4 ms·
It's a non-falsifiable claim, unless they actually catch and prove whomever did it. If he can get an intel agency (Amazon customers by the way) to say they are
by creaghpatr 8y ago
It's a non-falsifiable claim, unless they actually catch and prove whomever did it. If he can get an intel agency (Amazon customers by the way) to say they are reasonably sure it was [insert hostile government], then it becomes gospel and an excuse to declare war or shake down US politicians retroactively for associating with that entity. We saw it happen with Russia in 2016.
- jessaustin 8y agoNot just Amazon customers, but WaPo customers. Every story in that paper with the slightest relation to national security or military spending is vetted and approved by the TLAs. It is exceedingly unlikely that these same TLAs targeted their good friend Jeff Bezos for this sort of abuse. If it hadn't been "dick-pics" [always a good idea, by the way...] but something less salacious we could possibly see it as some sort of convoluted "false flag" op. But Bezos is the good friend of these people. There is no way they would do this to him. If an underling did it without the permission of the top brass, that underling will be destroyed. As observed elsewhere, Ms. Sanchez's phone could have been accessed by any number of parties. It certainly wasn't "inside the firewall". So it could have been the Saudis, and those murderers have incentives to embarrass Bezos. It could have been the Russians. It could have been Amazon short-sellers. It could have been Wal-Mart. It could have been the proverbial fat guy in his mom's basement. At least Guccifer 2.0 hasn't come up. Pecker is a moron though. How could Bezos possibly respond to this in any other way than what we see here? Trump seems to surround himself with morons.
- chillwaves 8y agoRussia got their day in court and lost so I am not sure the equivalence.