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

771–780 of 783 posts

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#771

Post by jki275 »

logfromblammo wrote: post #730
jki275 wrote: post #693

Earlier quoted context omitted.

--"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…

Hillary Clinton has never been president, therefore cannot set a precedent in this matter. Bill Clinton's supposed "conspiracies" are mainly sexual assaults and their ensuing covers-up. Some of his accusers received cash settlements, and presumably would not testify against in any criminal trials. The remainder apparently did not leave enough evidence by the time Clinton left office to pursue criminal charges, or did…

My point is that it's highly unlikely anybody is coming for him after he leaves office. It's simply not done -- it wasn't even done to Nixon, where there certainly would have been cause.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#772

Post by jki275 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #587
jki275 wrote: post #569

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It would've continued to work just fine if Trump hadn't run for President. Breaking the NDA doesn't make financial sense when he's a C-list celebrity; it does when he's suddenly the President.

Trump hasn't been a "c-list celebrity" ever. He's been a very famous and very well known celebrity for over four decades.

Even the left used to like him until he ran for president.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#773

Post by Piskvorrr »

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.

Young for a country, pretty old for the same base set of rules within that country.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#774

Post by jessaustin »

auntienomen wrote: post #735
Symmetry wrote: post #577

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

When was it put there? Before or after the data was stolen?

From GP's link: I find that her email addresses have been included in that recent dump of 770 million accounts called "Collection#1".

For background, see Troy Hunt's explanation for this data [0]. He certainly didn't add Ms. Sanchez's passwords to this. The MEGA uploader could have, one supposes, but that pushes the timeline back to early January. The idea that someone was sitting on all these creds (140M email addresses in this breach that HIBP has never seen before.), and then released them as a smokescreen for Ms. Sanchez's would be, let's say, conspiratorial.

[0] https://www.troyhunt.com/the-773-million-record-collection-1...

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#775

Post by jessaustin »

crispyambulance wrote: post #721
oligopoly wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What usually happens in these kind of things is mistress or partner shares images with friends and someone looks to profit or take vengeance behalf of cheated friend. I'm baffled nobody brings this up.

Yeah, like "the fappening", for christ's sake, it doesn't have to be a "state actor"!

We mustn't forget, the War Media is always agitating for more military action. "State actor" gets them a lot closer to their goal than "fat dude in his mom's basement".

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#776

Post by jessaustin »

anonu wrote: post #709
auiya wrote: post #566

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> quite an analytical leap I'd think. Reality can be stranger than fiction. With all the new revelations that come out about all these entities on a regular basis - what is to be believed anymore?

Not WaPo, that's for sure. Bezos might be more reliable when writing in his own name...

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#777

Post by dwd »

mcintyre1994 wrote: post #452
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…

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

Mueller allegedly has a nude selfie filed under seal relating to the indictment of the 13 Russian individuals and three companies. There must have been something more to it to avoid revealing who it was.

But we don't know who Mueller's selfie was of. (there was a claim it was some random who was sexting Guccifer 2 but that doesn't seem like something worth filing)

Maybe the better question is how or from whom he obtained it.

Manafort or Cohen seem most likely sources as Mueller's got all their stuff or maybe the AMI handed it over as part of their cooperation deal.

It's all a little weird as attempting to extort Bezos right now seems insane given the legal peril they are in. This may be worse than their part in election contribution violation they were previously on the hook for.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#778

Post by babygoat »

jki275 wrote: post #770
chillwaves wrote: post #749

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's interesting that the political enemies of the Clintons controlled literally ever lever of government but there has not ever been charges. What world do you live in that you should continue to make such baseless claims and expect to be taken seriously?

You're confused in thinking republicans are the "political enemies of the clintons" -- many of them are far more an enemy to the current inhabitant of the white house than they ever were or have been to the Clintons. As I recall, one very prominent former Republican president voted for Hillary. Washington is full of people who want power. They posture and make noise about political sides and beliefs, but in reality m…

> You're confused in thinking republicans are the "political enemies of the clintons"

Surely you jest.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#779

Post by jki275 »

babygoat wrote: post #778
jki275 wrote: post #770

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're confused in thinking republicans are the "political enemies of the clintons" -- many of them are far more an enemy to the current inhabitant of the white house than they ever were or have been to the Clintons. As I recall, one very prominent former Republican president voted for Hillary. Washington is full of people who want power. They posture and make noise about political sides and beliefs, but in reality m…

> You're confused in thinking republicans are the "political enemies of the clintons" Surely you jest.

Not a bit.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#780

Post by monkeydreams »

sullyj3 wrote: post #757
monkeydreams wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. One thought did occur to me is that he is basically daring AMI to release the pictures. What if he knows the providence of these pictures, knows how they got into AMI hands, and knows that if AMI publish them he can sue them, Gawker (not Buzzfeed) style, into the ground?

I think you possibly mean "provenance".

Yes I did.
Post reply on HN