Jeff Bezos and wife are divorcing...

post reply Forum Index » Off-Topic

◄ 1 2 3 ... 65 66 67 ... 69 70 71 ► Go

Go to page...

02/08/2019 14:46

Subject: Jeff Bezos and wife are divorcing...

quote

Anonymous

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I’m not normally a conspiracy theorist, but what if this whole thing was a setup to take down Bezos?

No setup. He clearly did it all, with pics and texts as evidence.

Did what? Have an affair? We knew that already. What the National Enquirer said was that they were going to release his private pictures (likely obtained illegally), unless he agreed to say that their investigation into his private life was not politically related. Sounds a lot like blackmail to me, and some legal experts agree.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/08/opinions/bezos-ami-legal-opinion-honig/index.html

On Thursday, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos posted a blog post on Medium claiming that American Media Inc., publisher of the National Enquirer, committed "extortion and blackmail." Bezos alleged that the publisher threatened to release embarrassing pictures of him unless he ended his investigation of leaks to AMI. If true, this raises a difficult but important legal question: Do AMI's actions constitute criminal extortion?

I've charged and tried federal extortion cases. Admittedly, I had it easy. My cases involved the mafia, which tended to make obvious, explicit threats that fell squarely within both the common-sense and legal definitions of the term "extortion." In one case, my defendants threatened to cut off the victim's fingers if he didn't pay them cash by the end of the week. That's Hollywood-obvious extortion.
Bezos' allegations are a much closer call. Reasonable people can differ on this, but if, hypothetically, legal action were to be taken and I was back in the prosecutor's chair, I'd still bring the charge. Here's why.
Federal law defines the crime of extortion as (1) obtaining property from another (or attempting to do so), (2) by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence or fear. Let's break that down.
On the first prong, If the allegations are true, AMI plainly tried to obtain something from Bezos: an end to the leak investigation. The question, however, is whether that something qualifies as "property." If AMI had threatened to release the photographs unless Bezos paid it money, or gave it Amazon stock, then "property" would clearly be involved. The facts are murkier here. AMI likely would argue that it did not try to obtain any "property" -- it merely tried to get Bezos to stop doing something.
My counter-argument as a prosecutor would be that AMI recognized that Bezos' investigation might have led to the discovery of information that (1) would have had value to Bezos in his ongoing public relations battle and potential lawsuit against AMI, and (2) would have been damaging to AMI. The law defines "property" very broadly -- it does not have to be monetary, or worth more than a nominal amount, or even tangible.
Here, I'd argue that Bezos' investigation had real value to both parties. Exhibit A: Just look at the extreme and outrageous steps AMI took to try to stop it. You don't threaten to publish sexually humiliating photographs of another person -- never mind the world's richest person -- unless there's something big at stake.
The divorce fairness issue that Jeff and MacKenzie Bezos don't have to worry about
The divorce fairness issue that Jeff and MacKenzie Bezos don't have to worry about
On the second prong, according to Bezos' claim, AMI seemingly used fear. The question is whether it used that fear "wrongfully." AMI would likely argue that it was engaged in ongoing negotiations with Bezos over releasing potential legal claims against one another. Sure, the negotiations were tough and even distasteful, AMI would probably claim, but welcome to the real world of big money and big business.