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

221–230 of 783 posts

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#221

Post by bilbo0s »

fisherjeff wrote: post #137
notatoad wrote: post #49

Apparently AMI and David Pecker's non-prosecution agreement for the Michael Cohen stuff is contingent on them not continuing to do crime. So i guess that's out the window now. https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1093654471157170177

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?

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#222

Post by imgabe »

minimaxir wrote: post #2

Important note: This is written by Jeff Bezos himself . Normally, the Bezos affair story would be gossipy, but this alleges extortion , extraordinarily. (Also, why is Jeff Bezos using Medium? He owns a newspaper.)

Yeah but why Medium? Surely he could throw up a static site in an S3 bucket...

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#223

Post by toomuchtodo »

dahfizz wrote: post #219
rodgerd wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Did he not divorce his wife by parting with half his fortune? Half of their fortune. It was communal property.

Let's be real. He earned much more than half.

His wife supported him after he left his IB job to start Amazon. Amazon would not be without her in all probability. I argue Jeff earned half; precisely half, which would otherwise be zero without his wife's 20+ years of support.

https://www.wired.com/story/mackenzie-bezos-amazon-lone-geni...

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#224

Post by joezydeco »

daveFNbuck wrote: post #129
creaghpatr wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although, it did, I assume, trigger the divorce which will cost him a couple billion dollars

If his wife is divorcing him because he's cheating on her, the divorce was inevitable anyway.

Timestamps on the photos could show Bezos’ affair taking place earlier than previously stated, which would definitely affect a divorce trial.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#225

Post by pureagave »

Balgair wrote: post #111
creaghpatr wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although, it did, I assume, trigger the divorce which will cost him a couple billion dollars

Then all the more kudos to Jeff for doing this. Taken from the point of view of the divorce court, this is a LOT more ammo for his soon-to-be-ex-wife and her side. These photos are very soon to hit the greater web/papers and WILL be used against him in the proceedings. You are correct, this decision by him to speak out is likely to cost him Billions .

They are in Washington state. It is a no-fault state and property is split 50/50. Photos don't matter.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#226

Post by rabidrat »

floatingatoll wrote: post #197
seanwilson wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they have no value in causing embarrassment, what value would they have as blackmail material? There's nothing embarrassing about being naked but I'm sure most people wouldn't want naked photos of themselves made public.

If he was a woman, releasing those photos could end his career as a C-level executive at any US corporation.

At a corporation she founded? You think nudies of Martha Stewart would dethrone her?

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#227

Post by apo »

Here’s a piece of context: My ownership of the Washington Post is a complexifier for me. It’s unavoidable that certain powerful people who experience Washington Post news coverage will wrongly conclude I am their enemy.

President Trump is one of those people, obvious by his many tweets. Also, The Post’s essential and unrelenting coverage of the murder of its columnist Jamal Khashoggi is undoubtedly unpopular in certain circles.

Is Bezos implicating Trump himself in this scheme?

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#228

Post by ralph84 »

floatingatoll wrote: post #197
seanwilson wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they have no value in causing embarrassment, what value would they have as blackmail material? There's nothing embarrassing about being naked but I'm sure most people wouldn't want naked photos of themselves made public.

If he was a woman, releasing those photos could end his career as a C-level executive at any US corporation.

Many more men than women have had their career as C-level executives ended by sexual indiscretions. That's of course because there are many more men than women in C-level executive positions, but your "if he was a woman" is a non sequitur.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#229

Post by RandomInteger4 »

petercooper wrote: post #6
danso wrote: post #4

> Well, that got my attention. But not in the way they likely hoped. Any personal embarrassment AMI could cause me takes a back seat because there’s a much more important matter involved here. If in my position I can’t stand up to this kind of extortion, how many people can? Can’t remember the last time I’ve seen a prominent person post the details of a personal extortion attempt out of defiance for all to see.

I think another interesting thing about these times, compared to when such things may have happened 20+ years ago, is that the photos they've described would cause rather little outrage or attract much beyond a few giggles from the public. Especially if released after their existence is already known about. I think the iCloud leaks of 2014 severely tempered society's salacious demand for more pictures of this nature.

Probably more to do with the fact that there's so much high quality porn on the internet that we're honestly desensitized to amateur quality celeb nudes. Briefly intriguing, but overall rather "meh?"

Granted, I could just be projecting, but I don't think I'm alone here.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#230

Post by throwawaymath »

dahfizz wrote: post #219
rodgerd wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Did he not divorce his wife by parting with half his fortune? Half of their fortune. It was communal property.

Let's be real. He earned much more than half.

Let’s go ahead and not debate this. You won’t come to a satisfactorily equitable answer, no one will change their minds and we’ll just have a thread of gray comments where nothing of value was gained.
Post reply on HN