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

681–690 of 783 posts

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#681

Post by Symmetry »

bilbo0s wrote: post #221
fisherjeff wrote: post #137

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?

As the scorpion said: "It's just my nature."

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#682

Post by jupp0r »

Digory wrote: post #608
jupp0r wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> most of us have made mistakes that we deeply regret and fear getting out Agreed, probably Jeff Bezos has made those mistakes as well. However I fail to see any mistakes of his threatened to be revealed.

Jeff was using company money and contracts to keep his mistress happy. The pictures keep that in the spotlight. And despite the letter, does anyone think he isn’t spending a big chunk of time on this? Most Fortune 500 CEOs would be gone or forced into retirement.

> Jeff was using company money and contracts to keep his mistress happy.

That would mean he literally committed fraud. What's your source for that info?

> And despite the letter, does anyone think he isn’t spending a big chunk of time on this?

Why shouldn't he spend his time on whatever he wants?

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#683

Post by jessaustin »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #674
jessaustin wrote: post #665

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We got from "total fabrication" to "resource management" pretty quickly...

Incorrect inference. You've incorrectly attributed the argument from a specific offshoot (that foreign spy tools persist because of limited counterintelligence resources) and applied it to the root supposition (that nation states utilize parallel construction, through a conspiracy with known adversaries as a matter of course and that spy infrastructure is built specifically for that purpose).

I would quibble with "known adversaries". Saudi has been a close ally of both UK and USA for nearly 30 years. Haven't Snowden's materials proved the point for the rest of the root supposition already?

Of course it's more likely that someone (anyone, really) just pwned Ms. Sanchez's phone directly.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#684

Post by coryfklein »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #327
Balgair wrote: post #15

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…

But if humanity as a whole enforced social norms that rewarded blackmail-refusals, then the value of blackmailing would drop so low as to be not worth it and extremely uncommon.

Essentially we could develop a herd immunity to blackmail.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#685

Post by ohitsdom »

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…

This isn't being seriously alleged, as the source of this theory was a Roger Stone associate.

https://twitter.com/lachlan/status/1093864755381571584

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#686

Post by jandrese »

malvosenior wrote: post #672
awb wrote: post #668

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sadly the era we're living in is that which blames Trump for every thing that goes wrong with no evidence whatsoever Before a crime is proven, there's usually speculation. Just like people suspected Nixon of being involved in Watergate before there was actual proof. The truth can come slowly. I agree that we need to follow due process, but it's just as dangerous to categorize any suspicion of criminal activity as "…

You're right, there's obviously a spectrum. I feel it's gone too far in one direction. There's literally no proof on this particular issue that Trump had anything to do with the NE story on Bezos so it seems like quite a leap to start creating conspiracy theories that he used national intelligence agencies to dig up the dirt.

I would have written it off as conspiracy theory nonsense myself, were it not for Trumps attack tweets a few weeks ago. While I don't think any US intelligence agencies are involved, it's absolutely possible that some foreign partners are providing "voluntary assistance" in the matter.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#687

Post by jessaustin »

Symmetry wrote: post #577
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…

Apparently Bezos's mistress's password is in haveibeenpwned.com so this very likely didn't require a government entity. https://blog.erratasec.com/2019/02/how-bezos-dick-pics-might...

The spam comment on that post is entertaining.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#690

Post by logfromblammo »

everdev wrote: post #613
JustSomeNobody wrote: post #584

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can we all just agree Trump is corrupt already and get him out of office?

Lots of smoke for sure, but I'd much rather follow due process and wait for a crime to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a legal setting. Otherwise you're setting a dangerous precedent.

Impeachment is a political process. The dangerous precedents have already been set, for Andrew Johnson and William Clinton.

The former was impeached for firing the Secretary of War without consent of the Senate, and refusing to reinstate Stanton in that position when it did not ratify the dismissal. Acquitted by one vote.

The latter was impeached for lying about inappropriate personal behavior, and obstruction of justice for witness tampering and impeding investigations. Acquitted.

Trump could be impeached by the House for a misdemeanor as inconsequential as littering in a national park. And the standard of proof for conviction in the Senate is not specified. It could be as low as "a police dog alerted on his hamburger wrapper" if his loyal contingent has 33 senators or as high as "we need to analyze, line by line, the source code for the video encoder of the camera that recorded the president dropping the wrapper on the ground, to ensure it has not been tampered with by terrorist immigrant caravans" if his contingent has 34 senators. It is not specified by the Constitution, so it is de facto determined ad hoc by the Senate and chief justice at the time of the trial.

It should be obvious that suspected crimes that are more severe than firing cabinet officials without permission, or covering up a political scandal--such as those imputed to Nixon during the Watergate burglary investigation, or suspected acceptance of foreign emoluments--should be impeached more readily. But as long as the Senate is needed to convict, and the burden of proof is not specified, then the House cannot realistically impeach, and expect a conviction with a president-supporting Senate in place, until the case against can meet the standard of "beyond even petty, unreasonable, and dubiously-contrived doubts". And that is solely so that when the Senate refuses to convict anyway, the evidence and the vote against conviction can be used against the party in subsequent election campaigns.

I have little doubt that the current president will be confronted by a stack of previously sealed criminal indictments on the afternoon of the next president's inauguration day. Those cases will be tried in courts with a fixed standard of proof--beyond reasonable doubt for criminal cases, and preponderance of evidence for civil cases.

Post reply on HN