> 1) I suggest this is not blackmail in the legal sense. AMI, whatever they are - are not idiots. AMI probably knows better than any company in the world what i

> 1) I suggest this is not blackmail in the legal sense. AMI, whatever they are - are not idiots. AMI probably knows better than any company in the world what is going to constitute 'newsworthy' items, at least in the legal sense. To suggest they would do something blatantly illegal and criminal in an email of all things ... I think does not make sense. > They do this sort of thing for a living. ...and have been caught before: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/dec/12/national-enquirer-trump-payments-david-pecker-catch-and-kill https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/dec/12/national-enq... I really think you give them too much credit. This is a publication known to operate somewhere on the spectrum between shady and illegal. This latest development fits the picture perfectly. > 2) This is a back room deal, a pretty normal one. They are asking Bezos to state: "have no knowledge or basis for suggesting that AMI’s coverage was politically motivated or influenced by political forces." “Asking“. If it is just a normal deal, not amounting to extortion, and I disagree with that, it‘s off the table now. After Bezos‘ letter a statement anywhere close to or resembling what AMI is asking is now meaningless. > 3) If those pics are published, the 'courage' of Bezos' ostensible principled stance are not going to be rewarded. The #1 thing Bezos will be known for, for at least a decade are his 'dick picks' and that he was 'cheating on his wife and kids'. Maybe 20 years ago. In today’s climate this story hardly fills a full news cycle. Furthermore sexting probably doesn’t lead to the same public shock and outrage it might have decades or just years ago, as it’s pretty much become a relatable thing large parts of the population have taking part in at some points in their life. It’s rather tame by today’s standards, where presidents fuck porn stars while their third(?) wife cares for the newborn and Jefrey Epstein gets a slap on the wrist for molesting and raping hundreds of children: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article220097825.html https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article220097825.html > 4) I respect his choice - but - he has a company to worry about. If this blows up, and it starts to affect his 'perceived credibility' - what is he going to tell his board? He had a 'truce agreement' on the table which seemed ostensibly reasonable (assuming Bezos doesn't have some crazy evidence that he really needs to provide the feds?). The pragmatic choice would have been to make a truce with his warring entities. Playing along with AMI‘s demands is what actually would have affected Bezos‘ and The Post‘s credibility. His choice, even if bold, is the natural and obvious option. Frankly, I don‘t know what AMI was thinking.