AMI (Nat'l Enquirer's) non-prosecution agreement says that the media co. MUST NOT COMMIT ANY CRIME

[pnwmom]

Last edited Thu Feb 7, 2019, 10:50 PM - Edit history (1)

after the agreement was signed, or they could be prosecuted for anything the prosecutor knew about -- in other words, all the campaign finance stuff they weren't being prosecuted for (in exchange for the help they gave the prosecution in the SDNY case.)

Now Jeff Bezos says AMI was trying to extort and blackmail him with stolen salacious and non-salacious photos.

That seems like a crime to me. But I'm not a lawyer. What do you think?

P. 2 , 2nd paragraph

HAH! This is what Rachel's been leading up to right now!



https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5540792-American-Media-Inc-Ami-Non-Prosecution-Agreement.html



ON EDIT: TheBoss, below, has just pointed me to this thread of Renato Marrioti's explaining why this would be hard to prosecute and is unlikely to end the prosecution agreement.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1093658366583422978.html

1/In the Medium post contained in the tweet above, Amazon founder (and Washington Post owner) Jeff Bezos explains how the parent company of the National Enquirer engaged in what Bezos characterizes as "extortion and blackmail" towards him. It is worth reading.

2/ As background, Bezos and his wife recently announced that they are getting divorced. This announcement appears to have something to do with the publication by the National Enquirer of texts and other evidence that Bezos had an affair with another woman.

3/ In the Medium post, Bezos explained that he hired someone to conduct an investigation of the National Enquirer and its parent company. He notes that there are "now several independent investigations looking into this matter," suggesting there are criminal investigations.

4/ To be clear, if the National Enquirer or its parent company caused someone to hack into Bezos' computer, server, or smart phone, that is a crime. (The National Enquirer's parent company claims it did not do so.)

SNIP

[Iliyah]

2. Bezos would have to wait in line ...

But, National Enquirer did cooperate with Mueller (somewhat) and therefore may have requested immunity to certain issues.

[pnwmom]

3. But that's the point. They got a CONDITIONAL immunity from prosecution.

And the condition was they not commit any more crimes.

Which it strongly appears that they did -- extortion and blackmail being crimes.

[tblue37]

4. I can't help thinking:

[Cha]

5. Wow! Gotcha!

Link to tweet

Mahalo, pnwmom!

[superpatriotman]

6. Noone needs their rags

Shut them down and move readers digest into their checkout slots

[Corgigal]

7. Trump just doesn't know how to win

and shut up about it. He has to push and push, and AMI believed they would be protected from the richest man in the world.

Showed your hand idiots, now pay up.

[theboss]

8. Legally, this is fascinating

Blackmail is a really difficult crime to prove, especially when the defendant has First Amendment protections. But, there's a distinct pattern here.

Moreover, this feels less like blackmail and more like a way to circumvent the campaign finance laws they bumped up against previously. I'm thinking that's the angle here.

Trump's attorneys have to take away his iPhone. If he tweets on this, aye caramba.

[pnwmom]

9. I'm hoping that legally it's very hard to prove because they don't put their threats in writing.

What do you think?

[theboss]

10. This guy writes outstanding "lawsplainers"

Far better than I can do.

https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti

It's a 14 tweet writeup a few down.

(I'm bad at linking things).

[pnwmom]

11. Thanks for the link -- I like Renato.

[theboss]

12. He thinks it's hyper aggressive negotiation

I'm thinking that if they went after Farow and others too in a similar fashion, it may be more.

[pnwmom]

14. I just added the Renato info you gave me to the OP. Thanks!

[theboss]

18. I was a bad law student, because I can't think this way

I'm doing this for my own benefit.

Basically, as I'm following this, the issue is the difference between a mutually beneficial contract and blackmail.

So if I come to you and say, I have pictures of you cheating on your husband, give me $5000 or I'm putting them on Twitter, I'm blackmailing you.

But what if you've spent the last year writing blog criticizing my business.

If I come to you and say, I'll burn the pictures if you write a blog post saying that things have improved and I'm a trustworthy business, is that blackmail?

Or did I just negotiate something for each of us of real value?

[pnwmom]

19. Thanks -- I think between you and Renato I'm beginning to understand.

There isn't a clear cut dividing line between what might appear to be extortion/blackmail and -- hey, let's make an agreement that will satisfy us both and put it in writing.

[Hekate]

13. I was jumping up and down and yelling when I realized where Rachel was going with this...

Beautiful, just beautiful.

[theboss]

17. It's interesting, but I would advise extreme caution

It's highly unlikely that AMI is going to walk facefirst into a criminal prosecution.

The problem is basically whether it's blackmail or Contract Law 101.

If I have naked pictures of you, and you have been writing negative stories about me. If I come to you and say, I agree not to publish these if you agree to stop trashing me, am I blackmailing you...or are we both getting something out of a messy situation?

What I want to see if what they said to Farow. I'd be curious to see if they have a template for this (and if they do I think the blackmail charge dies) or if they are doing this in a serious of one-offs.

[oasis]

15. If it's what you say, I love it.

[roamer65]

16. The Bezos empire is about to grow.

[csziggy]

20. Point (4) Lawrence just said that Bezos' phone was not hacked

And it may have been a federal agency which accessed it. Right now they are discussing that even so, if the information was shared illegally, AMI still violated the cooperation agreement.

[Wounded Bear]

21. Too bad, so sad...