As for "standard procedure" and counter-intelligence, who knows? I'm not a member of the intelligence community. Are you?
The point of my comment is that, to many laypeople, Trump's inaction doesn't look good and that creates an optics issue for him. "Why would he let a Chinese spy who was potentially trying to use Huang to influence the president's US-China policy stay close to him?"
Given how the administration operates, you can expect Trump's lackeys to spin the truth (if not lie) to make his actions look more favorable to the public.
There's no evidence she influenced Jensen who influenced Trump who eased restrictions despite knowing she was a spy. Jensen has consistently been trying to relax restrictions for years, before they met, and others have made the same case Jensen has, that it's actually harmful to the US to restrict access and that a managed access strategy is better than a complete ban (and Trump said he would charge for it). She probably did what's called intelligence gathering.
Also, it's funny watching HN suddenly become hawkish on GPUs being shipped to China. Were you complaining about it back then or just now?
Are you a member of the intelligence community? I'm not. This story is literally a week old. It's naive to think that all of the intelligence information the alphabet soup agencies have about Alice Huang and her relationship with Jensen, and how it might have compromised trade secrets, trade policy, etc. is going to be released to the public ASAP.
Most likely: we're never going to get the full story.
> Also, it's funny watching HN suddenly become hawkish on GPUs being shipped to China. Were you complaining about it back then or just now?
I used to live in Taiwan, so I know exactly what China is and the threat it poses.
There actually is, for both: 1) the chip sales to china, and 2) a $25,000,000 donation Jensen made to donald for his ballroom slush fund, which he tried to keep secret.
There is also evidence that donald kept this quiet in exchange for obedience and obeisance: he admitted it in an interview recently.
You don't know that at all. It's not standard procedure to immediately publicly out possible spies. Lots of reasons why not to do that including not wanting to let adversaries know you know who their spies are or to use them to feed bad intel or for watching what the spy does.