National Enquirer makes offer; Bezos: "No thank you, Mr.Pecker"

[fskimospy]

Pure theory, I’m betting they thought since they are journalists they’d be protected by saying its research for a story.
I did hear some people on MSNBC warm that press freedoms are very important and they weren’t sure what to feel about this case because if it can be argued the National Inquirer isn’t press what about bloggers or people who have YouTube channels.

I’m sure they have done similar things to dozens of other people. They’ve always gotten away with it.
Be interesting if this goes to court to see how many celebrities and/or socialites have been made an offer like this.

I don’t get this line of reasoning so much. To me the national enquirer is absolutely part of the press, at least in many of its functions. Journalists aren’t allowed to extort people either though and the first amendment doesn’t protect extortion.

As others have said I suspect what they did to Bezos is the same thing they do all the time to other celebrities, they just didn’t stop and think that Bezos was rich enough and didn’t give enough of a shit to call their bluff. I also suspect many of these ‘deals’ are more journalism-y than this was. Like trading not publishing the photos for an interview or something. This was just straight out ‘don’t publish bad info about us or else’.

 

[darkswordsman17]

What I don't understand though is that when they planned to send that e-mail, did none of them honestly wonder whether a) what they were doing was illegal and therefore b) providing an obvious record of their illegal act was such a bright idea?

I could understand if if they had the intellect of a typical forum troll and Dunning Kruger posterboy, but these people probably had to study to a degree level at some point in their lives, surely?

I wonder if such a criminal has ever been sued by the university they went to and/or the rest of their graduation class for making them look bad

I'm fairly sure they knew it wasn't legal, but is has apparently worked for them quite a lot (or at best they didn't get what they wanted and published the story but then the other party just ignored it or called it lies instead of legitimizing it by suing them over the extortion) without consequence so they seem to have been overly confident.

The real question is, did they seriously think that exposing a dick pic would be that devastating for Bezos? I think they've gotten the wrong idea about this stuff. Like, Anthony Weiner, the issue was less that there were dick pics and more why he was sending them (as a married politician why was he even sexting other people, then lying about it, then he was found to have been sexting underage girls and everything that happened from there).

Best guess I have is that they knew Bezos was going through a divorce and thought it might provide fodder for his wife to get more money or something, so they were banking that he might make a simple financial based decision of which would cost more.

 

[UNCjigga]

How many billions could Bezos stand to loose from a PR disaster that would be d*pics? Lawsuit much?

Quite literally its cutting his net worth in half (divorce!)

AMI is done for and they know it. I bet the Murdochs are circling like sharks in the water, waiting for liquidation.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm fairly sure they knew it wasn't legal, but is has apparently worked for them quite a lot (or at best they didn't get what they wanted and published the story but then the other party just ignored it or called it lies instead of legitimizing it by suing them over the extortion) without consequence so they seem to have been overly confident.

The real question is, did they seriously think that exposing a dick pic would be that devastating for Bezos? I think they've gotten the wrong idea about this stuff. Like, Anthony Weiner, the issue was less that there were dick pics and more why he was sending them (as a married politician why was he even sexting other people, then lying about it, then he was found to have been sexting underage girls and everything that happened from there).

Best guess I have is that they knew Bezos was going through a divorce and thought it might provide fodder for his wife to get more money or something, so they were banking that he might make a simple financial based decision of which would cost more.

Not quite. AMI was trying to pressure Bezos into dropping the WaPo inquiry into their relationship with the Saudis. It's right there in black & white in the correspondence Bezos published.

 

[nOOky]

Still Jeff, you're supposed to be smart, don't take dick pics dude.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Not quite. AMI was trying to pressure Bezos into dropping the WaPo inquiry into their relationship with the Saudis. It's right there in black & white in the correspondence Bezos published.

Yes, that was what AMI wanted. My point being, they expected Bezos to think purely about not complying costing him more money (via it offering leverage for his wife in their divorce). He complies, and they don't release it. He doesn't, they release it and his wife uses it to get more in the divorce. My wording at the end of which would "cost" more wasn't quite apt as it seems to infer paying AMI off. I'm also reasonably confident that trying to squash big stories would require money (payoffs, and who knows what), since you can bet that journalist would require something to squash such a story (and threatening to fire them would be laughably stupid because then they could run to another media company and say they were fired because they wouldn't squash a story that Bezos wanted them to; they'd probably be able to get their own show out of a bombshell that big, especially if they could provide more details like if Bezos told them that AMI was extorting him with dick pics he sent).

 

[Jhhnn]

Yes, that was what AMI wanted. My point being, they expected Bezos to think purely about not complying costing him more money (via it offering leverage for his wife in their divorce). He complies, and they don't release it. He doesn't, they release it and his wife uses it to get more in the divorce. My wording at the end of which would "cost" more wasn't quite apt as it seems to infer paying AMI off. I'm also reasonably confident that trying to squash big stories would require money (payoffs, and who knows what), since you can bet that journalist would require something to squash such a story (and threatening to fire them would be laughably stupid because then they could run to another media company and say they were fired because they wouldn't squash a story that Bezos wanted them to; they'd probably be able to get their own show out of a bombshell that big, especially if they could provide more details like if Bezos told them that AMI was extorting him with dick pics he sent).

I don't think Bezos divorce figures in at all. Their split doesn't seem to be acrimonious. Washington is a community property state so she's automatically entitled to half, anyway. AMI threatened to embarrass Bezos, that's all, expose him as a pervy dick pic sender. Bezos took that hit & exposed AMI as extortionists. I'm surprised that charges haven't been filed.

 

[ultimatebob]

Still Jeff, you're supposed to be smart, don't take dick pics dude.

Yeah... you would think that the CEO of AWS (of all companies) would understand the basics of data security. Don't send information on a public network that your rivals would want!

 

[zinfamous]

Yes, that was what AMI wanted. My point being, they expected Bezos to think purely about not complying costing him more money (via it offering leverage for his wife in their divorce). He complies, and they don't release it. He doesn't, they release it and his wife uses it to get more in the divorce. My wording at the end of which would "cost" more wasn't quite apt as it seems to infer paying AMI off. I'm also reasonably confident that trying to squash big stories would require money (payoffs, and who knows what), since you can bet that journalist would require something to squash such a story (and threatening to fire them would be laughably stupid because then they could run to another media company and say they were fired because they wouldn't squash a story that Bezos wanted them to; they'd probably be able to get their own show out of a bombshell that big, especially if they could provide more details like if Bezos told them that AMI was extorting him with dick pics he sent).

The thing is, what would AMI have assumed the divorce to have been about if not for his wife already knowing about the affair? I'm not sure how further evidence of the thing that is already disclosed and admitted to would have made a real difference in terms of cash taken in the divorce.

lol, I just thought of something: So Bezos falls (temporarily) to something like #3 in world's wealthiest people, and his wife suddenly enters into the top 10, maybe top 5, just like that.

lulz.

 

[Jhhnn]

The thing is, what would AMI have assumed the divorce to have been about if not for his wife already knowing about the affair? I'm not sure how further evidence of the thing that is already disclosed and admitted to would have made a real difference in terms of cash taken in the divorce.

lol, I just thought of something: So Bezos falls (temporarily) to something like #3 in world's wealthiest people, and his wife suddenly enters into the top 10, maybe top 5, just like that.

lulz.

I figure the divorce is about what they said it's about in their joint statement-

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/09/tech/jeff-bezos-wife-divorce/index.html

They've apparently been separated for some while before the announcement.

 

[KMFJD]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/jeff-...ined-his-private-information?via=twitter_page

Our investigators and several experts concluded with high confidence that the Saudis had access to Bezos’ phone, and gained private information. As of today, it is unclear to what degree, if any, AMI was aware of the details.

Interesting read

Experts with whom we consulted confirmed New York Times reports on the Saudi capability to “collect vast amounts of previously inaccessible data from smartphones in the air without leaving a trace—including phone calls, texts, emails”—and confirmed that hacking was a key part of the Saudis’ “extensive surveillance efforts that ultimately led to the killing of [Washington Post] journalist Jamal Khashoggi.”

 

[UNCjigga]

So AMI went out of their way to leak their source as Michael Sanchez (Bezos' mistress' brother)... And then asked Bezos' security team to publicly acknowledge their investigation found no evidence of electronic eavesdropping or hacking?

Except...
"Michael Sanchez has since confirmed to Page Six that when the Enquirer contacted him back in July, they had already “seen text exchanges” between the couple. If accurate, the WSJ and Page Six stories would mean, clearly and obviously, that the initial information came from other channels—another source or method."

So has AMI/Enquirer/Pecker also committed FARA violations?

 

[KMFJD]

So AMI went out of their way to leak their source as Michael Sanchez (Bezos' mistress' brother)... And then asked Bezos' security team to publicly acknowledge their investigation found no evidence of electronic eavesdropping or hacking?

Except...
"Michael Sanchez has since confirmed to Page Six that when the Enquirer contacted him back in July, they had already “seen text exchanges” between the couple. If accurate, the WSJ and Page Six stories would mean, clearly and obviously, that the initial information came from other channels—another source or method."

So has AMI/Enquirer/Pecker also committed FARA violations?

Appears so