371–380 of 783 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depends on the analysis I suppose. This one makes it sound unlikely that the agreement will be voided: https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti/status/10936583665834229...
Did their agreement specify that they wouldn't commit any more federal crimes? Or did it say they wouldn't commit any more crimes?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You come at the king, you best not miss. Also, never take notes on a criminal fucking conspiracy ;P
It’s amazing how many people in Trump’s inner circle love quoting mob movies, calling people “rats” and “stoolies” but can’t seem to get down even the basics of being a half-decent criminal. I mean, Roger Stone literally told people to lie to Congress via an email. One can quote mob movies all day but that doesn’t make them a smart criminal.
Whatever you think about Jeff, this is the correct way to handle such things. We should all have the same character in such a situation (despite how the situation arose; in this case via an affair). Jeff has MANY other issues of moral disfortitude (we all do to some degree, though not at these scales). However, this particular event is to be applauded and emulated.
> this is the correct way to handle such things. Yes, with conditions . Bezos himself writes, in the article we're discussing: I asked him to prioritise protecting my time since I have other things I prefer to work on and to proceed with whatever budget he needed to pursue the facts in this matter. - emphasis mine. And that: On that point, numerous people have contacted our investigation team about their similar expe…
1) I suggest this is not blackmail in the legal sense. AMI, whatever they are - are not idiots. AMI probably knows better than any company in the world what is going to constitute 'newsworthy' items, at least in the legal sense. To suggest they would do something blatantly illegal and criminal in an email of all things ... I think does not make sense.
They do this sort of thing for a living.
2) This is a back room deal, a pretty normal one. They are asking Bezos to state:
"have no knowledge or basis for suggesting that AMI’s coverage was politically motivated or influenced by political forces."
This may actually technically be true. Does Bezos actually have hard evidence of political interference? And how would acquire this? And if he doesn't, what is the cost of merely stating a fact?
If we move out of a moral headspace for a moment and just consider the realpolitik of the situation - it's tantamount to a kind of 'legal blackmail' - superficially, it's not a bad deal at all.
This is hardball and it's not exactly uncommon in business, it's just of a very personal nature.
3) If those pics are published, the 'courage' of Bezos' ostensible principled stance are not going to be rewarded.
The #1 thing Bezos will be known for, for at least a decade are his 'dick picks' and that he was 'cheating on his wife and kids'.
None of the context will really matter that much, i.e. maybe he was already separated, maybe the 'dick picks' were totally private, nothing to do with work, the woman did not work for him etc..
It does not matter.
A dick pick is all anyone will know.
Bezos is famous among us, but he's not really famous among regular people, but this could make could really make him a 'household name' for the wrong reasons.
Remember: the realm of pop culture nobody cares about 'principles'. Images flashing across the screen of a blurred out penis will be 99% of the news type thing.
This is a 'pop culture' war, not a legal war, or a war among public intellectuals or businessmen. This is a 'Buzzfeed war' and Bezos doesn't have any ammunition.
His penis may be seen by billions, almost nobody will read his Medium post.
4) I respect his choice - but - he has a company to worry about. If this blows up, and it starts to affect his 'perceived credibility' - what is he going to tell his board? He had a 'truce agreement' on the table which seemed ostensibly reasonable (assuming Bezos doesn't have some crazy evidence that he really needs to provide the feds?).
The pragmatic choice would have been to make a truce with his warring entities.
Thankfully, Bezos has billions and ownership etc. and doesn't have a normal CEO-board relationship, as I believe most 'regular boards' would have seen only the realpolitik of the situation and would be aghast that he didn't make an agreement.
So good on him for ostensibly 'doing the right thing' but I feel there is much more to come.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depends on the analysis I suppose. This one makes it sound unlikely that the agreement will be voided: https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti/status/10936583665834229...
Only analysis that matters in the end is the judge's. That's why when you're operating with something like that hanging over your head, you should keep your nose clean. You wouldn't believe the number of people who sidestep trouble with a deal like that, and then go right out and burn it up like idiots. I just don't get it?
Granted, this strategy is very high risk unless you're one of the richest people in the world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If he was a woman, releasing those photos could end his career as a C-level executive at any US corporation.
Many more men than women have had their career as C-level executives ended by sexual indiscretions. That's of course because there are many more men than women in C-level executive positions, but your "if he was a woman" is a non sequitur.
Abusing a position of power to get sexual favours from a coworker is something quite different, and I don’t think anyone benefits from conflation of the two.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> this is the correct way to handle such things. Yes, with conditions . Bezos himself writes, in the article we're discussing: I asked him to prioritise protecting my time since I have other things I prefer to work on and to proceed with whatever budget he needed to pursue the facts in this matter. - emphasis mine. And that: On that point, numerous people have contacted our investigation team about their similar expe…
And? What's your point?
Fair point, but obviously someone like Bezos should be able to make use of his resources in cases like these and I‘m sure nobody is arguing against that.
It seems like a lot of people are not reading between the lines of this post. Bezos apparently believes that he was hacked by either the US or Saudi government and that now one or both of those governments are using the National Enquirer as an attack dog against him. That accusation is much bigger than any other piece of this story. EDIT: Here [1] is a reporter from the Washington Post backing that up. The Bezos' cam…