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

691–700 of 783 posts

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#691

Post by forgotAgain »

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…

From Reuters: "Inside the UAE’S Secret Hacking Team of American Mercenaries"

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-spyi...

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#692

Post by eggpy »

coryfklein wrote: post #684
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #327

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…

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.

Yeah but scandal attracts eyeballs and people are more interested in spectacle than choosing the morally superior option

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#693

Post by jki275 »

logfromblammo wrote: post #690
everdev wrote: post #613

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 jus…

--"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."

The precedent has already been set there also -- both Bill and Hillary Clinton have remained free of prosecution in spite of all the many criminal conspiracies they engaged in.

There's no debate there was just as much, if not more, dirt and conspiracy around them when they were in office as there is around the current occupant of the White House.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#694

Post by jki275 »

everdev wrote: post #655
mikeash wrote: post #649

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s been the standard since the adoption of the Constitution. If it was a slippery slope, you’d think we would have slipped down it at some point in the past 230 years.

Seems like we're always finding new precedents to set like the "nuclear option" in the Senate. And 230yrs is pretty young for a country.

The "nuclear option" is just a senate rule. It's not a law, it's not in the Constitution.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#695

Post by jki275 »

coryfklein wrote: post #679
awb wrote: post #644

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, which feels like a slippery slope into political takeovers, especially since the speaker of the house is 3rd in line. If Republicans were guaranteed to keep the President and VP slot, you'd see an impeachment much more easily. I don't think any Republican will want Pelosi a heartbeat away from the Presidency unless Trump's crime was so clear and egregious that 2/3 of the country wanted him gone.

It's pretty damn hard to slip down a slope that requires 2/3 of the senate to agree with each other.

...by design.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#696

Post by jackfrodo »

coryfklein wrote: post #684
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #327

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…

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.

I think the consequences of blackmail are inherent in it. All this is is getting in front of the story

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#697

Post by jki275 »

abrahamepton wrote: post #661
nerdponx wrote: post #595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only thing strange about it is how much easier it is to learn about these conspiracies now that we have the Internet. People are acting all shocked like this is a new state of affairs. It's not. We are just far more empowered now to actually learn about these things.

No, that's not "the only thing strange" about this. Perhaps you're unfamiliar with American history, but this is wildly without any remote precedent. Not to say that previous Presidents haven't done bad things, abused laws, etc, (shit, even launched disinfo campaigns, used the press to attack enemies, etc) but this is just gobsmackingly different from what has come before. Obviously caveat "if this is true" blah blah…

You should probably read about J. Edgar Hoover...

He was arguably more powerful than the Presidents he supposedly served.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#698

Post by logfromblammo »

rrix2 wrote: post #676
auiya wrote: post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the richest man on the planet That we know of. The money coffers owned by the house of Saud run way deeper than many realize.

okay so second richest man? third? tenth? how does that change the calculus?

The largest entirely private fortune.

Individuals that are now or have been heads of state may have had opportunities to seize or otherwise employ state-owned property for their personal enrichment. Dictators over petroleum exporting nations are all likely richer than Bezos, in ways that we could never expect Forbes magazine to be able to verify, or even begin to investigate.

People whose wealth came mostly from publicly-traded stocks and real estate in nations with public records of title transfers can be more easily tracked and verified.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#699

Post by abrahamepton »

creaghpatr wrote: post #673
abrahamepton wrote: post #661

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that's not "the only thing strange" about this. Perhaps you're unfamiliar with American history, but this is wildly without any remote precedent. Not to say that previous Presidents haven't done bad things, abused laws, etc, (shit, even launched disinfo campaigns, used the press to attack enemies, etc) but this is just gobsmackingly different from what has come before. Obviously caveat "if this is true" blah blah…

You need to read about the measures great past Presidents like Abraham Lincoln, amongst others, took. It's gonna be an eye-opening experience for you if your comment is in good faith.

Uh huh. Please provide even a single example.

Keep in mind the standard you've gotta match or beat: a President elected in significant part by collaborating with a foreign adversary to undermine our elections, and in significant part by using a media outlet to cover up his scandals.

Said President is accused of using said media outlet to blackmail his enemies, going back at least years if not decades. One of those enemies, the richest man on Earth, also owns one of the most influential news organizations in the country.

While we don't know all the details, it appears that said President and said media company also have extensive relations with yet another country that just murdered a US-resident journalist in their own consulate in a NATO country. Said President and his family worked with this other country on, among other things, instituting a blockade of an allied country that has one of the largest US military bases in the region.

But please, I'm all ears. What have you got, that makes the above so mundane and unsurprising? I look forward to learning.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#700

Post by finndark »

mikeash wrote: post #634
everdev wrote: post #613

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

“Beyond a reasonable doubt” does not apply to removing the President from office. The applicable standard is “whatever will convince half of the House and two thirds of the Senate.”

The Constitutional criteria for removal of the President from office are "treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors." Here's a good short description:

http://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high-crimes-and-misdemean...

Post reply on HN