It works on multiple levels. It's also a threat to anyone else that decides to take issue with his ownership of the Washington Post.

Hmm, AMI has a long history of using their scandal sheets to blackmail people, yet somehow you're trying to twist the story to where they're the good guys in all of this. Why is that?

I could be wrong, but I think it's a crime up there on the level of sexual assault.

Here is my problem. If your first three words are true why can't the Enquirer use that as a defense?

In other words if I am planning to do something bad (but legal) to you and you are planning to do something bad (but legal) to me people seem to be implying that the first person who offers the deal of both stopping is committing the a crime if it is Pecker but not if it was Bezos.

But theoretically Bezos could have started it by picking up the phone and saying "unless you stop the pictures I will publish damaging about you and Saudi Arabia". Wouldn't that be the same thing and thus a crime if Pecker's actions are?

This is why it seems to me that a key factor is whether both actions that someone suggests do not take place are actions that were going to happen if no one suggested a deal. It seems that it should only be a crime if at least one of the actions would not have necessarily happened.

Good guys? No. I am trying to see if logic gives them a technical win. As to why, it is because answering logic puzzles well is a more important trait for the good of the world than almost all political issues

Yeah this. This whole episode just demonstrates how comically inept and stupid David Pecker is. You take a shot at the king, you best not miss.

Q. How difficult is it to exfiltrate Bezos's dick pics from the sister's phone without leaving evidence Bezos's PI, given access to the sister's phone can prove?

For a MAGA turd? Impossible.

Because there's no evidence that Bezos made any attempt to bribe / blackmail / solicit a bribe / otherwise extort the Enquirer? Whereas the Enquirer SENT HIM A ****ING EMAIL outlining the specifics of the photos they had of him, threatening to publish them unless he met their very clear demands, and laying out very clear instructions as to what he needed to do to avoid the publication of the pictures?

Fun thought experiment though!

Thankfully most of the regular posters here realize that the two posts above me are completely unrelated to the technical point I brought up
.

The technical point is correct in that it's what separates extortion from not extortion. The thing is they requested something of value (him dropping his investigation) in exchange for them not releasing more of his texts... I'm no lawyer, but this seems to be clearly on the wrong side of that line.

Also think the GF's brother is pretty ****ed. The GF probably is too unless he broke into her phone. If he broke into her phone the people who gave him the tools to do so (looking more and more like Roger Stone or friends of Roger Stone) are also in very big trouble.

I really can't stress enough that the person they went after is far from a harmless victim. He's literally Lex Luthor. My guess is that he read the email from the National Enquirer, laughed like a hyena for about five minutes, forwarded it to his legal counsel and the security firm who also laughed like hyenas. Everybody involved is as screwed as Guy Fawkes. A hundred years ago Bezos would have had them all killed.

Just once I want to see a Skalanski thought experiment where the Trumper turns out to be the bad guy.

Thought experiment: are we on a ****ed-up island of magic and nightmares right now or simply in purgatory?

The world has always been this weird. The internet is making it possible to almost fully comprehend how weird that actually is.

A new ruler comes to power in a major nation with unsavory outside backers. This isn't even a new story line... it's a hilariously crappy remake.

Also I'm not sure how describing the edge of legality is a thought experiment when you have actual evidence that the person in question is a couple of miles over that line. Being anywhere near that line with someone like Bezos is hilariously dumb. This story is about hubris and living in a bubble where people only tell you what you want to hear. I'm much more interested in how David Pecker convinced himself that shooting himself in the head was the right decision than I am in what happens next. Next is he's ****ed. Super ****ed. Getting so high on our own supply that we do something like this is something we should all be having nightmares about.

No can do. #Devil'sAdvocate

Lol... Riiiiight.

Yes well your logic puzzles are a little too elementary though. Like, it's almost as though you don't realize that a party's state of mind and intent when he or she commits an act has a fairly substantial bearing on whether a crime takes place, or the severity thereof.

First move is hire the best lawyer at this type of specific situation. Guy is predictably based in LA and reps a bunch of celebrities. He was Charlie Sheens lawyer after 2 and a half men apparently. Got him 25M.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...t?srnd=premium

Bezos is probably serious about not getting distracted, but he also seems to be putting together a pretty serious team of mercenaries to handle making this a really spectacular example.

AMI is in Debt... Shocker but its quite a lot.....

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...d-steep-losses

On the balance of probabilities, I would venture that Mr. Sklansky is fully conversant with the concept of mens rea, as otherwise it would be a highly improbable coincidence that he just happens to go to great lengths to disguise his own when posing all of these little hypotheticals.

Lol, A+.

"Bezos, the world’s richest person, has the resources to fight. On Monday alone, his wealth increased by a bigger dollar figure than all of AMI’s revenue for the first half of this fiscal year."

Just the guy to pick a fight with. This should be entertaining.

MM MD

How about this one? I never said that the Enquirer wasn't the bad guy. They are obviously blackmailers. The question I had was only whether they have a technical defense rather than a slam dunk loss. The fact that stuff like that doesn't interest you is what keeps you out of the top seven.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019...out-the-affair

huh...

LMFAO...

Top seven?