No Thank You, Mr. Pecker • Hacker News Board

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#561

Post by mc32 » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 2:04 PM UTC

ltc5505 wrote: post #557

_ei8q wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The example Thiel used in the original "seriously but not literally" argument was the wall. Of course Trump wasn't talking about a literal wall, he said, it was more of a metaphor for, you know, something. This argument was always embarrassingly stupid, but anyone still making it after Trump shut down the government for a month over literal wall construction has forfeited their right to be taken seriously at all.

Sadly, you'll still find people (even in this thread) that claim "of course Trump's campaign wasn't meant to be taken literally." With statements like "if you took what Trump said on the campaign literally, then you missed the point." So then if _The Wall_ was figurative, why did he shut down the government over its funding? "No he meant that one literally." Okay... So what about the fact that the wall would be funde…

Like any politician, the "Mexico would pay for it" was an "argument" to get support. Did supporters care if Mexico itself would pay? No. But it fit their sentiment. It's win-win for him because the only people who would "care" would be people against the wall who politically don't matter.

It's like when Dems say they want to abolish ICE. That's what their base want to hear. Do they really think ICE is going to be abolished? No, do they like hearing that because it rings nicely in their ears. yes!

Let's abolish ICE is the lefts version of "Mexico will pay for the wall". When they say Abolish ICE, they mean we'll (try to) do the dreamer things and we'll be less literal on refugee interpretation (and include economic migrants as definition of a refugee) for example. And, if it doesn't happen (not enough internal support) we'll blame the Repubs, no loss on their side. This is how political comms works.

Don't try and hang them on each and every word. You'll miss what they are saying.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#562

Post by kevinmchugh » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 2:07 PM UTC

bdowling wrote: post #429

kevinmchugh wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blackmail is a law which forbids the possessor of some information from offering to sell it to the subject of the information. The possessor can sell it to anyone else in the world, but cannot offer to the subject. If I had an affair with a celebrity, I can start a bidding war for my story between all the movies studios, television studios, and publishing houses. That's legal. If I invite the celebrity to bid, then I…

What you describe isn’t blackmail. Blackmail is offering the celebrity the chance to keep you from offering the story to the others, in exchange for a fee. If you actually had a setup as you described, all of the news outlets would publish the facts of your story, without paying you anything, because facts aren’t protected by copyright. The only thing you could sell would be an exclusive interview.

So it's an ordering problem? It's only blackmail if I offer to sell my silence before making offers to other parties? So if I have an offer from a movie studio for the rights to my story and then allow the celebrity to make a counter-offer, that's not blackmail?

When I said publishing house I meant book publishers like Penguin Random House. I don't know where news outlets come into it.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#563

Post by koolba » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 2:07 PM UTC

JeremyBanks wrote: post #559

koolba wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That video is the ultimate test for whether the viewer's political beliefs and biases are strong enough to override their sense of humor.

Did you miss the part where Russia was actually listening and did what he said, and he had reason to know it? His "joke" was deliberate treason.

And that's why the Russians took a time machine to four months before that joke (July 2016) to hack Podesta's emails (March 2016) right?

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#564

Post by novaleaf » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 2:07 PM UTC

some commentary and backstory by the Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/jeff-bezos-says-nation...

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#565

Post by dahfizz » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 2:08 PM UTC

anonu wrote: post #505

slg wrote: post #285

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…

Why Saudis? Why not the Russians in this context?

Because there is no clear connection to Russia here, and there is between AMI and the Saudis? Russia isnt some boogie man, let's use common sense.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#566

Post by auiya » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 2:09 PM UTC

anonu wrote: post #505

slg wrote: post #285

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…

Why Saudis? Why not the Russians in this context?

Kashoggi was an employee of the Washington Post, which Bezos owns. The WaPo have been highly critical of the Saudi response to the Kashoggi murder. It would stand to reason the Saudis are likely using AMI as a proxy for their campaign to blackmail Bezos and silence the WaPo. Trump protecting the Saudis, and Russia protecting Trump would be quite an analytical leap I'd think.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#567

Post by sevensor » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 2:09 PM UTC

TheReveller wrote: post #504

mcintyre1994 wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More interesting context: both David Pecker and AMI have cooperation deals with Mueller, and have admitted to killing stories about Trump during the election.

Those agreements are now void if they've broken the law.

Is that true? I know Manafort's cooperation agreement was nullified, but my understanding is that's because he lied to the special counsel. Which is presumably a crime, but it also violates the spirit of cooperation. I'd assume that in this case the matters are separate. But IANAL, what do I know.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#568

Post by ncmncm » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 2:09 PM UTC

Blackmail is the motivator behind practically all surveillance. It's the essence of spycraft and much of what we call law enforcement. Most of it, as here, doesn't directly involve money, but coercion. Getting something on a judge's son, prosecutor's father, or administrator's husband is as useful as on the target.

Was that decision or contract awarded by merit, or coerced? We can rarely know. This is not academic. Why did Obama ratchet up the war on whistleblowers in the CIA/NSA/DIA, charging them with espionage? We can only speculate.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#569

Post by jki275 » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 2:10 PM UTC

c3534l wrote: post #437

cm2187 wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Just blackmail the richest man on the planet, that will totally work!" Given the number of people and media who seem to be convinced without a doubt that Trump is being blackmailed by Russia...

Didn't he pay off a former pornstar tons of money to stay quiet about having sex with him? Doesn't seem implausible when he's already paid millions in hush money to keep embarassing personal info from leaking.

And that worked so well she wrote a book about it...

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#570

Post by jki275 » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 2:11 PM UTC

SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #500

rsynnott wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally people who think that think that Trump is being blackmailed with something _criminal_ (while the pee tape got a lot of attention, it's actually one of the less dangerous parts of that dossier from Trump's point of view). There's nothing criminal about taking a photo of your genitals.

I would disagree with that, a significant number of people think that Mr Trump is dependant on their _money_ and is ashamed to admit it, more than anything else. It's a fact that Mr Trump has been bankrupt six times. It's a fact that he has not shown his tax returns. His business dealing with Russia are under investigation.

Some of his business ventures have filed for bankruptcy protection.

He has never been bankrupt himself. There's a significant difference.