What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

AMI tries to extort Jeff Bezos (1 Viewer)

zftcg said:
https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti/status/1093658366583422978?s=21

TL;DR: probably doesn't meet legal definition of extortion because AMI wasn't asking for money.

No idea if that's true but Mariotti is a smart guy and is clearly no fan of Pecker, so I don't think it's spin.
Click to expand...
Renato makes a good point in that it would be hard to win, but from other readings, money does not seem to be a prerequisite.

This is akin to a mobster breaking legs if you testify against him. Extortion is threatening harm. That harm can be financial, physical, or as in this case, reputational harm.

The question here is was this a business offer or blackmail. And that, as Renato says, may be tougher to make than it appears no matter how bad it looks. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
prefontaine said:
Renato makes a good point in that it would be hard to win, but from other readings, money does not seem to be a prerequisite.

This is akin to a mobster breaking legs if you testify against him. Extortion is threatening harm. That harm can be financial, physical, or as in this case, reputational harm.

The question here is was this a business offer or blackmail. And that, as Renato says, may be tougher to make than it appears no matter how bad it looks. 
Click to expand...
Threatening to ruin someone’s reputation in order to gain an advantage in a civil litigation situation is an unforgivable action for a lawyer and a crime. 

 
  • Thanks
Reactions: Ned
Henry Ford said:
Threatening to ruin someone’s reputation in order to gain an advantage in a civil litigation situation is an unforgivable action for a lawyer and a crime. 
Click to expand...
Sure. But this can "legitimately" be argued that it was just two parties trying to find a mutually agreeable resolution and this is no more than an offer, not a threat. At least, that seems to be the take I've read.

Obviously it's a pretty heavy handed offer and incredibly slimy, but as Renato says in that twitter thread, it's a tough case to make. But you're the law talking guy so I'll defer as I'm just parroting. 

BTW, Renato Mariotti was just on CNN talking about this. He mentioned that he didn't think this would be pursued as a crime but that he can't believe the attorneys went forward with this because even a 1% chance is too great a risk. And so he haphazardly speculated as to why they would take that risk ->

[baseless speculation] perhaps a crime was committed in obtaining the Bezos information that makes risking a crime to stop investigation into that worth it [/baseless speculation]

 
prefontaine said:
Sure. But this can "legitimately" be argued that it was just two parties trying to find a mutually agreeable resolution and this is no more than an offer, not a threat. At least, that seems to be the take I've read.

Obviously it's a pretty heavy handed offer and incredibly slimy, but as Renato says in that twitter thread, it's a tough case to make. But you're the law talking guy so I'll defer as I'm just parroting. 

BTW, Renato Mariotti was just on CNN talking about this. He mentioned that he didn't think this would be pursued as a crime but that he can't believe the attorneys went forward with this because even a 1% chance is too great a risk. And so he haphazardly speculated as to why they would take that risk ->

[baseless speculation] perhaps a crime was committed in obtaining the Bezos information that makes risking a crime to stop investigation into that worth it [/baseless speculation]
Click to expand...
Argued? Maybe.

Legitimately argued? No, I don’t think so. If someone did this to me in litigation I’d feel obligated to report him to the bar association. 

 
Sammy3469 said:
I do love that the AMI counsel probably thought this was all privileged since they were sending it to Bezos’s attorney.  Bezos’s just took the e-mails and printed them without telling his attorneys.  Just splendid.  
Click to expand...
I don’t see why they would think that. There’s not ongoing litigation and I can’t imagine some sort of evidentiary or other type of rule precluding publishing a letter which arguably amounts to extortion. 

 
Henry Ford said:
Argued? Maybe.

Legitimately argued? No, I don’t think so. If someone did this to me in litigation I’d feel obligated to report him to the bar association. 
Click to expand...
Arguably, assuming your state’s rules of professional conduct mirror mine on this issue, you’re ethically obligated to file the complaint. 

 
https://lawandcrime.com/legal-analysis/if-amis-jeff-bezos-shakedown-was-criminal-they-can-kiss-their-non-prosecution-agreement-goodbye/

But here’s the thing, the non-prosecution agreement also says that “it is understood […] should AMI commit any crimes subsequent to the date of signing of this Agreement, or should the Government determine that AMI or its representatives have knowingly given false, incomplete, or misleading testimony or information, or should AMI otherwise violate any provision of this Agreement, AMI shall thereafter be subject to prosecution for any federal criminal violation of this Office has knowledge, including perjury and obstruction of justice.”

SDNY a) reserved the right to tear up the deal and b) said that any testimony “shall be admissible in evidence in any criminal proceeding brought against AMI.”
Click to expand...

 
On to plan b...

Dear Mr. Bezos,

Please come to the Saudi consulate to sign your divorce papers. Saw you later! 

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Maybe first we should consider that Graham is an extremely slippery, duplicitous and opportunistic politician. Maybe he’s competing with Rand Paul to sweep in and take Trump’s base once he’s gone. Maybe he’s afraid he’ll be primaried. Who knows.

But yeah kompromat exists. Some local politicians, state politicians, national ones probably end up owing ‘favors’ to certain unsavory parties in certain situations. 
Click to expand...
Graham was the right-hand man of McCain for so many years.  Such a weird transition into his role with Trump now.  Maybe he just craves power.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
A number of Republican politicians who at one time criticized or reliably stood up to Trump have since capitulated to him completely. I’m irresponsibly speculating that maybe AMI has something to do with that.
Click to expand...
Gotcha....as far as Graham goes...he always "stands up to X" until action is required.  That's his MO.  Has been since before Russia existed.

 
The General said:
Bezos next move, buy Twitter with some of his spare change, cancel Trump's account.

Give the handle to a collective of writers from Stewart/Colbert/Daily Show world.
Click to expand...
Writers from Stewart/Colbert/Daily Show world: "Are you kidding us? How are we supposed to come up with anything stupider or funnier than what's been posted there for the last 5 years?"

 
zftcg said:
In Graham's case Occam's Razor says he doesn't want to get primaried next year
Click to expand...
He doesn't have to worry about that and he knows it.  He's made a career of saying one thing then doing another.  The people of SC don't care about the actions as long as his words are what they want to hear.  Trust me on this.

 
[scooter] said:
This is great and all, but doesn't it seem like we all would have been better off if he'd contacted the FBI to let them run a sting operation?
Click to expand...
Seeing as how this was being done via the two legal teams, what are the applicable statutes?  Are the lawyers being  careful or are they going to be disbarred and imprisoned?  I’d be interested in seeing an analysis of the applicable statutes and what is the difference between Stormy Daniels and McDougall extorting Trump for cash (I don’t see anybody calling for their arrest) and what AMI is doing?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
prefontaine said:
Renato makes a good point in that it would be hard to win, but from other readings, money does not seem to be a prerequisite.

This is akin to a mobster breaking legs if you testify against him. Extortion is threatening harm. That harm can be financial, physical, or as in this case, reputational harm.

The question here is was this a business offer or blackmail. And that, as Renato says, may be tougher to make than it appears no matter how bad it looks. 
Click to expand...
I would like to understand the difference between a business offer and blackmail.

if money was involved, can we Say at that Stormy Daniels and Avenatti are extortionists?

 
Rove! said:
Seeing as how this was being done via the two legal teams, what are the applicable statutes?  Are the lawyers being  careful or are they going to be disbarred and imprisoned?  I’d be interested in seeing an analysis of the applicable statutes and what is the difference between Stormy Daniels and McDougall extorting Trump for cash (I don’t see anybody calling for their arrest) and what AMI is doing?
Click to expand...
I'm shocked that you're defending AMI here. No, really, I am.

 
Rove! said:
I would like to understand the difference between a business offer and blackmail.

if money was involved, can we Say at that Stormy Daniels and Avenatti are extortionists?
Click to expand...
Karen MacDougal sold her story to the National Enquirer.  She didn't go to Trump and say "I'm gonna sell my story unless you give me a million dollars."  That would have been extortion.

 
Rove! said:
I would like to understand the difference between a business offer and blackmail.

if money was involved, can we Say at that Stormy Daniels and Avenatti are extortionists?
Click to expand...
Avenatti was not involved in the initial payout to Stormy. In fact, he got involved because the initial deal was negotiated by Cohen's buddy and was so one-sided.

Also, my memory is that Cohen approached Daniels and offered her money in exchange for an NDA. (And as fatguy points out, McDougal's deal was with AMI, not Trump).

So Trump either proactively paid off his mistresses or entered into corrupt bargains to ensure their stories remained hidden. Hard to say he was anyone's victim in those scenarios.

ETA: That said, you are generally correct that the line between "negotiation" and "extortion" can be blurry at times. (If I recall correctly, that's what one of the MIchael Jackson molestation cases turned on.)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
Karen MacDougal sold her story to the National Enquirer.  She didn't go to Trump and say "I'm gonna sell my story unless you give me a million dollars."  That would have been extortion.
Click to expand...
We don’t know that she didn’t go to Trump first...the timing seems suspicious...

 
Rove! said:
We don’t know that she didn’t go to Trump first...the timing seems suspicious...
Click to expand...
Maybe Cohen and Pecker could have simply told the JUDGE that and gotten off the hook entirely, and then Stormy and McDougal would have gone to jail or needed immunity.

Weirdly though, they didn't.

 
zftcg said:
You mean with SDNY? Because they made an illegal campaign donation
Click to expand...
Ok thanks. Because AMI's motive was to help Trump's campaign, which Cohen testified to as well.

So what Is AMI's motive here? Threat of harm is obvious. Why would AMI have acted here, to help the Saudi government?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

timschochet
Is Biden right that oil companies can lower prices at the pump but won’t?
3 4 5
Replies
200
Views
5K
Whyatt
W
ignatiusjreilly
George Soros and anti-Semitism
2 3
Replies
120
Views
4K
parasaurolophus
parasaurolophus
rockaction
IT'S NOT DNA, IT'S USA
Replies
29
Views
748
LawFitz
LawFitz

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top