4 ms·

> You know him as Jeff Bezos; I know him as my client of 22 years. ... To understand where this story goes, some background is needed. Eyeroll. Why is Gavin wr

by zaroth 8y ago

> You know him as Jeff Bezos; I know him as my client of 22 years. ... To understand where this story goes, some background is needed. Eyeroll. Why is Gavin writing this? In the Daily Beast? The narrative voice sets off immediate alarm bells, reading like a Tom Clancy novel; > What was unusual, very unusual, was how hard AMI people worked to publicly reveal their source’s identity. It really isn't all that unusual, when you feed a salacious story to a conspiracy-theory-mad media which is frothing at the mouth to bring down Trump by any means possible, and then claim the President cooked it up as political revenge. When the FBI has a non-prosecution agreement with you that any misdeed could throw you under a microscope... It would have surprised me more if AMI insisted on absolute secrecy of their source. This is classic "makes you look guilty either way" rubbish. The world's richest man got caught doing something that could literally cost him half his fortune in the ensuing divorce. I certainly wouldn't want to be on the wrong side of that particular counter-strike.

largbae 8y ago
Interesting questions, why is he writing this, and why here? A few guesses: 1) Bezos had made claims in his original post that AMI and the Saudis were in league on the Bezos attack. That got walked back a little in this post when he admitted that (paraphrasing): it is unclear how much AMI knew, but it was still totally the Saudis. Maybe there won't be any evidence coming to back that up other than the AMI lawyers' strange request. 2) Bezos had given some of the credit for these claims to de Becker before, but now the weight of any truth or not is squarely on GdB. 3) Setting the record straight(?) that Michael Sanchez was not vile but rather a semi-victim of a larger plot might be helpful to Jeff the human in love. Why The Beast? Well as you can now see every news wire picked it up within hours, so maybe they're just conveniently easy to use as the first publishing spot.

by zaroth 8y ago

largbae 8y ago

Interesting questions, why is he writing this, and why here? A few guesses: 1) Bezos had made claims in his original post that AMI and the Saudis were in league on the Bezos attack. That got walked back a little in this post when he admitted that (paraphrasing): it is unclear how much AMI knew, but it was still totally the Saudis. Maybe there won't be any evidence coming to back that up other than the AMI lawyers' strange request. 2) Bezos had given some of the credit for these claims to de Becker before, but now the weight of any truth or not is squarely on GdB. 3) Setting the record straight(?) that Michael Sanchez was not vile but rather a semi-victim of a larger plot might be helpful to Jeff the human in love. Why The Beast? Well as you can now see every news wire picked it up within hours, so maybe they're just conveniently easy to use as the first publishing spot.