Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
National Enquirer may be in some trouble....
Quote | Reply
Google "extortion" or "blackmail" and it's all you get. As someone pointed out, "You don't tug on Superman's cape". I feel so sad for them ;).
Quote Reply
Re: National Enquirer may be in some trouble.... [oldandslow] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yesterday's NY Post headline was perfect:

"Bezos exposes Pecker"
Quote Reply
Re: National Enquirer may be in some trouble.... [oldandslow] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
oldandslow wrote:
Google "extortion" or "blackmail" and it's all you get. As someone pointed out, "You don't tug on Superman's cape". I feel so sad for them ;).

That's all well and good, and the National Enquirer is trash of the lowest order and I have no sympathy for them whatsoever (and I'd never write for them, so you know how low they are in my eyes, heh). But we're kind of cheering for an uber-billionaire who really isn't doing us many favors in certain crucial respects (from Glenn Greenwald, over at The Intercept):

Jeff Bezos Protests the Invasion of His Privacy, as Amazon Builds a Sprawling Surveillance State for Everyone Else.

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."
Quote Reply
Re: National Enquirer may be in some trouble.... [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
So presumably out of principle you never buy from Amazon?

And I think Bezos is protesting against attempted extortion, not just an invasion of his privacy.
Last edited by: Kay Serrar: Feb 9, 19 7:25
Quote Reply
Re: National Enquirer may be in some trouble.... [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Kay Serrar wrote:
So presumably out of principle you never buy from Amazon?


That's an either-or argument you're trying to build, there, but it doesn't work. And I buy from Amazon all the time, and am a longtime Prime member. I don't have or use Alexa and I also don't hook up any "Internet-of-things" stuff in my house, though (no Siri on my company iPhone, either). I'm also able to differentiate the company from the man. I'm just pointing out that he's not exactly the white hat guy we're thinking he is.

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."
Last edited by: big kahuna: Feb 9, 19 7:29
Quote Reply
Re: National Enquirer may be in some trouble.... [oldandslow] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It will be interesting to see what shows up in their vault.
Quote Reply
Re: National Enquirer may be in some trouble.... [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Kay Serrar wrote:
Yesterday's NY Post headline was perfect:

"Bezos exposes Pecker"

It was actually HuffPost in their Slack section. The NY Post just pushed it to the millions that don't read HuffPost.

"...the street finds its own uses for things"
Quote Reply
Re: National Enquirer may be in some trouble.... [AutomaticJack] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
AutomaticJack wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
Yesterday's NY Post headline was perfect:

"Bezos exposes Pecker"

It was actually HuffPost in their Slack section. The NY Post just pushed it to the millions that don't read HuffPost.

It was the front page headline on their print newspaper yesterday.
Quote Reply
Re: National Enquirer may be in some trouble.... [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
big kahuna wrote:
I'm just pointing out that he's not exactly the white hat guy we're thinking he is.


I'm going to need a decoder ring about when national security apparatus is white hat (giant walls or drone attacks) and when it's black hat (facial recognition).
Quote Reply
Re: National Enquirer may be in some trouble.... [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The bigger problem for AMI isn't Bezos, but that this incident threatens to open the floodgates to multiple suits, if this practice was common and so obviously "blackmail-y". There are no white hats, but it could quickly move beyond Bezos (it seems to be doing so already).
Quote Reply
Re: National Enquirer may be in some trouble.... [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Kay Serrar wrote:
AutomaticJack wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
Yesterday's NY Post headline was perfect:

"Bezos exposes Pecker"


It was actually HuffPost in their Slack section. The NY Post just pushed it to the millions that don't read HuffPost.


It was the front page headline on their print newspaper yesterday.

https://www.newyorker.com/...oses-pecker-headline

"In the tabloid tradition, a good headline must do three things: it must communicate the news; it must commit some act of wordplay; and it must trigger a certain popping of the eyes in its reader, ideally accompanied by some kind of involuntary subverbal response—a squawk, a snort, a guffaw, a gasp. On Thursday, just minutes after Jeff Bezos revealed that American Media, Inc., had threatened to publish explicit photographs of him unless he acquiesced to certain demands, tabloid-headline excellence was achieved, when HuffPost declared, on its home page, “Bezos Exposes Pecker.” “Pecker,” of course, referred to David Pecker, the chairman and C.E.O. of A.M.I.—the same Pecker who, during the 2016 Presidential election, facilitated a payment to a woman who had a story to tell about an affair with Donald Trump. “What a day,” HuffPost’s editor-in-chief, Lydia Polgreen, tweeted, soon after the headline appeared, along with a screen shot of the home page.

The headline was the work of Hayley Miller, a HuffPost reporter in New York whose workday had already ended when the Bezos news came out."

Hayley Miller is semi-famous around here in the Tri-State area for her ability to create puns out of just about anything. That fact that she loves dick jokes makes it even better.

"...the street finds its own uses for things"
Quote Reply
Re: National Enquirer may be in some trouble.... [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trail wrote:
big kahuna wrote:
I'm just pointing out that he's not exactly the white hat guy we're thinking he is.



I'm going to need a decoder ring about when national security apparatus is white hat (giant walls or drone attacks) and when it's black hat (facial recognition).

It's been said before but you just can't make this shit up. This story by itself is juicy enough to keep Mueller and Trump below the fold. But then Trump is in this story too. What a tangled web we weave.
Quote Reply
Re: National Enquirer may be in some trouble.... [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trail wrote:
big kahuna wrote:
I'm just pointing out that he's not exactly the white hat guy we're thinking he is.



I'm going to need a decoder ring about when national security apparatus is white hat (giant walls or drone attacks) and when it's black hat (facial recognition).

That's a big problem for sure.

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."
Quote Reply
Re: National Enquirer may be in some trouble.... [gofigure] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
gofigure wrote:
It's been said before but you just can't make this shit up.

You really can't. Richest man in the world, most powerful man in the world, and a tabloid magnate attempting to leverage adultery with both. But I think he may have gone a bridge too far. Bezos and Mueller are not good foes to have.
Quote Reply
Re: National Enquirer may be in some trouble.... [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
big kahuna wrote:
oldandslow wrote:
Google "extortion" or "blackmail" and it's all you get. As someone pointed out, "You don't tug on Superman's cape". I feel so sad for them ;).


That's all well and good, and the National Enquirer is trash of the lowest order and I have no sympathy for them whatsoever (and I'd never write for them, so you know how low they are in my eyes, heh). But we're kind of cheering for an uber-billionaire who really isn't doing us many favors in certain crucial respects (from Glenn Greenwald, over at The Intercept):

Jeff Bezos Protests the Invasion of His Privacy, as Amazon Builds a Sprawling Surveillance State for Everyone Else.


I'm cheering for him because the National Enquirer is run by morons.. If they had half a brain, they might stop and think: "hm, maybe blackmailing him *after* his divorce is a bad idea". I mean seriously, he's already going to lose half, I don't think the photos are going to bother him.
"Yep, that was me. Here let me send you a few more photos *flex*".

Maybe he read some Duffy posts and decided to just own it.
Last edited by: spudone: Feb 9, 19 9:41
Quote Reply
Re: National Enquirer may be in some trouble.... [spudone] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
im baffled by it. from what I've seen, AMI put their extortion in writing . . . I mean, for fuck's sake.

these are guys who do 5-figure payments on pornstars, and they thought they'd hustle the richest man in the world?

AMI are toast.

____________________________________
https://lshtm.academia.edu/MikeCallaghan

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/
Quote Reply
Re: National Enquirer may be in some trouble.... [iron_mike] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
iron_mike wrote:

these are guys who do 5-figure payments on pornstars, and they thought they'd hustle the richest man in the world?

All while risking the Mueller immunity deal. It's an insane level of self-sabotage. It makes you wonder if there's something really interesting in the Saudi dealings.
Quote Reply
Re: National Enquirer may be in some trouble.... [oldandslow] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It feels an awful lot like AMI could go the way of Gawker. Gawker fucked with Peter Thiel who then funded the lawsuits that took them out. Bezos has over 50x of Thiel's money. I'm betting he doesn't stop until he grinds them to dust.

I am of mixed emotions on the rich guys taking out outlets saying things they don't like. On one hand Gawker and AMI deserve to get blown to bits. On the other hand maybe the next target does not.

We are so fucked.
Quote Reply
Re: National Enquirer may be in some trouble.... [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trail wrote:
iron_mike wrote:


these are guys who do 5-figure payments on pornstars, and they thought they'd hustle the richest man in the world?


All while risking the Mueller immunity deal. It's an insane level of self-sabotage. It makes you wonder if there's something really interesting in the Saudi dealings.

Well the deal is not with Mueller, it is (was?) with the the SDNY.

I mean, you really should not blackmail someone that can literally buy your company like a thousand times over. Also, don't blackmail the CEO of the company that hosts your website either.

Either AMI is covering up something much worse (such as possibly working Saudi Arabia to hack Bezos) or they are just really really really stupid. I mean the stupid option is still really possible, but still odd based on what they asked from Bezos.
Quote Reply
Re: National Enquirer may be in some trouble.... [j p o] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
j p o wrote:
It feels an awful lot like AMI could go the way of Gawker. Gawker fucked with Peter Thiel who then funded the lawsuits that took them out. Bezos has over 50x of Thiel's money. I'm betting he doesn't stop until he grinds them to dust.

I am of mixed emotions on the rich guys taking out outlets saying things they don't like. On one hand Gawker and AMI deserve to get blown to bits. On the other hand maybe the next target does not.

I think there is a difference between Gawker and AMI. Thiel was upset at Gawker because of a story they ran and got them sued for a story they ran. AMI looks like extortion, which is not something that the constitution should be protecting and they have a history of doing the same to non-billionaires. The problem with AMI is that it may take Bezos to shut it down, when it should have happened earlier.
Quote Reply
Re: National Enquirer may be in some trouble.... [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
This definitely sounds criminal to me. The kind of thing that can put people in prison.

The Gawker case seemed like more of a civil matter.

I have a feeling they are neck deep in all kinds of shady activity. This could be the tip of the iceberg.
Quote Reply
Re: National Enquirer may be in some trouble.... [FishyJoe] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I've previously said you don't really want to be sat on the other side of the table from the fbi, the. Might of the government and all that......

I'd expand that to include rhe worlds richest man.......
Quote Reply
Re: National Enquirer may be in some trouble.... [FishyJoe] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
FishyJoe wrote:
This definitely sounds criminal to me. The kind of thing that can put people in prison.

The Gawker case seemed like more of a civil matter.

I have a feeling they are neck deep in all kinds of shady activity. This could be the tip of the iceberg.

People that seem to know what they are talking about seem to believe with the current evidence, it would be hard to convict AMI for extortion. They can say that they were not extorting, but simply negotiating. If they asked for money, it would be more clear. But from what we can see, it would not be a super strong case.

Now, the non-prosecution agreement that AMI has says they can't commit any crimes for the next 3 years. In order for SDNY to say they are not following the agreement, they don't need to convict them on extortion, they don't need as strong of a case, they only need to convince a judge that they more likely than not commited a crime, which is much easier. Also, this will make it easier for SDNY get access to lots of AMI records and those may have crimes in them. So this just makes them way more vulnerable in lots of ways to prosecution.
Quote Reply
Re: National Enquirer may be in some trouble.... [oldandslow] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Actually, the National Enquirer just got after it with Bezos, 40k freakin miles. Can we replace our intelligence apparatus with them?

Rugby Media Dude-earfulofdirt.com

Hooker training for the Sport of Scrum-Halves [Triathlon]
Quote Reply
Re: National Enquirer may be in some trouble.... [oldandslow] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
oldandslow wrote:
Google "extortion" or "blackmail" and it's all you get. As someone pointed out, "You don't tug on Superman's cape". I feel so sad for them ;).

Found on Twitter:



"Politics is just show business for ugly people."
Quote Reply

Prev Next