Posts

The Two Smear Attacks against Jeff Bezos and His Partner

/26 Comments/in , , , /by

Jeff Bezos doesn’t tweet much.

On July 14, he proclaimed that, “Our former President showed tremendous grace and courage” after being shot.

On November 6, shortly after spiking a WaPo editorial describing how unfit Trump is to be President, Bezos congratulated “our 45th and now 47th President on an extraordinary political comeback and decisive victory.”

On November 21, Bezos debunked Elon Musk’s claim that Bezos, “was telling everyone that @realDonaldTrump would lose for sure, so they should sell all their Tesla and SpaceX stock.” “100% not true,” Bezos replied, without noting how Elon had conflated Trump’s success with his own, including the rocket company that directly competes with Bezos’ own spaceship project.

By December 20, Bezos had found common cause with his rival. Both shifting people from the “low productivity” government sector to the “high productivity” private sector and deregulation “results in greatly increased prosperity,” the richest man in the world said. “Both of these are correct and the first is widely under appreciated,” the second richest man replied. Neither clarified whether the “greatly increased prosperity” in question was their own, or that of the people out o f their secure government job.

When Bezos RTed Bill Ackman’s explanation of why a New York Post story claiming” Jeff Bezos to marry fiancée Lauren Sanchez in lavish $600M Aspen wedding next weekend” was not credible. “Unless you are buying each of your guests a house, you can’t spend this much money,” then, it was just his fifth tweet since February.

 

The owner of the Washington Post engaged in a bit of press criticism in that tweet, apparently denying not just that he’s dropping $600M on a party, but that the party would happen this week at all (I believe the date of the purported wedding has now passed with no wedding).

Furthermore, this whole thing is completely false — none of this is happening. The old adage “don’t believe everything you read” is even more true today than it ever has been. Now lies can get ALL the way around the world before the truth can get its pants on. So be careful out there folks and don’t be gullible.

Will be interesting to see if all the outlets that “covered” and re-reported on this issue a correction when it comes and goes and doesn’t happen.

Bezos — whose rag (according to a Will Lewis interview with Ben Smith) specifically pointed to brainless dick pic sniffing about Hunter Biden that didn’t correct WaPo’s past errors to rebut claims of bias — believed he’d get “corrections” to salacious stories from Daily Mail and NY Post of the kind that made Hunter Biden dick pics A Thing.

Let me state that more clearly. A man whose newspaper chose to respond to political pressure by letting the Daily Mail and NYPost and Fox News serve as assignment editors for his journalists demanded that the Daily Mail and NYPost adhere to a higher standard than the still-uncorrected WaPo.

That’s why I decided to revisit this incident after watching this exchange, about the problems with traditional journalistic efforts to achieve objectivity in the face of asymmetric approaches to truth.

Bezos, of course, tried to explain his decision to intervene in the content of his rag (by spiking the Kamala Harris endorsement) by suggesting WaPo simply isn’t being realistic about perceptions of bias, then adding to perceptions of bias by failing to disclose all the conflicts that might have led him to curry favor with Trump.

In the annual public surveys about trust and reputation, journalists and the media have regularly fallen near the very bottom, often just above Congress. But in this year’s Gallup poll, we have managed to fall below Congress. Our profession is now the least trusted of all. Something we are doing is clearly not working.

[snip]

Likewise with newspapers. We must be accurate, and we must be believed to be accurate. It’s a bitter pill to swallow, but we are failing on the second requirement. Most people believe the media is biased. Anyone who doesn’t see this is paying scant attention to reality, and those who fight reality lose. Reality is an undefeated champion. It would be easy to blame others for our long and continuing fall in credibility (and, therefore, decline in impact), but a victim mentality will not help. Complaining is not a strategy. We must work harder to control what we can control to increase our credibility.

Weeks later, after sucking up to Trump post-election, Bezos’ rag buried news of the unfitness of Trump’s nominees behind 7 pieces on the Hunter Biden pardon.

The continued reliance on dick pic sniffing to convince right wingers the WaPo is not biased is particularly rich [cough] coming from Bezos, newly targeted by gossip from the Daily Mail picked up by NYP.

Bezos, of all people, should have known better than to exploit a guy targeted with revenge porn by hostile nation-states and political partisans. In 2019, the NY Enquirer, while under Non-Prosecution Agreement for its past Kill and Capture activities, tried to extort him with … dick pics. As a Dylan Howard email described when trying to get Bezos to call off an investigation into Saudi ties in all this, the rag that had intervened in 2016 to help elect Trump had ten damning pictures disclosing what was then an affair with Lauren Sanchez while Bezos was still married.

In addition to the “below the belt selfie — otherwise colloquially known as a ‘d*ck pick’” — The Enquirer obtained a further nine images. These include:

· Mr. Bezos face selfie at what appears to be a business meeting.

· Ms. Sanchez response — a photograph of her smoking a cigar in what appears to be a simulated oral sex scene.

· A shirtless Mr. Bezos holding his phone in his left hand — while wearing his wedding ring. He’s wearing either tight black cargo pants or shorts — and his semi-erect manhood is penetrating the zipper of said garment.

When Bezos preemptively exposed that effort (an effort that mysteriously didn’t turn into charges for a violation of National Enquirer’s past NPA), he attributed the attack to his ownership of the WaPo. But, the same guy spiking endorsements of Trump’s opponent and relying on dick pic sniffing to stave off claims of bias said then, his stewardship of the WaPo would remain unswerving.

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.

(Even though The Post is a complexifier for me, I do not at all regret my investment. The Post is a critical institution with a critical mission. My stewardship of The Post and my support of its mission, which will remain unswerving, is something I will be most proud of when I’m 90 and reviewing my life, if I’m lucky enough to live that long, regardless of any complexities it creates for me.)

It turns out, as happened the last time someone tried to start a scandal about Bezos’ relationship with Sanchez, the second richest man in the world didn’t have to rely on journalistic ethics to combat the dick pic sniffing.

Both the Daily Mail and the NYP prominently (including in a blurb added to the NYP video, above) added Bezos’ denial to their original stories.

Sources told the DailyMail.com that the billionaire Amazon founder, 60, and his ex-TV news anchor fiancée, 55, had bought out ritzy sushi restaurant Matsuhisa in the Colorado ski town for December 26 or 27, and have their nuptials planned for Saturday 28.

Three sources told DailyMail.com they had been made aware of the Bezos wedding taking place on December 28.

However, after the Daily Mail published the story, Bezos’s team, denied the wedding was going ahead next weekend.

The billionaire took to X on Sunday to slam the wedding claims as ‘completely false’.

‘This whole thing is completely false – none of this is happening,’ he posted on X. ‘The old adage “don’t believe everything you read” is even more true today than it ever has been.’

And by the time I returned to this exchange on Xitter, the link Ackman had RTed had been disabled, as if Xitter had [gasp!] throttled a link to a NYP story!

It didn’t even take the date of the alleged marriage passing for everyone to have cleaned up a story about the second richest man in the world!

Must be nice not to have to rely on corrections.

The problem is so, so much worse than an asymmetric relationship with the truth.

But it has a happy ending for defense contractor Jeff Bezos, whose Blue Origin rocket company was the most obvious hint of payback for his sycophancy, launched yesterday. Bezos posted rocket launch porn on his account at rival rocket man Elon’s site, and accepted the congratulations of numerous people, including his rocket man rival.

We are so beyond the stratosphere of symmetrical relationships to the truth.

The BezosPost Struggles with the Boundaries of Press Freedom

/29 Comments/in , /by

I’m the rare person who argues that ABC’s decision to settle Trump’s lawsuit has, at least, some legal explanation. The judge in the case seemed sympathetic to Trump’s argument. George Stephanopoulos did misstate what the jury–as distinct from Judge Lewis Kaplan–said. ABC would not be the first major media outlet to settle a lawsuit before one of its star personalities had to sit for a deposition; Fox always settles before Hannity gets deposed, for example.

This, from Andrew Torrez and Liz Dye, is a good write-up.

But — ironically — WaPo’s inclusion of the ABC settlement in a story billed in its subhead as a description of how Trump will “will ramp up pressure on journalists” betrays a larger, different problem.

Oh sure, it included that legal explanation.

Continuing with the case might have made public any damaging internal communications to and from Stephanopoulos. If the case made it to trial, it would face a jury in Florida — a red state that Trump carried by 13 points — that could side with the president-elect and award a penalty that could easily exceed the price of a settlement. Appeals to any decision would last for years and risk reaching the Supreme Court, where two sitting justices have already expressed their desire to weaken the court’s landmark decision that has protected the American media’s ability to report aggressively on public figures, especially officials, in the public interest.

But before it got there, it described a bunch of other vulnerabilities, most of which have little to do with journalism.

ABC News’s decision to settle has sent shudders through the media industry and the legal community that represents it. According to three people familiar with the company’s internal deliberations who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss legal strategy, ABC and Disney executives decided to settle not only because of the legal risks in the case but also because of Trump’s promises to take retribution [sic] against his enemies.

[snip]

Disney conducts business in more than 130 countries and employs roughly 225,000 employees — a virtual nation-state with corporate shareholders it is legally obligated to consider when making strategic decisions. The executives reasoned that being in active litigation with a sitting president could hamper the business.

Disney’s ABC operates more than 230 affiliate television stations nationwide, some relying on the Federal Communications Commission for license renewals. Trump has repeatedly talked about pulling the federal licenses from television stations that broadcast news about him he doesn’t like and said last year that he plans to bring the FCC under presidential authority.

Disney and many other media companies are already planning potential merger activity that executives hope passes muster with the antitrust division of the Justice Department, which is poised to be run by Trump loyalist Pam Bondi. Disney pumps out movies and television shows that it needs to appeal to the millions of people who voted for Trump and have already shown themselves willing to boycott products he attacks.

These are:

  • Disney’s obligations to shareholders require that it weigh the impact the lawsuit will have on the larger 225K person company.
  • Its 225 TV stations, and their periodical license renewals, make it vulnerable to the whims of the FCC.
  • Disney has other corporate acquisitions planned that might be subject to antitrust review.
  • Disney’s movies must not only appeal to Trump supporters, but withstand boycotts from them.

Some of this — the need to sell Disney movies and the past tussle with Ron DeSantis — appears in the NYT story that (as WaPo notes) first confirmed Bob Iger’s personal involvement. It is consistent with what others have said about how the lawsuit fits into ABC’s larger corporate perspective.

But it included more, such as the bit about how ABC caved because it has corporate acquisitions that could be vetoed by Pam Bondi’s DOJ.

It’s not the details of this that I find curious.

It’s that a media reporter and a democracy reporter working for Jeff Bezos did not distinguish the things that are journalism (at a stretch, the ABC licenses) from what is not (the action hero movies and other corporate acquisitions).

Indeed, the article generally does not maintain a distinction between its discussion of press freedoms and media corporations. The word “press” appears 13 times (including in the subhead, which the journalists would not have written, and four times in two quotes apiece from cited experts). The word “media” appears 15 times (including in the heading and a caption and several times as an adjective in a title). The word “journalist” shows up just four times, twice in a discussion of how past presidents (Nixon and Obama) cracked down on journalism, once referring to talking head Chuck Todd.

Without reflection, it treats the plight of giant media companies as the same as its impact on journalism.

The article adds a few new details about why a corporation built off nearly a century of Intellectual Property protection for a cartoon mouse settled a lawsuit. But it doesn’t lay out the obvious implication of the story it tells: that ABC was vulnerable to Trump’s attack not, primarily, because of its journalism — because of what Stephanopoulos said — but instead because the mouse company is not primarily interested in journalism.

That is, it is precisely Disney’s size and scope that rendered it vulnerable to Trump’s threats.

That’s not a novel discovery: that multinational corporations that happen to own journalistic outlets have interests that conflict and undermine their journalism. But as we discuss how to protect journalism while Trump tries to neuter it, it is an important reminder. Even Trump’s lawsuit against the Des Moines Register pits Gannett’s interests against Ann Selzer, though at least Gannett is primarily a journalistic outlet.

For a corporation like Disney — or an oligarch like Jeff Bezos — it’s the other competing interests that may doom the journalism. And journalists need to be clear about that dynamic.

Update: It turns out that Brendan Carr is going to intrude in ABC’s license renewals anyway. Carr wrote Bob Iger, citing the settlement, complaining about how ABC is negotiating its renewals.

The incoming chairman of the Federal Communications Commission is sending a stern message to the owners of television stations and networks. And he is using ABC’s recent settlement with President-elect Donald Trump as a news peg of sorts.

Brendan Carr, a Trump-appointed commissioner who will become chairman next month, wrote to Disney CEO Bob Iger over the weekend about the Disney-owned ABC network’s negotiations with its affiliated stations across the United States.

Brian Stelter posted the letter here.

The Terrifying Complexity of Tech Oligarchs’ Obeisance to Trump

/40 Comments/in , /by

Perhaps I’m being a pollyanna. But from my perspective — living in Ireland, the lilypad for America’s tech companies, where regulators just ordered Meta to improve its responsiveness to complaints about terrorist content — I’m nowhere near as worried that ABC settled the lawsuit over whether Trump raped or just digitally raped E Jean Carroll as I am that one after another big tech oligarch, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Sundar Pichai, and Tim Cook (Trump made a point in his presser today to note Sergey Brin has also come calling), has bent his knee to Trump, to say nothing of Elon Musk dumping $250 million to get Trump elected and then insinuating himself into the Trump family.

This post from Liz Dye and Andrew Torrez explains why, from a legal perspective, the ABC settlement is not quite as scandalous as some are taking it to be. And this Brian Stelter column explains why the timing of it suggests ABC may have had good reason to avoid discovery. All the times Fox has settled lawsuits before Sean Hannity had to sit for a deposition, which is when Fox always settles, were not deemed the end of the world, and this may not be either. It may, instead, simply be the shitty decision of a shitty mega corporation.

To be sure, Trump is going to follow Viktor Orbán’s formula and try to discipline the legacy media into acting as his captive media (as Anne Appelbaum discussed with Greg Sargent). But where have you been?!?! He made great strides in doing that already — building on his successful propaganda about the Russian investigation with distractions about dick pics in lieu of actual reporting on Trump’s alleged crime and corruption. The legacy media has been gleefully playing a useful prop in Trump’s domination reality TV show for years. I’d like them to stop, but cannot force them to figure out how they’re being used.

The obeisance from the tech oligarchs, however, terrifies me in a different way.

Consider how many different issues intersect in the business conflicts of these men:

  • Imports (especially for Apple) that might be subject to tariffs
  • Anti-trust
  • The Artificial Intelligence booming bustlet
  • Moderation & other content issues
  • EU privacy and moderation policy
  • Intelligence sharing and government contacting

Start with the ways that Trump has leverage over these oligarchs: Trump is threatening tariffs that could devastate Apple’s iPhone imports and Amazon’s general imports. Trump’s nominee to lead FCC, Brendan Carr, has threatened to pull Section 230 protection for platforms that moderate content. Biden’s DOJ has taken unprecedented anti-trust actions against Big Tech that Trump could easily reverse. Bezos, especially, is a big government contractor.

Trump has a whole set of carrots and sticks he can use with these oligarchs, even ignoring Trump’s threat to put Zuckerberg in prison for the rest of his life.

Meanwhile, all these men have spent the last few years enshittifying their companies with a commitment to Artificial Intelligence. Not only is Google’s search monopoly under threat in DOJ’s lawsuit, but Google has made its search function utterly useless with shitty AI.

AI was at once a stupid business bet, but also a wicked (and thus far, painfully successful) investment in busting intellectual property and with it white collar employment security, including that of journalists.

Trump’s sidekick Elon Musk has conned Trump into joining the AI cult, so on that issue Trump and the oligarchs see eye to eye, with the Russia’s useful idiot David Sacks appointed to push AI from within the White House.

Now consider how that mix of shared interests and powerful leverage plays out in Trump’s plan to extend fascist power.

We saw how it worked under Musk with Xitter: He bought the platform and then turned the public square into a forum that preferred not just right wing content (which was always true of social media platforms) but fascist content. All the while, Musk was conducting one of the largest ever disinformation campaigns targeting Kamala Harris on Meta. Trump has specifically threatened Google because pro-Trump content doesn’t drown out criticism, which is a danger when people increasingly get their content from YouTube rather than ABC.

That is, these same platforms can and have created gatekeepers between consumers and actual news products, gatekeepers that introduce their own antipolitical if not fascist bias. And Trump wants to magnify that effect.

That’s US focused content. But Musk tested his international reach last summer when he, personally, helped to gin up far right violence in the UK.

As today’s ruling against Meta shows, between privacy rules and content limits, the EU has better tools to combat the spread of fascism via US tech platforms, though they’re far from perfect. Importantly, Musk has treated British legal inquiries as a joke. And JD Vance has explicitly tied US national security policy, including NATO, to moderation policies.

The joint fascist/Russian project would like to break up the EU (or Orbanize it). Fascist parties are increasingly ascendant. And EU data sovereignty which limits hate and violent speech will be under increasing threat.

Especially here in Ireland. Ireland’s recent affluence is built on US tech investment. Indeed, the governing coalition bucked recent anti-incumbent trends in the recent general election thanks in part to taxes Apple was forced to pay, which the Irish government was reluctant to make it pay. Because Ireland is so beholden to those tech jobs, its regulation of US tech companies has only recently approached what the rest of the EU demanded. That gives the tech companies — and by extension, Trump — a special kind of leverage over Ireland. Ireland was already a weak point in European security, but the demands of tech companies could exacerbate that.

Meanwhile, it just so happens that the men bowing to Trump are the key participants in Section 702 spying, one of the most important competitive advantages the US empire has. And that, too, is a point of leverage with Europe. It has always been the case that an Empire’s intelligence projection is a benefit offered to those in its orbit. That’s why European leaders’ complaints about the Snowden disclosures were always muted: they relied on US intelligence to keep their countries safe. A number of recent disclosures about Russian influence operations and sabotage in Europe likely rely at least partly on US intelligence. But Trump has already been talking about cutting down intelligence sharing with Europe, something that would make it far harder to fend off Russian-backed fascist parties.

These oligarchs — every one of them, I’d bet — have long believed their companies supersede the sovereignty of mere nations. Before now, however, they lacked armies to enforce that claim. Trump has at least floated plans that might dramatically change how US tech companies become a kind of toxic platform projecting US power and propaganda.

Trump will continue to sue for defamation like he has always done. ABC caving doesn’t make that more or less likely. Trump will continue to seek other ways to bankrupt the legacy media.

But Trump’s relations with America’s tech giants have the potential to be an altogether new kind of threat, one far more ominous both within and outside the US.

And thus far, it appears the tech oligarchs are playing ball.

Update: Meanwhile, Will Lewis can’t convince any credible editor to work for him and Bezos.

The situation at the Washington Post is so dire that two candidates to run the paper — Cliff Levy of the New York Times and Meta’s Anne Kornblut, a former Post editor — both withdrew from consideration for the top newsroom job over the paper’s strategy, sources involved in the process say.

Why it matters: The Post is scrambling to find a new executive editor, the chair once held by Ben Bradlee, amid shrinking paid readership and revenue. Publisher and CEO Will Lewis, handpicked by owner Jeff Bezos to save the Post, hasn’t impressed the candidates with his vision for the future, the sources tell us.

One person involved in the search told us Lewis’ pitch was foggy and uninspiring.
Zoom in: Levy, who pulled out last week, and Kornblut, whose conversations ended in September, declined to comment. Other candidates include current interim executive editor Matt Murray. But it’s hard to imagine this monthslong process unfolding so publicly — only to end with the same guy in charge.

A few candidates were asked to write six-page memos — a hallmark of Amazon culture — about their journalistic vision for the paper, using AI and how to grow the Post’s audience.

How Jeff Bezos Smothered Pete Hegseth News because Hunter Biden Was Pardoned of Already Declined Charges

/53 Comments/in , , /by

When I went to bed last night, the WaPo was feeding me the following stories at the top of its digital front page.

WaPo has since added a story about Biden’s attempt to surge weapons to Ukraine before Trump cuts them off.

There was not and is not any story dedicated to Kash Patel’s promises to target Trump’s enemies at FBI — a story that not only is more urgent than any of the seven Hunter Biden pardon stories, but is fundamentally tied to the how and why of the Hunter Biden pardon.

There was not and is not any story on Jane Mayer’s report about how Pete Hegseth,

was forced to step down by both of the two nonprofit advocacy groups that he ran—Veterans for Freedom and Concerned Veterans for America—in the face of serious allegations of financial mismanagement, sexual impropriety, and personal misconduct.

Even as Hegseth made visits with the Senators whose vote he would need to be confirmed (definitely watch this video), the rag owned by defense contractor Jeff Bezos chose to litter its front page with seven stories and columns about Hunter Biden’s pardon rather than report out that Hegseth has a history of failing to manage the budgets of even just two medium-sized non-profits.

And it’s not just that Bezos’ rag buried far more urgent news about Trump’s nominees.

It’s that (with the exception of this column explaining the risks and difficulty of seizing weapons from addicts) the Hunter Biden stories were not all that useful.

Will Lewis has again chosen to platform Matt Viser’s dick pic sniffing about Joe Biden, this time trying to drive the controversy about the pardon; as far as I’m aware, Viser still has not disclosed to WaPo’s readers that an error in his own reporting caused a false scandal about Hunter’s art sales.

Viser’s 1800-word post includes 22 words that address, with no specifics, Pam Bondi and Kash Patel’s promise to persecute Trump’s enemies: “His picks for attorney general, Pam Bondi, and for FBI director, Kash Patel, have urged retribution against Trump’s political adversaries and critics.” It does, however, float an inaccurate quote also included in this Aaron Blake piece (as well as these Betsy Woodruff and Ken Vogel stories), claiming that Hunter’s pardon is broader than any since Nixon’s pardon.

Former Pardon Attorney Margaret Love hates this pardon and she’s not afraid to mislead reporters to criticize it, as when she told Woodruff that Nixon was the only precedent.

“I have never seen language like this in a pardon document that purports to pardon offenses that have not apparently even been charged, with the exception of the Nixon pardon,” said Margaret Love, who served from 1990 to 1997 as the U.S. pardon attorney, a Justice Department position devoted to assisting the president on clemency issues.

“Even the broadest Trump pardons were specific as to what was being pardoned,” Love added.

Love’s claim conflicts with what she herself laid out to Politico, the very same outlet, when Mike Flynn was pardoned four years ago.

“Pardons are typically directed at specific convictions or at a minimum at specific charges,” said Margaret Love, former pardon attorney for Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, who now leads the Collateral Consequences Resource Center. “I can think of only one other pardon as broad as this one, extending as it does to conduct that has not yet been charged, and that is the one that President Ford granted to Richard Nixon.”

“In fact, you might say that this pardon is even broader than the Nixon pardon, which was strictly cabined by his time as president,“ Love said. “In contrast, the pardon granted to Flynn appears to extend to conduct that took place prior to Trump‘s election to the presidency, and to bear no relationship to his service to the president, before or after the election.“ [my emphasis]

And I believe even then, Love misstated the intended scope of Flynn’s pardon.

Like Hunter’s pardon, Flynn’s pardon excused the crimes included in his charging documents (false statements, including false statements about being an unregistered agent of Turkey). While Hunter’s pardon specifically invoked the conduct in his Delaware and Los Angeles dockets, Flynn’s pardon excused conduct reviewed in two jurisdictions, DC and EDVA. Like Hunter’s pardon, which would cover the false statements referral from Congress, Flynn’s pardon would have covered the contradictory sworn statements he made as he tried to renege on his plea deal. But Flynn’s pardon also covered,

any and all possible offenses arising out of facts and circumstances known to, identified by, or in any manner related to the investigation of the Special Counsel,

This pardon attempted to excuse any crime based on a fact that once lived in Robert Mueller’s brain or case files.

As I laid out here, that certainly would have covered referrals from Mueller elsewhere (including to DOD), it might have attempted to pardon crimes in process, if (for example) Flynn’s relationship with Russia developed into something more in the future. Flynn’s pardon, unlike Hunter’s didn’t have an end date, and as a result, if Congress wants to continue to harass Hunter about stuff he just accepted a pardon for, he’ll have less protection than Trump intended Flynn to have.

And while Republicans might argue that Hunter’s allegedly false claim to Congress — regarding how he cut Tony Bobulinski out of a deal with CEFC to protect his family’s name — served to protect his father, even the most feverish Republican fantasies would amount to three Biden men profiting from a Chinese company after Biden left the Obama Administration and before he decided to run again. Flynn’s conflicting claims about whether “The Boss is aware” of his conversations with Sergey Kislyak, including regarding undermining sanctions, served to protect Trump’s actions as incoming President. (Another thing WaPo decided was less important than seven pieces about Hunter’s pardon was that Chinese national Justin Sun, who has been charged with fraud by the SEC, just sent Donald Trump $18 million.) That is, you can measure the pardon in terms of familial closeness to the President granting it (none of these stories mention Charles Kushner, much less his nomination to be Ambassador to France); you can also measure the pardon in terms of the silence or lies about the guy giving the pardon it buys. And any one of about ten pardons from Trump, including the Flynn one, were far more corrupt by that measure.

But here’s the other reason why Blake’s piece, one of the seven pieces littering the front page instead of stories about Kash Patel or Hegseth’s unfitness, is not useful. Here’s how Blake introduces the scope of Hunter’s pardon.

Biden didn’t just pardon his son for his convictions on tax and gun charges, but for any “offenses against the United States which he has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 1, 2014, through December 1, 2024.”

That’s a nearly 11-year period during which any federal crime Hunter Biden might have committed — and there are none we are aware of beyond what has already been adjudicated — can’t be prosecuted. It notably covers when he was appointed to the board of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma in 2014 all the way through Sunday, well after the crimes for which he was prosecuted.

Hunter Biden hasn’t been charged for his activities with regard to Burisma or anything beyond his convictions, and nothing in the public record suggests criminal charges could be around the bend. Congressional Republicans have probed the Burisma matter and Hunter Biden extensively and could seemingly have uncovered chargeable crimes if they existed, but haven’t done so.

Blake glosses over a great deal with his reference to things that have “already been adjudicated,” and in doing so, ignores the problem. Yes, both prosecutors and Republicans in Congress looked long and hard for something to hang a Burisma charge onto; yes, none of them found it. But — here’s the important bit — they still want to pursue one anyway.

The investigation into Hunter Biden started six years ago, based off a Suspicious Activity Report tied to a payment to a sex worker. Investigators tried to turn that into a criminal investigation based on the same Burisma focus that Rudy Giuliani was chasing; in fact, investigators first got data from Apple on the day Trump released the Perfect Phone Call, a transcript that may or may not have expunged a specific reference to Burisma. According to Joseph Ziegler, his supervisor at the time documented the problem of chasing a tax investigation that tracked Trump’s public demands for dirt on the Bidens related to Burisma.

You can actually trace how investigators cycled through one or another potential FARA violation — Burisma, Romania, CEFC — each time, with even the disgruntled IRS agents conceding they couldn’t substantiate those FARA cases (not least because Hunter was pretty diligent about not doing influence peddling himself, at bringing in others to do any of that kind of lobbying). Tips from Gal Luft — awaiting extradition on foreign agent charges — and Alexander Smirnov — awaiting trial on false statements — were key elements of that investigation.

But we know that in the precise period when someone was leaking to try to pressure prosecutors to bring certain charges, David Weiss had decided not to charge 2014 and 2015. Here’s how Gary Shapley wrote up the October 7, 2022 meeting that set him off.

In 2022, David Weiss told Shapley he would not charge 2014 and 2015, which is one thing that led Shapley to start reaching out to Congress to complain.

Prosecutors included more detail in Hunter’s tax indictment.

a. The Defendant timely filed, after requesting an extension, his 2014 individual income tax return on IRS Form 1040 on October 9, 2015. The Defendant reported owing $239,076 in taxes, and having already paid $246,996 to the IRS, the Defendant claimed he was entitled to a refund of $7,920. The Defendant did not report his income from Burisma on his 2014 Form 1040. All the money the Defendant received from Burisma in 2014 went to a company, hereafter “ABC”, and was deposited into its bank account. ABC and its bank account were owned and controlled by a business partner of the Defendant’s, Business Associate 5. Business Associate 5 was also a member of Burisma’s Board of Directors. The Defendant received transfers of funds from the ABC bank account and funds from the ABC bank account were used to make investments on the Defendant’s behalf. Because he owned ABC, Business Associate 5 paid taxes on income that he and the Defendant received from Burisma. Starting in November 2015, the Defendant directed his Burisma Board fees to an Owasco, PC bank account that he controlled.

One reason Hunter wasn’t charged for 2014 and 2015 is because Devon Archer was paying taxes in that period.

But the point is (as reflected in Blake’s note this was all adjudicated), a prosecutor made that decision. And Republicans in Congress and, specifically, Kash Patel, squealed about the injustice of not charging Hunter because the evidence didn’t merit charges.

This decision and the backlash with those dissatisfied by it dictates the lengthy period of Hunter’s pardon. Not just because they want to charge Burisma whether or not there’s evidence of a crime. But because the five year statute of limitations for FARA and the six year SOL on tax crimes, to charge anything related to Burisma, they’d have to apply crimes — like Espionage or certain kinds of Wire Fraud — that have ten year statutes of limitation.

Kash Patel and Republicans in Congress have already said they want to charge Hunter Biden regardless of whether there’s evidence to do so. When David Weiss first offered a plea deal, Trump posted that Hunter should instead have gotten a death sentence.

These people have made it clear they want to prosecute Hunter regardless of what the evidence supports. They have said that over and over. That’s what dictates the pardon, not any corruption by Biden. And to flip that on its head — to flip Trump and Kash Patel’s demand for prosecutions regardless of evidence — on its head is to cooperate in Trump’s assault on rule of law.

This is a point reflected by experts quoted in Vogel’s piece (and expanded by Kim Wehle in her own post).

Mr. Morison, who worked for years in the Office of the Pardon Attorney before going into private practice, added that the Bidens may have seen risk in crafting the pardon grant more narrowly.

“I assume that Hunter’s lawyers were worried that an especially vindictive Trump DOJ would have looked for something to charge him with if they were too specific, so they asked for a blanket pardon, subject only to a fairly broad date range,” he wrote in an email.

Kimberly Wehle, a law professor at the University of Baltimore, predicted that if Mr. Trump’s Justice Department were to charge Hunter Biden, he would raise the pardon in a motion to dismiss the case.

Ms. Wehle, the author of a recent book detailing how the lack of constraints on presidential clemency powers invite abuse, said in an email that it was Mr. Trump — not President Biden — who initiated “the norm-violating behavior” by pledging to use the Justice Department to prosecute his enemies.

“This is not a corrupt pardon,” she said in an email. “It’s about taking care of a family member knowing what Trump will do otherwise.”

The reason you have to pardon broadly is because Trump has demanded an outcome divorced from evidence. And to get to his desired outcome, he would have to do something expansive, something that could not be foreseen by the scope of the existing investigation that (as Blake notes) has already been adjudicated.

You can tell this story about how broad the pardon is — structured very similarly to the Mike Flynn one.

But if you leave out the story of how this investigation from the start paralleled Trump’s extra-legal effort to gin up dirt on Joe Biden’s son, if you leave out the fact that even in his first term, Trump’s DOJ solicited information from at least one Russian spy and a Chinese agent to pursue dirt on Hunter Biden, then you are flipping the matter of justice on its head. That’s what Trump did already, in his desperation to find something to hang on Hunter Biden. And particularly given his picks of Bondi and Patel (the latter of whom played a role in extorting a foreign country for such dirt, too), there’s no telling what Trump will do in a second term.

That’s what dictates the terms of this pardon. A prosecutor issued a declination for charges related to 2014 and 2015, and almost the entire Republican party said, we’re going to find something anyway. And if you hide that detail, you’re burying the most crucial information, just like you’re burying detrimental information about Hegseth and Patel below a seventh post on Hunter Biden.

This is what a captive oligarch press looks like: Burying detrimental information on the guy who might oversee Jeff Bezos’ defense contracts, while hiding the reasons why the Hunter Biden pardon looks like it does.

The Problem Bezos Can’t See

/88 Comments/in /by

 

The whimpering op-ed by WaPo owner Jeff Bezos, which Marcy shredded here, starts with a true statement: trust in the media is lower than trust in Congress and has been falling steadily since 1972, according to this from Gallup. Here’s the question Gallup asks:

In general, how much trust and confidence do you have in the mass media — such as newspapers, TV and radio — when it comes to reporting the news fully, accurately and fairly — a great deal, a fair amount, not very much or none at all?

How would any thinking person answer that question? Do I average across all the media I consume or all the media I hear about? Do I average across all the reporters I read or all reporters? Do I allow for size of audience? Does it matter if I’m talking science or SCOTUS rulings or political campaigns? Are we talking about the language of the reporters, the headlines, the way they handle anonymity or something else? I know some of them are deliberately lying. How do I factor that in? I don’t know what this question is measuring, but I’m pretty sure it isn’t very useful for the purposes Bezos uses it.

The interesting fact shows up in the tabs. The huge change comes from Republicans, where the total of “great deal” and “fair amount” went from 68 in 1972 to 12 in 2024; and Independents, from 60 to 27. The drop in Democrats is far less, from 74 to 54, and most of that is in the last two years.

I’d guess that no one distrusts the media they follow. If the question to Republicans was “do you trust Fox News”, the answer would be either “a great deal” or “a fair amount”.

I don’t “trust” the media. I have more confidence in some than others, and I start with an inclination to trust reporting in those. Trust comes from checking the sources cited, documents linked, and the input of other people whose opinions I’ve come to value. Like Marcy.

The actual problem

Ever since early 2016, Democrats in the general population have been complaining about the tilt of major media against Democrats and in favor of Trump and his cronies. Even before that, activists were pointing out that the Sunday shows feature Republicans, and rarely Democrats. It was a running joke that eiher John McCain or Lindsay Graham or both were on every Sunday. The complaints became angry as the media swarmed over the ridiculous Her Emails and Coney Says pieces, because most of us think that coverage made the difference in Hillary Clinton’s loss.

The complaints grew louder after Trump took office and reached a crescendo after the 2020 election when the idiot media failed to recognize that Trump was planning a coup. Tben the media told us that the second impeachment would never succeed, even before it was initiated, and treated it as a game. The facts didn’t matter, and they didn’t care.

Then Biden took office, and instead of attacking Trump as a proven danger, the media treated him as a candidate in waiting. They failed to report the utter failure of Trump’s policies. Tax cuts for the rich raised the national debt without creating any value for the nation. Appointing a SCOTUS so corrupt it would throw out any precedent Republicans don’t like had horrendous consequences for millions an no gain to anyone. Roe ve Wade is replaced by a reign of terror in Red States? Not news. Student loan forgiveness thrown out on spurious grounds? Perfectly normal, and forgotten immediately.

They treated the effective team of Biden and the Democrats as equivalent to the obstructionist Trump and his lickspittle Republicans. They refused to report the successes of the Biden Administration on the economy and on the lives of us normal people. Instead they spewed a steady stream of lies and distractions pumped out by Trump and his billionaire backers.

The media assaulted Biden over his age, but refused to apply the same standard to Trump’s degenerating brain. Instead we got constant sane-washing of Trump’s weird rants. We only knew about them because of assiduous clipping and posting to social media and the amplification given by those not-journalists Bezos derides.

The spiked endorsement was just too much. People exploded.

And Bezos thinks this problem is affected by endorsements? His newspaper treats fantastical Republican talking points as equivalent to reality for years, and he condescends to explain that he has principles so we should suck it up and give him more money? He can’t figure out why his most likely readers and those with the highest trust in media, are furious?

Admit it Jeff: you’re afraid of Trump, and you kissed his ring.

Jeff Bezos’ Manifesto of Impotence

/134 Comments/in /by

The second richest man in the world believed he could reverse the damage he already did by writing an op-ed.

That was his first mistake.

Jeff Bezos starts his column by pointing to the decline in trust in journalism. Seemingly including himself, the second richest oligarch in the world, in the profession of journalism, Bezos complains, “Our profession is now the least trusted of all.”

Bezos then deigns to explain (it’s not clear whether he believes he’s writing for disgruntled subscribers or his employees who actually are in the profession of journalism) via analogy: Newspapers, like voting machines, must not only be accurate but must be perceived as accurate.

Bezos then attempts to defend this analogy, but in the process, asserts — without presenting any evidence — that perceived bias is the reason “most people” distrust the media.

Most people believe the media is biased. Anyone who doesn’t see this is paying scant attention to reality, and those who fight reality lose. Reality is an undefeated champion. It would be easy to blame others for our long and continuing fall in credibility (and, therefore, decline in impact), but a victim mentality will not help. Complaining is not a strategy. We must work harder to control what we can control to increase our credibility.

There’s so much logical collapse that gets papered over in this pablum. Which parts of “most people” believe the media is biased? More importantly, do they believe in or value “reality”? Because if many of them don’t — spoiler alert! the people squawking most loudly about media bias do not believe in empirical reality — then you’ve wildly misdiagnosed the problem. Those people won’t decide whether to trust voting machines based on anything the vendors do — just ask Dominion about that! They’ll decide whether to trust voting machines based on faith. And no amount of pandering will change that until you change the foundation on which their faith in propaganda is built.

Reality is in fact on the ballot this year, the race remains neck and neck, and you, Jeff Bezos, decided to go down without a fight.

Having declared that, “We must work harder to control what we can control to increase our credibility,” Bezos does a number of things to piss away his own credibility:

  • He attributes his last minute decision to spike presidential endorsements and only presidential endorsements to “inadequate planning.”
  • He naively disavows any quid pro quo because his Blue Origin CEO Dave Limp “didn’t know about” the meeting Trump would schedule immediately after Bezos spiked the Kamala Harris endorsement “in advance; the meeting was scheduled quickly that morning,” as if Bezos and his executives are helpless in the face of Trump’s manipulation.
  • He admits that, “Every day, somewhere, some Amazon executive or Blue Origin executive or someone from the other philanthropies and companies I own or invest in is meeting with government officials,” but doesn’t consider whether that’s a credibility issue more pressing than presidential endorsements.
  • Rather than doing something to address those credibility risks, Bezos instead asks his still undefined reader to just trust him. “I assure you that my views here are, in fact, principled.”
  • Bezos again conflates lack of credibility with a market for views that pointedly don’t aspire to reality. “Lack of credibility isn’t unique to The Post. … Many people are turning to off-the-cuff podcasts, inaccurate social media posts and other unverified news sources.” Even as a business proposition, Bezos is unaware of what product he is selling, of what product competitors eating into his market share are selling.
  • Denying, again, any motivation of personal self-interest, Bezos then asserts — the same week his own boneheaded decision (if you believe reality) or failure of adequate planning (if you believe Bezos’ excuse) led to 200,000 subscribers fleeing the paper — that “allow[ing] this paper to stay on autopilot” is what will lead it to “fade into irrelevance.”

Dude: You just did something that made both the paper itself irrelevant (by spiking the work of its leaders) which then led longterm supporters to flee. You did that. It’s not autopilot that is making the WaPo irrelevant. It’s Bezos-pilot. It is your misdiagnosis of the problem and boneheaded decisions based on that misdiagnosis.

That’s why it irks me that Bezos doesn’t adhere to basic standards of disclosure. He is tagged on his byline as nothing more than, “the owner of the Washington Post.” And while he admits in his column that he owns the company whose CEO naively took a last minute meeting after Bezos spiked the Harris endorsement, and admits that there is some uncatalogued group of “other philanthropies and companies” that leads him and his executives to “meet[] with government officials” on a daily basis, he does not disclose what they are in his bio.

He doesn’t reveal that if Trump wins he’ll get massive tax cuts that will let him further accumulate wealth. He doesn’t describe that he owns a massive network of warehouses whose labor fights will be decidedly more contentious under a Harris Administration. He doesn’t mention the cloud contracts that led to a sustained conflict with the cronyist Trump Administration.

Now you may believe that none of those things would influence the boneheaded decision Bezos made or the way he implemented it. But he’s not going to address them — like a voting machine operator would — by laying out those possible conflicts according to the standards of journalism.

Nope. Instead, Bezos is going to claim he’s nothing more than a humble little newspaper owner. He’s just going to ask you to trust him at his word. “I assure you that my views here are, in fact, principled.”

It’s that pablum paragraph, unworthy of a college freshman, that’s the real tell, though. “Reality is an undefeated champion!!” “Those who fight reality lose!!”

The fight against fascism is substantially a fight to defend reality over propaganda. The reason to make an endorsement, this year, is precisely to defend a reality that needs a vigorous champion, not to capitulate to the Substackers offering listeners what their faith in a strongman leads them to want to hear.

Ah well. Instead of joining that fight, the second richest man in the world confessed, right there in print, that he believes reality will win without a fight.

Update: I added the line about faith in voting machines after I first published.

The Media Started Capitulating to Trump with Russia Russia Russia

/90 Comments/in , , , /by

I took a few days to go wander around Paris.

In the meantime (as Nicole and I discussed on Friday), the WaPo has subjugated itself to Donald Trump by spiking an endorsement of Kamala Harris.

Whatever else WaPo and LAT’s capitulation to Trump has done, it has focused attention on media failures this year.

I concluded back in February that the media was not going to help hold Trump accountable this year. I concluded that when zero traditional outlets pursued the story of how Donald Trump’s DOJ used a side channel to ingest dirt Rudy Giuliani collected from — among others — known Russian spies to criminally frame Joe Biden, with the Alexander Smirnov bribery allegation.

One candidate’s DOJ criminally framed the other candidate and it has been simply ignored.

That’s not the only way the media has failed. Hell, there have been maybe two stories about Trump’s abuse of pardons. There has been no scrutiny about whether Trump works for the Saudis, rather than the American people. We don’t talk about the fact that Trump stole 100 classified documents, and probably more we haven’t located.

This failure is not surprising. After all, the first act via which Trump cowed the media came with his success at spinning the results of the Russian investigation.

The Mueller investigation and its aftermath obtained legal judgments that Trump’s Coffee Boy, his National Security Adviser, his campaign manager, his personal lawyer, and his rat-fucker all lied to cover-up what happened with Russia in 2016. That’s an astoundingly productive investigation, one that should keep the issue of what really did happen at the forefront (particularly after Treasury confirmed that Russian spooks did get the internal campaign information Paul Manafort shared). And yet the media has never taken the time to fact check Trump’s Russia Russia Russia chant, via which he dismisses the result of the Russian investigation as a witch hunt. The media never calls him on that lie.

For whatever reason — perhaps ignorance, perhaps exhaustion — the media has allowed Trump to dodge accountability for the help Russia gave him in 2016. They have allowed him to apply a double standard on the Iran and Chinese hacks this year, when Trump invited foreign hacks in 2016. They simply ignored how in advance of 2020, Rudy Giuliani flew around the world soliciting help from — again, this is uncontroversial — at least one known Russian spy, right out in the open.

This is one thing I’ve tried to accomplish with the Ball of Thread series. Here’s how it worked.

  • Trump and the media let the Steele dossier serve as a substitute for the actual things Trump did, both before and after the election.
  • Trump turned an investigation into people grifting off their access to him into an attack on him by the Deep State.
  • Republicans in Congress picked up and expanded the Steele dossier substitution.
  • Along the way, these efforts did real, undoubtedly intentional damage to the FBI, especially those with expertise on Russia.
  • Bill Barr thwarted what was intended as an impeachment referral.
  • In his effort to kill Zombie Mueller, Barr created propaganda about the investigation and Joe Biden and laid the groundwork for January 6.
  • The Durham investigation criminalized Hillary’s victimization by Russia.
  • Bill Barr helped Rudy criminally frame Joe Biden.
  • The Hunter Biden investigation(s) sucked up all the oxygen that should have been focused on Trump.

This is the process by which Trump has stoked grievance out of a Russian investigation that concluded that five top aides lied to hide what really happened.

And the media, to this day, lets him dismiss all that by chanting only Russia Russia Russia.

The media’s surrender, led by Jeff Bezos, to Trump’s authoritarianism is not new. The media has been doing this for six years.

The More Puzzling Inaction in SDNY: National Enquirer

/51 Comments/in /by

As bmaz noted, SDNY released less redacted copies of warrants to search Michael Cohen’s property today, revealing many more details about Cohen’s negotiation of hush payments for Trump.

A lot of people are trying to figuring out how Trump and Hope Hicks avoided charges — the former for his very active involvement in campaign finance crimes, the latter for lying to the FBI. But an equally important question, I think, pertains to American Media Inc. AMI is a likely mention behind the first redaction in the redacted footnote where the government describes the disposition of the investigation.

After all, DOJ publicly announced in December that AMI — the parent company of the National Enquirer — had entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement with DOJ in September 2018. And they were involved in both campaign finance crimes, the hush payments to both Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels. So they should be mentioned in precisely that spot.

But that raises questions about why the mention should be redacted. While the AMI NPA is not readily available from a search on the main DOJ website (I believe it used to be), it still remains linked on SDNY’s site. It’s public.

And, frankly, the closure of this investigation is just as suspicious with respect to AMI as it is with Trump and Hicks. That’s because Jeff Bezos published records in February showing AMI threatening to publish details that would embarrass him that raised real questions about whether AMI was in violation of its NPA.

Several days ago, an AMI leader advised us that Mr. Pecker is “apoplectic” about our investigation. For reasons still to be better understood, the Saudi angle seems to hit a particularly sensitive nerve.

A few days after hearing about Mr. Pecker’s apoplexy, we were approached, verbally at first, with an offer. They said they had more of my text messages and photos that they would publish if we didn’t stop our investigation.

My lawyers argued that AMI has no right to publish photos since any person holds the copyright to their own photos, and since the photos in themselves don’t add anything newsworthy.

There were public reports at the time that SDNY was weighing whether these threats constituted a violation of AMI’s NPA. Those reports were all the more interesting as the National Enquirer exposure of Bezos’ affair seemed like a favor to Trump, who has long targeted Bezos.

If that references is to AMI, then it shouldn’t be redacted, as the fact of the NPA is public, even on SDNY’s own website. But if the entire investigation — including into AMI’s possible follow-up violations of its DPA — it would suggest DOJ was going easy on not just Trump and Hicks, but also Trump’s favorite rag.

Open Thread: Is that a Smile? [UPDATE]

/151 Comments/in , , /by

[FYI, update is at the bottom of this post./~Rayne]

I’m putting up an open thread since the BDTS thread is filling up as the Oversight Committee’s hearing continues.

There have been some developments in the case of National Enquirer owner AMI’s extortive letter to Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, threatening to leak sext images exchanged with his paramour.

If you haven’t read Bezos’ open letter to AMI you really should. There’s something about AMI’s attempt that’s more than squicky; it smells sloppy and desperate.

Perhaps it merely reflects what Bezos says about AMI’s David Pecker — that Pecker was “apoplectic” about Bezos’ attempt to investigate the source of personal text messages leaked by AMI outlet National Enquirer.

Or perhaps it reflects some urgency related to the level of interest from other parties.

In any case, there were a number of discussions in Twitter last night as to whether AMI’s letter met the legal definition of extortion. Former fed prosecutor Renato Mariotti published a thread on the topic and former fed prosecutor Mimi Rocah also had questions about the letter.

Bloomberg reported today that the feds in SDNY are now looking into National Enquirer’s treatment of Bezos’ affair and whether it violates the agreement AMI entered into regarding the Michael Cohen “Catch and Kill” hush money case. The agreement prohibited further illegal activity.

What was it about Bezos’ private investigations that set off David Pecker so badly he’d not think about the implications to AMI’s agreements?

Bezos appears confident — though he hasn’t confirmed this in public — that the messages he exchanged with his married lover were entirely private. This suggests that their leakage was through illegal means.

Why would Pecker risk the possibility such an extortive act might expose illegal surveillance methods had been used against Bezos?

The one other recent case where Pecker’s name has come up in regard to aggressive surveillance and shaping news media coverage was that of Hollywood film producer Harvey Weinstein. Pecker and Weinstein have been characterized as friends:

Mr. Weinstein held off press scrutiny with a mix of threats and enticements, drawing reporters close with the lure of access to stars, directors and celebrity-packed parties. Some journalists negotiated book and movie deals with him even as they were assigned to cover him. The studio chief once paid a gossip writer to collect juicy celebrity tidbits that Mr. Weinstein could use to barter if other reporters stumbled onto an affair he was trying to keep quiet. He was so close to David J. Pecker, the chief executive of American Media Inc., which owns The Enquirer, that he was known in the tabloid industry as an untouchable “F.O.P.,” or “friend of Pecker.” That status was shared by a chosen few, including President Trump.

(source: Weinstein’s Complicity Machine, 05-DEC-2017)

Weinstein had hired Black Cube to bat clean up on stories about his sexually abusive behavior. Who referred this private investigation firm to Weinstein?

It’s also possible the effort to silence Jeff Bezos and the Washington Post (owned by Bezos through holding company Nash Holdings) was driven not by Pecker’s relationship with Donald Trump but by Pecker’s desire to do business in Saudi Arabia. What resources would have been used to obtain Bezos’ text messages if Pecker was already tied up with KSA?

Saudi Arabia has now responded by denying any involvement in the conflict between Bezos and AMI, minimizing the dispute as a “soap opera.”

Again, treat this as an open thread.
_______

UPDATE — 4:15 P.M. ET —

Activist Iyad El-Baghdadi has just finished a thread looking at the Bezos-AMI dispute. He had already pointed out each allusion to Saudi Arabia in Bezos’ letter; in his Twitter thread he says a Saudi whistleblower told him Crown Prince MBS is obsessed with the Washington Post and targeting WaPo journalists.

But the bit that clicked for me with regard to David Pecker: with its extortive letter attempting to blackmail performance from Bezos, if AMI was acting on behalf of or in coordination with a foreign nation-state, they may be in violation of Foreign Agents Registration Act.

Now one needs to ask themselves, assuming AMI did this for MBS/KSA, was this the first time they acted on behalf of another nation-state? Or have they acted as agents for foreign powers before and it’s all in their vaults?

Where’s that popcorn?