Earlier quoted context omitted.
news flash : - https://www.nationalenquirer.com is hosted in AWS - https://www.nationalenquirer.com is down
It's up for me
I get a 403. Weird.
No Thank You, Mr. Pecker
711–720 of 783 posts
Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker
#712Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand, isn't a government entity someone who can get the texts off his mistress' phone?
I think the point is that it doesn't require the power of a government agency to get anybody's images off their phone. It could be a government, it it could be Bezos' wife, Sanchez's brother or ex husband, or just someone with a knack for social engineering who thought there was a lot of money to be made.
Could it also be someone with a stringray who intercepted Jeff's correspondence to and from Sanchez?
Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker
#713Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Not all Presidents or foreign powers are obsessed with finding and collecting dirt on their enemies with the intent to harm or influence them. Yes, all presidents and foreign powers do this. Although Bezos doesn't present any proof that it's actually happening here, just speculation.
Let's be clear here: I'm the last person to defend the NSA, but there are huge differences in the restrictions placed on official US spying agencies and foreign ones. If a sitting President used his office to demand that the NSA spy on a US citizen for political reasons, it would be a huge scandal. When foreign governments like the Russians or Saudis do it, it's unprosecutable and "deniable", even if the President hi…
The Fusion GPS/FBI collusion comes very close to what you describe.
Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker
#714It 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…
Could be true. Could be whatever chat app he used too.
But my Bayesian prior of how the world works is that someone had access to someone's phone (his or his GFs) and gave the photos to the Enquirer.
Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker
#715Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 billionair…
> literally has tons of money If his keeps his money in $100 bills, then you're right. $136 billion would weigh about 1,230 metric tons. More likely, his cash consists of electronic entries in bank systems which weigh substantially less.
Literally has literally been destroyed:
"Used for emphasis while not being literally true." [1]
Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker
#716Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should probably read about J. Edgar Hoover... He was arguably more powerful than the Presidents he supposedly served.
See my reply to a sibling comment; I'm not unaware of history, though there's an incredible amount I am ignorant of, certainly. But I'm familiar with Hoover; this is wildly different. For one thing, unless I'm mistaken, he was never actually President. "Arguably more powerful than the Presidents he supposedly served" is a neat line and not unreasonable, but doesn't really approach what I'm arguing: that this moment i…
Well, none of that has been proven yet, it's not even charged, perhaps (we don't even know for sure) it may be under investigation by the special counsel. I suspect we'll find out in some measure in the future.
If it happened, even then I think it would not be unprecedented -- I'd have to think for a bit about specific examples but I suspect we've even done it to other countries ourselves.
Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker
#717Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should probably read about J. Edgar Hoover... He was arguably more powerful than the Presidents he supposedly served.
See my reply to a sibling comment; I'm not unaware of history, though there's an incredible amount I am ignorant of, certainly. But I'm familiar with Hoover; this is wildly different. For one thing, unless I'm mistaken, he was never actually President. "Arguably more powerful than the Presidents he supposedly served" is a neat line and not unreasonable, but doesn't really approach what I'm arguing: that this moment i…
Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker
#718Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I was the director of the CIA I'd cover up any internal corruption, to avoid being subject to additional oversight or public criticism. We've already banked the public trust from having audit records exist , actually checking the audit records can only reveal bad news.
That's the point of a Congressional summons and testimony. You can cover up things quietly, but lying to Congress when asked about it carries a very different set of penalties.
But lying to Congress is kind of a moving target. You can get away with it if you later when found out come back in with a "I was misinformed" or "I misunderstood the question" performance.
Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker
#719Earlier quoted context omitted.
No Five Eyes member is going to randomly tap some US citizens phone because the Saudis asked without some serious investigation.
The Saudis are positioned as our allies in the war on terror. More accurately, they're regional enemies of Iran, and the western powers tend to run on the rubric "the enemy of my enemy is my ally" (even when a closer look at the situation would suggest that just ain't so). They are huge customers for British arms sales (look up the Al Yamamah deal — roughly US $100Bn in business). They're known to have bought surveil…
>The Saudis are positioned as our allies in the war on terror.
As are a lot of countries. Does not mean we will allow surveillance without any questions.
>As a Brit, I find your belief that US citizens are immune from monitoring by the intelligence services of other nations (when that kind of money is passing hands) touching ...
I never said or implied that.
Read the comment again:
>No Five Eyes member is going to randomly tap some US citizens phone because the Saudis asked without some serious investigation.
Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker
#720Earlier 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.
Not all Presidents or foreign powers are obsessed with finding and collecting dirt on their enemies with the intent to harm or influence them. Wether you call it gaining influence or blackmail, it's usually the technique of authoritarians or the corrupt and not a path we want to advocate or even tolerate.