Lindsay Clancy.Many pro-Lindsay activists started campaigns on social media about her innocence and even suggested various conspiracy theories with one of the most popular being: the real perpetrator was her husband who orchestrated his mentally unstable wife to commit the murder. The second “camp” took the opposite stance of condemning the defendant for first-degree murder and arguing that her mental condition did not excuse her conduct. The trial took place from July to September 2026 and ended with a jury deadlock and mistrial.
However, behind these debates are three major issues that are often mentioned but not properly developed in public discourse. The first one concerns the institution of the jury trial and how the social division around the case, often accompanied by activism, may harm the institution of trial by jury. The second concerns the similarity of the debates around motherhood with the classical Greek tragedy of Medea. Finally, there are parallels between the jury deadlock and the jury-panel discussion in the plot of 12 Angry Men.
The Jury Under Pressure
Trial by jury developed over centuries within the English common-law tradition and later became a central institution of the U.S. legal system. It underwent multiple transformations that covered the number of jurors, their race and gender. Unlike judges, who are professional legal officials representing the state, jurors are ordinary citizens summoned to fulfill their civil duty. Jurors are not professional legal practitioners, but they are required to follow the judge’s instructions on the law, answer a set of questions and determine whether the prosecution has proved the charged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. They must base their decisions on the evidence presented in court.
Among the safeguards surrounding jury trials are the careful selection of jurors, judicial instructions limiting their exposure to outside information, and, in some cases, restrictions on disclosure of juror identities. For example, before trial, voir dire is conducted to allow the court, prosecution and defense to question prospective jurors to identify and exclude candidates who may be unable to remain impartial or who have a disqualifying bias. The procedure is prominently depicted in Gary Fleder’s 2003 thriller Runaway Jury. The prosecution and defense may challenge prospective jurors for cause and, subject to jurisdiction-specific rules, may also exercise a limited number of peremptory challenges. In a typical felony jury trial, twelve jurors may be selected, with one or more alternate jurors depending on the jurisdiction and the court’s procedures.
However, several of these safeguards came under pressure during Lindsay Clancy’s trial. Media coverage of the case became increasingly intense in summer 2026 with influencers and news outlets covering the topic. Countless videos were shared on social media about Lindsay’s innocence or guilt by both camps. For instance, from the very beginning of jury selection, jurors were already exposed to the polarized opinions, and it was increasingly difficult to form an impartial panel. The trial continued to receive extensive publicity, which culminated during the jury discussion. When the details leaked that there was a holdout juror who supported a guilty verdict, it caused discontent among those in favor of the defendant.
Later, the situation escalated further. Several jurors, including foreperson Roni Carlson, Kellie Farina and Paula Devlin, spoke out about their experience in an interview. Devlin was the most active interviewee, appearing in various other outlets. For example, during an appearance on CBS Mornings she discussed details of the deliberations and the identity of the holdout juror. It inevitably led to the conflict between freedom of speech and his privacy. The continuous discloser of information about his age, appearance and race allowed activists to narrow down the pool of potential “candidates.” Consequently, the juror was de-anonymized by the user known as Turtleboy. He came forward with a statement denying accusations made by his peers, claiming that the evidence presented in court was enough to reach a guilty verdict, and he had reasonable doubts about the evidence concerning Clancy’s mental condition. Moreover, he denied the attempts to frame him as a villain with previous criminal charges – they were legally dismissed. Altogether, the amount of attention around the holdout juror’s personality and the level of activism around the case suggest that his ordinary life and even his personal safety may be under threat,especially due to the online harassment and unwanted visits to his residence address.
It is worth noting that after the mistrial, the jurors were no longer serving as an active jury, but the intense public attention surrounding them created continuing concerns about their participation, privacy and safety.Given the public polarization of opinions, the authorities should have taken measures to encourage the jurors to abstain from appearances in media outlets until it is resolved. The authorities could also protect the holdout juror. Instead, the officials let media speculate on the case, and let jurors speak out about their motivations.
For example, Paula Devlin said that for her, the trial was an attempt to start “ conversation” on the topic of women’s mental health and postpartum-related illness.” Critics could argue that such a statement raises questions about whether such views should have been revealed with more scrutiny during voir dire and whether they affected her ability to approach the case impartially based on the facts and evidence presented.
The case illustrates how the confidentiality of jury deliberations was repeatedly put under pressure. The case also showed that a jury is not immune to political activism and media, especially given the organized support of the defendant and crowdfunding campaigns into account. Consequently, the case may serve as an example of how voir dire procedures may prove less effective than expected and whether it is possible to select an impartial jury in the first place.
Altogether, the surrounding media discourse around Lindsay Clancy’s case and mistrial may damage the jury institution, allowing opponents to claim that only professionals can examine a case properly and reach a verdict based on legal evidence and facts, while public participation may inevitably fall on one side or another depending on broader social and political divisions because fellow citizens are prone to political influence regardless of the “camp” they follow.
Medea and the Cultural Meaning of Motherhood
One of the major implications is related to the social values and deep cultural codes Western societies incorporate, some of which are considered to have originated in Ancient Greece. Questions of motherhood were already explored in Greek culture thousands of years ago, raising similar questions about the family duty, murder, and guilt.
The Greek tragedy Medea, written by Euripides, provides a particularly striking example. In the wider mythological tradition,Medea was a sorceress and the granddaughter of the Greek god Helios.Medea fell in love with Jason and aided him with magic and helped him escape with the Golden Fleece. By doing so, she betrayed her family: King Aeëtes of Colchis, and her brother, Absytrus. She lured her brother onto the ship, murdered and dismembered him, throwing the pieces into the sea, which delayed her father who wanted to properly bury his son, which was considered and important religious and familial duty, otherwise the person would endlessly suffer in the underworld.
Moreover, Medea’s actions were not only a betrayal of the family but an act of rebellion against the authority of male relatives. Ancient Greek society was much different from the contemporary society with women generally expected to remain within patriarchal family structures. Hence, Medea’s actions to protect the person she loved were against fundamental cultural codes of the era.
In Euripides’ tragedy, Jason later abandons Medea to marry Glauce, the princess of Corinth. Medea saw it as an ultimate betrayal after the substantial sacrifices she had made for him. The sorceress first murdered Glauce with poison and then two of their young sons with a sword. By killing their children, she also destroyed Jason’s hopes for descendants through them. Then, she fled in a chariot pulled by winged dragons, taunting Jason and preventing proper burial of their children. In Athens, she married King Aegeus and bore a son to him but later fled to Asia.
Medea’s story remains shocking because of her act of revenge against Jason, which sometimes becomes an obstacle for transnational theatrical adaptations. For example, according to various Chinese scholars, despite using techniques and sophisticated design from local operas, the reception by the audience was complicated by the discomfort of Medea murdering her own children. The audience perceived it as a violation of the maternal instinct and duty, particularly in relation to Confucian values.
By contrast, Anna Karenina’s suicide may be interpreted through a similar tragic narrative, in which the protagonist ultimately turns violence against herself rather than her child. Medea, on the contrary, did not only murder her sons but mocked Jason by the act and later remarried another person, while the play does not portray her as particularly repentant after the killings. In other words, in some cultures, personal vendetta may be perceived as egotistical and children as a tool of revenge.
The public outcry about Lindsay Clancy’s case may also have similar origin – one side emphasizes her mental state and personal struggle, prioritizing her as an individual. The other side considers the parental and motherhood duties as the priority with the interest of the family or collective coming first. It may also be interpreted as a long-standing tension between individualism and collectivism, reproduced here on the smaller scale of the tragedy within a family. The case also showed that family values and motherhood remain highly sensitive and important subjects in American public discourse.
12 Angry Men in Reverse
The prominence of jury trials in U.S. culture has encouraged Hollywood to make films about juries, which later shaped a specific drama sub-genre – court dramas – with Sidney Lumet’s 12 Angry Men serving as the most notable example because the scriptwriter, Reginald Rose, sketched the plot based on his own experience of being a juror.
The story has been adapted numerous times for film and the stage, including a production staged in a Lebanese prison. The original story revolved around one juror who had reasonable doubt about whether the boy had murdered his father. Initially, the jury was mostly convinced of guilt with the majority of the members trying to close the case as fast as possible. Yet, the doubtful juror slowly convinced others that the evidence raised reasonable doubts about the witnesses’ statements, and that the jurors’ assumptions and prejudice had to be examined. The film ends with the jury reaching a unanimous not-guilty verdict.
The film and its doubtful juror emphasize repeatedly that the institution is not intended to produce an automatic decision, but requires discussion, scrutiny of the evidence and a willingness to reconsider initial judgments. He also highlighted the importance of reasonable doubt and that the murder case should be taken with utmost seriousness, especially when prejudice is involved.Overall, the film is not only about the jurors, their dialogue and debates, or the boy. It serves as a simulation of the country and how various groups of people interact with one another, and whether representatives of such groups are able to analyze the case, cooperate with one another and reach a verdict. This way, according to academic sources, Lumet and Rose concluded that trial by jury is one of the fundamental institutions in the U.S. that protects constitutional rights and freedoms, and jury service is not intended to become an exercise in activism.
Interestingly, there is a remake produced in Japan and based on Kōki Mitani’s screenplay, The Gentle Twelve. Despite the absence of the U.S.-fashioned jury institution in Japan, the authors speculated on how Japanese jurors might discuss a murder case within a panel. Contrary to Lumet’s classical court drama, there is only one juror who is for the guilty verdict while others oppose him. He also gradually convinces the panel that the defendant, a young female, is guilty, with the only one juror against the guilty verdict being a stubborn elderly man who cannot explain why the defendant is innocent. Therefore, the remake parodies the Lumet’s film with the one juror for the guilty verdict opposing the majority, and the way verdicts can be influenced by the jurors’ understanding, perceptions, and even feelings about the case.
These two films suggest that the Lindsay Clancy jury trial has interesting similarities with the existing court dramas both in the U.S. and Japan. The level of debate around the case and the division it has generated in U.S. society could make it a potential subject for a future adaptation, building the narrative around the tools already presented in Lumet’s and Mitani’s motion pictures. The details, the tone and especially the outcome are entirely dependent on the creative team and the studio. Yet, the situation calls for a discussion around trial by jury, whether it still reflects a foundational value for the U.S. justice system and how it can be improved to better protect jurors from external pressure and harassment, safeguard their privacy, strengthen the selection procedure and maximize impartial participation.
Hollywood is known for approaching resonant cases, such as quick adaptations of events related to #MeToo movement or the repeated return to O.J. Simpson case. As usual with movies, there is a risk: if such an adaptation were ever released and the producers take a moderate stance, it could anger both “camps” of the debates, potentially harming its box-office performance and critical reception. On the other hand, adapting the case as a motion picture may channel the social attention from the actual case to the creative domain and encourage discussion of the fictionalized account, potentially easing tensions in society and decreasing antagonization in media discourse.
About Roman Kusaiko
Roman Kusaiko holds a PhD degree in Visual (Film studies) from Lingnan University, Hong Kong, MA degree in Art theory (Intercultural communication studies) from Shanghai Theater Academy, and Specialist honors degree in Jurisprudence from Kutafin Moscow State Law University. He is an interdisciplinary scholar, shuttling between media, film, video game and cultural studies, exploring transnational media, East Asian media industries, film remaking, cultural productions and their contextual differences. He is specifically interested in how ideas repeat themselves in media and how they reappear, changing forms, target audiences and discourses.
The Ascent gives you a self-paced course, a private community, and two live calls with me each week — a structured place to work with the guilt, grief, and family pressure that insight alone does not resolve. Join The Ascent → https://the-holding-space.circle.so/c… Prefer to start free? Take the assessment and download the workbook → https://blaketherapy.ca/the-ultimate-… Do you feel as though the rules that apply to your sibling do not apply to you? Even as adults, are you placed at the bottom of a forced family hierarchy? In this video, I respond to a video by Coach Chess Dugas ( • 4 (+1 bonus!) signs that your sibling is a… ) about signs of a narcissistic sibling. I examine those patterns through the scapegoat lens and explore how siblings can remain trapped in fixed roles of superiority and inferiority. We cover: • Why some siblings cannot tolerate an equal relationship • How different rules are applied to different family members • How nieces and nephews can be pulled into the hierarchy • The contradiction between demands for “family unity” and ongoing smearing • Why conflict may intensify after a parent dies • The limits of connection when one person must remain superior
Timestamps: 00:00 — Introduction: the scapegoat lens 00:28 — Chronic inequality and the need for superiority 03:42 — Double standards and different rules 06:48 — Fixed roles that follow siblings into adulthood 12:06 — Alienation involving nieces and nephews 14:50 — Why things may worsen after parents die 20:35 — Pseudo-mutuality and the limits of genuine connection 23:47 — Conclusion About Blake Anderson: Blake is a Registered Social Worker and therapist (MSW, RSW) with more than 14 years of experience helping people navigate difficult family relationships and relational trauma.
BREAKING: President Trump calls on Nvidia to hire TIM COOK of APPLE as the next CEO after Jensen Huang is out Wow! “NOW THAT Nvidia CEO JENSEN HUANG, who has done a fantastic job, has resigned, there is only one man to take his place – TIM COOK of Apple. A Legend replaces a Legend! President DONALD J. TRUMP” Not a bad idea at all
What really happened the night U.S. Navy SEALs raided Osama bin Laden’s compound? In this extraordinary Veterans Day conversation, Michael Smerconish sits down LIVE with Robert J. O’Neill, the former SEAL Team Six operator who says he fired the shots that killed Osama bin Laden during the historic 2011 raid in Abbottabad, Pakistan. O’Neill delivers a gripping firsthand account of one of the most consequential military operations in American history. From the tense helicopter flight into Pakistan to the terrifying moments inside bin Laden’s compound, O’Neill describes what he saw, what he felt, and why he believed the mission would cost him his life.
He also reveals: • Why the SEALs believed they were embarking on a one-way mission. • The emotional conversations about their families before the raid. • What happened when a helicopter crashed inside the compound. • The final moments of the operation, including his account of confronting bin Laden. • The extraordinary intelligence operation that located the world’s most wanted terrorist. • His personal conversations with President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden following the mission. • The sacrifices of American service members and the lasting impact of September 11, 2001. Recorded live at PARX Casino in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, on Veterans Day, this conversation goes far beyond the headlines to explore courage, sacrifice, brotherhood, and the human cost of war. Watch Michael Smerconish’s complete conversation with Robert J. O’Neill.
Participant-guided visualization of Karl’s recollection, in which he saw a familiar woman’s eye region within his cat’s face, and vice versa.
Duchaine et al., Cortex, 2026 – using ChatGPT
View 2 Images
A familiar face can often remain with us long after its owner leaves the room. For the patient described in a recently published case study, that persistence took an unusually literal form after brain surgery, as features of his cat’s eyes appeared in the faces of people he encountered.
The bizarre eye swap also ran in reverse, with a familiar person’s eyes sometimes appearing in his cat’s face.
Described in a new report in the journal Cortex, the experiences of the 28-year-old man known only as Karl provide researchers with a rare glimpse into how the human brain assembles faces, and how memories can become entangled with what we see.
“This case of Karl seeing his cat’s features in human faces and vice versa demonstrates that individual features can be pulled from memory and influence our ongoing perception,” says the study’s lead author, Brad Duchaine, a principal investigator of the Social Perception Lab at Dartmouth College.
To better appreciate Karl’s experience, Duchaine and his team developed AI-assisted images, refining them over months with his feedback until he judged them representative.
These are reconstructions of remembered perceptions, rather than direct recordings of vision, but they go a long way in helping researchers build a picture of how the brain creates perceptions.
It’s easy to take for granted our ability to recognize a familiar face. As an individual with a relatively severe form of “face-blindness” – aka prosopagnosia – I personally struggle with this seemingly straightforward task on a daily basis.
Buried within our brains are a number of inbuilt systems dedicated to rapidly constructing Identikits of family, friends, and foes, which can deliver some surprising outcomes when they go awry.
In Karl’s case, the changes to his own facial recognition pathways began after surgery to remove an arteriovenous malformation, an abnormal tangle of blood vessels, from his right posterior temporal region. This part of the brain is involved in tasks such as language and visual processing, contextual memory, and recognizing environments, so removing a part of it risks any number of unexpected consequences.
According to a Dartmouth College press release, Karl’s gray tabby, Luna, is often the first face he sees in the morning. On some days, her almond-shaped eyes, big pupils, and even her stripes then appear on human faces, both in person and online. If he sees a person first, their features may carry over to other people, or even back to Luna.
The phenomenon is described as a feature of palinopsia, in which something previously seen persists or returns to perception. Karl also appears to have prosopometamorphopsia (PMO), a rare condition that alters the appearance of faces.
Sometimes called “demon face syndrome,” PMO can change the apparent shape, position, color, or texture of facial features. For Karl, the transferred features blend seamlessly into the face before him, which moves naturally as his viewing angle or distance changes. Episodes often last hours, occasionally continuing throughout the day.
Crucially, he recognizes the borrowed features, which points to individual facial components being retrieved from long-term visual memory of his cat or friends.
It’s a clinical interpretation that builds on a 1986 case of a 58-year-old woman who experienced hallucinations, including fellow passengers on a bus each appearing with the face of a dog moments after she had looked at a poodle. This was four months after experiencing a stroke that slowed her right posterior temporal area.
After looking at the poodle, a woman in a case study saw that the faces of the people on the bus had been replaced by the dog’s face.
Other cases show how differently face perception can change following neurological injury.
A report published in 2014 described a woman who developed facial distortions after a stroke. Faces looked older, younger, swollen, dirty, or grimacing. She also struggled to recognize relatives. A 2024 Lancet report tells of a 58-year-old man who saw stretched, deeply grooved faces in person, while photographs appeared normal. His history included a serious head injury and possible carbon monoxide poisoning, although the report did not establish a cause. Despite the distortions, he knew who people were and held no delusional beliefs about their identities.
None of these cases can tell us on their own just how the brain produces such substitutions.
But each contribution makes an otherwise private experience more accessible to researchers, clinicians, and the people around them, helping people like me better understand how the task of recognizing or remembering a face is typically accomplished with ease.
Zoom in: As recently as two weeks ago, the notion of Nvidia without Jensen was unthinkable.
Data: FactSet. Chart: Matt Phillips/Axios
The big picture: Huang’s crisis comes amid mounting anxiety over the AI industry’s future, as new financial, political and regulatory risks threaten one of the largest infrastructure buildouts in history.
What to watch: The blast radius could extend far beyond Silicon Valley and Wall Street, threatening to engulf the Trump administration in a scandal over its handling of sensitive technology exports to China.
• 4 (+1 bonus!) signs that your sibling is a…
