Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 783 posts

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#181

Post by kumarvvr »

danso wrote: post #4

> Well, that got my attention. But not in the way they likely hoped. Any personal embarrassment AMI could cause me takes a back seat because there’s a much more important matter involved here. If in my position I can’t stand up to this kind of extortion, how many people can? Can’t remember the last time I’ve seen a prominent person post the details of a personal extortion attempt out of defiance for all to see.

AMI picked the wrong person. Jeff, literally, has tons of money, extremely respected in the business world.

Forget about the embarrassment, if he secretly capitulates to this, then the real blackmail material would be the capitulation, not the photos. Cause if the owner of Washington Post bowed down to blackmail, every article published in the article will be called into question.

And who gives a shit if a billionaire cheated on his wife or sent dick pics. I don't care. Did he murder someone? Did he not divorce his wife by parting with half his fortune?

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#182

Post by floatingatoll »

darkpuma wrote: post #154
woodruffw wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (Also, why is Jeff Bezos using Medium? He owns a newspaper.) Using his stake in the WaPo to boost a personal rebuttal would be a tremendous ethical lapse.

Serious question: What if he bought a full page ad at the market rate? Would that be unethical because he was paying himself (sort of) for that ad?

It would be unethical because any media outlet he owns is an inappropriate place to select to air his personal business. Whether or not he pays for it is immaterial.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#184

Post by yourapostasy »

tptacek wrote: post #152
radicaldreamer wrote: post #55

Wonder what the Saudi connection is...

The Post, along with the Times, has been pursuing and reporting a story that David Pecker, AMI's CEO, has been working with a Saudi go-between, in part as an effort to expand their business. More importantly, Jamal Khashoggi, who we now know almost beyond a reasonable doubt† was targeted by Mohammad Bin Salman before Saudi assassins murdered him in Turkey (most probably at MBS's behest), was a Post employee. † Report…

How does that explain Pecker's rage at the WaPo digging into AMI's Saudi connection, though?

Nearly everyone who wants funding at this scale hits up the Saudis. Describing that AMI looked for funding with the Saudi royals doesn't strike me as a particularly significant reveal; Musk did it relatively recently, and he wasn't excoriated for it. How is news that AMI is doing it worthy of a push-all-the-chips-into-the-pot move like AMI pulled?

Now if Bezos' private investigation team is getting close to some kind of Kryptonite like Pecker personally authorized his staff to assist with encouraging Khashoggi to visit the Saudi's Turkish embassy as a favor to the royals to try to ingratiate himself and angle for a funding pitch, then I could understand Pecker's reaction. Even if Pecker and AMI didn't know the Saudi's intent, it would indeed be very awkward for AMI and the Saudis. The other direction this could be going is the Saudis are directing AMI via cut-outs to dissuade any deeper investigation into Khashoggi's death, and miscalculated Bezos' mettle.

I wonder if AMI overplayed the "Bezos cheated in his marriage!1!1" angle, too. If there is more or less a collective shoulder shrug that billionaire POTUS DJT cheated on Melania, I'm not clear what AMI thought the impact would be on Amazon's public opinion that its billionaire founder/leader is doing the same.

This will be interesting to follow.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#185

Post by cromwellian »

cromwellian wrote: post #7
danso wrote: post #4

> Well, that got my attention. But not in the way they likely hoped. Any personal embarrassment AMI could cause me takes a back seat because there’s a much more important matter involved here. If in my position I can’t stand up to this kind of extortion, how many people can? Can’t remember the last time I’ve seen a prominent person post the details of a personal extortion attempt out of defiance for all to see.

David Letterman also did it very publicly on his TV show. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44QgPty17Mc This shows the whole Trump/AMI/Campaign org to essentially be a criminal mafia enterprise.

Are the people downvoting this (presumably Trump supporters), that AMI admitted guilt in attempting to influence the 2016 by using their well known tactics to snub a story damaging to the candidate, and that their plea agreement stipulates that they would no longer commit anymore crimes, and that by blackmailing Bezos, they're essentially broken their plea agreement?

This is the very definition of a criminal enterprise. Breaking federal election laws, blackmailing those investigating your crimes. If the connection to the Trump campaign bothers you, that too is factual, given that AMI's agreement involved assistance they gave to the Trump campaign that was illegal, and the owner, David Pecker, is a close personal friend of the President.

There's pretty good circumstantial evidence from this, and the Cohen tapes, that using power and privilege to "deal with" personal or political enemies does not give pause to these people.

Thus, mafia-like behavior.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#186

Post by davidw »

cromwellian wrote: post #185
cromwellian wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

David Letterman also did it very publicly on his TV show. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44QgPty17Mc This shows the whole Trump/AMI/Campaign org to essentially be a criminal mafia enterprise.

Are the people downvoting this (presumably Trump supporters), that AMI admitted guilt in attempting to influence the 2016 by using their well known tactics to snub a story damaging to the candidate, and that their plea agreement stipulates that they would no longer commit anymore crimes, and that by blackmailing Bezos, they're essentially broken their plea agreement? This is the very definition of a criminal enterpri…

[flagged]

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#188

Post by ceejayoz »

daveFNbuck wrote: post #129
creaghpatr wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although, it did, I assume, trigger the divorce which will cost him a couple billion dollars

If his wife is divorcing him because he's cheating on her, the divorce was inevitable anyway.

Nah. The public nature and embarrassment of the reveal may be a factor, as plenty of marriages survive cheating - and there are plenty of cheaters who don't get caught.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#189

Post by ball_of_lint »

darkpuma wrote: post #154
woodruffw wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (Also, why is Jeff Bezos using Medium? He owns a newspaper.) Using his stake in the WaPo to boost a personal rebuttal would be a tremendous ethical lapse.

Serious question: What if he bought a full page ad at the market rate? Would that be unethical because he was paying himself (sort of) for that ad?

Yes because he would have influence over the ad approval process and that leads into all the same issues.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#190

Post by nindalf »

3pt14159 wrote: post #158
rblion wrote: post #53

I respect him even more now. We are all human. Nobody wins this 'moral crusade' that takes up so much airtime. We should be much more focused on the existential threats that the entire biosphere is dealing with, not the 'dick pics' of the world's richest man. He's just another dude at his core it seems, happens to be founder of Amazon though.

[flagged]

Imagine getting so upset about the API of some service that you write a tirade like this about the author’s boss’s boss’s boss’s boss’s boss.
Post reply on HN