# National Enquirer tries to blackmail Bezos over Wash. Post stories **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [February 8, 2019, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-enquirer-tries-to-blackmail-bezos-over-wash-post-stories/829145 "2019-02-08T00:08:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2019, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-enquirer-tries-to-blackmail-bezos-over-wash-post-stories/829145/81 "2019-02-09T04:05:43Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > But a settlement requires a tort, right? Neither side were making litigious noises at the time. There was no legal conflict to settle. You can have a settlement of a dispute without it ever going to court. If two parties have a disagreement and together work out a solution without ever starting an action, that can be a binding contract. I agree with **Acsenray** that the courts generally encourage parties to work out their problems together. It’s just that I think there will be limits to the types of settlements that they will accept. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2019, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-enquirer-tries-to-blackmail-bezos-over-wash-post-stories/829145/82 "2019-02-09T12:37:13Z")
If, like me, you barely follow the news, [Rachel Maddow explains some of this story.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fADtYN3ILkY) > [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > Heretofore I have not been a fan of this timeline, but the potential is starting to reveal itself. “Timeline”? Are you referring to a parallel universe model? Is Schrödinger’s cat alive or dead? — nether: it’s gone rabid and is sitting in the Oval Office? ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2019, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-enquirer-tries-to-blackmail-bezos-over-wash-post-stories/829145/83 "2019-02-09T15:47:33Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > “Timeline”? Are you referring to a parallel universe model? Is Schrödinger’s cat alive or dead? — nether: it’s gone rabid and is sitting in the Oval Office? There has been some suggestion that we might be living in, if not the [Darkest Timeline](https://youtu.be/6RbKaLsxS0o?t=11), at least a very dark one. I’m prepared to shave down to a goatee and become **evil andros** if that’s what it takes to get us back into a better one. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2019, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-enquirer-tries-to-blackmail-bezos-over-wash-post-stories/829145/84 "2019-02-09T16:49:25Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > If, like me, you barely follow the news, [Rachel Maddow explains some of this story.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fADtYN3ILkY) Damn, I had spaced on the fact that Khashoggi was with WaPo. So, AMI was saying, “_stop trying to discover the truth about the killing of **your own employee** _.” That is a level of depravity that exceeds vile. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2019, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-enquirer-tries-to-blackmail-bezos-over-wash-post-stories/829145/85 "2019-02-09T17:01:05Z")
> [@andros](#): > > There has been some suggestion that we might be living in, if not the [Darkest Timeline](https://youtu.be/6RbKaLsxS0o?t=11), at least a very dark one. I’m prepared to shave down to a goatee and become **evil andros** if that’s what it takes to get us back into a better one. Nah, just need to get Tom Hanks to release the copy of the alternate ending to Big that he keeps locked away, and the universe should come back into alignment. ---
**Author:** ![Ann\_Hedonia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ann_hedonia/32/319_2.png) [@Ann\_Hedonia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ann_Hedonia)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2019, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-enquirer-tries-to-blackmail-bezos-over-wash-post-stories/829145/86 "2019-02-09T18:18:47Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > But, generally speaking, a court isn’t going to find it a criminal act to propose a deal to settle litigation. The law encourages settlement. I’ve been on this earth a long time. I have been witness to a lot of legal action, some which was settled. Commission disputes, other employer/employee disputes, divorce disputes. Yes, I am aware that the law encourages settlement. But never once have I seen any party refer to releasing or withholding privately taken non-commercial naked pictures of the other party as a condition of a settlement. Really, I can’t imagine it. Can you imagine a divorce proceeding where the husband offers not to release naked pictures of his ex-spouse in exchange for child custody? Can you imagine a judge formalizing and legitimizing that agreement? Can you find any cite of any court case where the threat to release privately taken non-commercial naked selfies was treated as a legitimate negotiating point? I find the attempts to pretend that this was a legitimate tactic very amusing in a Giuliani sort of way. Fox can probably convince the Red State rubes that this is the way corporate law works, but that doesn’t make it true. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2019, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-enquirer-tries-to-blackmail-bezos-over-wash-post-stories/829145/87 "2019-02-09T18:42:23Z")
> [@Ann\_Hedonia](#): > > I > > I find the attempts to pretend that this was a legitimate tactic very amusing in a Giuliani sort of way. Fox can probably convince the Red State rubes that this is the way corporate law works, but that doesn’t make it true. And all that ignores the fact that somehow AMI got the dick pics. Unless Ms. Sanchez was the provider of such - AMI is in receipt of material gotten illegally. That isn’t a strong negotiating point either for AMI. ---
**Author:** ![Dale\_Sams](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/779978/32.png) [@Dale\_Sams](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dale_Sams)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2019, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-enquirer-tries-to-blackmail-bezos-over-wash-post-stories/829145/88 "2019-02-09T19:03:26Z")
> [@wguy123](#): > > Our life has become a real-life fictional thriller book. With a guy named Pecker who has dick pics??? Please. If this isn’t proof we live in a 13 year olds sim… ---
**Author:** ![Grim\_Render](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a87d85/32.png) [@Grim\_Render](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grim_Render)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2019, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-enquirer-tries-to-blackmail-bezos-over-wash-post-stories/829145/89 "2019-02-09T19:16:09Z")
The list of stupid from AMI is getting so long. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2019, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-enquirer-tries-to-blackmail-bezos-over-wash-post-stories/829145/90 "2019-02-09T19:21:13Z")
My question is: the immunity agreement rests on AMI not engaging in subsequent criminal activity, but so far, this is just an allegation. Bezos would have to agree to press charges (little doubt he will) and AMI would have to be convicted of extortion, or whatever, before the immunity agreement is voided. They will most likely be fighting tooth-and-nail against this. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2019, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-enquirer-tries-to-blackmail-bezos-over-wash-post-stories/829145/91 "2019-02-09T20:42:20Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > My question is: the immunity agreement rests on AMI not engaging in subsequent criminal activity, but so far, this is just an allegation. Bezos would have to agree to press charges (little doubt he will) and AMI would have to be convicted of extortion, or whatever, before the immunity agreement is voided. They will most likely be fighting tooth-and-nail against this. I don’t think a prosecutor has to wait for you to be convicted to move ahead with charges that you pleaded guilty to under an immunity agreement, does he? That would be a pretty weak deal on the prosecutor’s part. I guess I’ve never read the actual text of an immunity agreement, but I’d be autofocus it were so difficult to enforce. ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2019, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-enquirer-tries-to-blackmail-bezos-over-wash-post-stories/829145/92 "2019-02-09T20:45:41Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > Yeah, criminal charges are one thing, but businesses really fear civil litigation more than criminal. Criminal charges can sting, civil can cost you the business or almost as Gawker found out. And Bezos certainly has the money to throw around. So does AMI, of course, but they can’t be as well-heeled as Bezos. Among other things, civil litigation has a lower standard of proof (more likely than not, preponderance of the evidence) than criminal (beyond a reasonable doubt). Makes it generally easier for the party bringing suit to prevail. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2019, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-enquirer-tries-to-blackmail-bezos-over-wash-post-stories/829145/93 "2019-02-09T22:04:22Z")
> [@Dale\_Sams](#): > > With a guy named Pecker who has dick pics??? > > Please. If this isn’t proof we live in a 13 year olds sim… And let us not forget that the nickname of Pecker’s lawyer is Dildo. Really, this combination can’t be cited frequently enough. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2019, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-enquirer-tries-to-blackmail-bezos-over-wash-post-stories/829145/94 "2019-02-10T00:54:36Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > Pretty much. For one thing, their immunity arrangement for the illegal campaign contributions has a “go forth and sin no more” clause – engaging in blackmail means they lose the protection (but are still subject to prosecution based on the testimony and other information they coughed up) from that deal. The question I’m interested in is: how far does AMI have to go to violate that clause; do they have to be criminally convicted, or is a criminal indictment sufficient to invalidate the immunity agreement? And could a grand jury indict without obligating a prosecutor to move to trial? ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2019, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-enquirer-tries-to-blackmail-bezos-over-wash-post-stories/829145/95 "2019-02-10T01:03:58Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > I don’t think a prosecutor has to wait for you to be convicted to move ahead with charges that you pleaded guilty to under an immunity agreement, does he? That would be a pretty weak deal on the prosecutor’s part. > > I guess I’ve never read the actual text of an immunity agreement, but I’d be autofocus it were so difficult to enforce. “autofocus”? ---
**Author:** ![Ann\_Hedonia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ann_hedonia/32/319_2.png) [@Ann\_Hedonia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ann_Hedonia)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2019, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-enquirer-tries-to-blackmail-bezos-over-wash-post-stories/829145/96 "2019-02-10T01:23:14Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > The question I’m interested in is: how far does AMI have to go to violate that clause; do they have to be criminally convicted, or is a criminal indictment sufficient to invalidate the immunity agreement? And could a grand jury indict without obligating a prosecutor to move to trial? Remember, there are other things in the non-prosecution agreement in addition to the requirement not to commit any more crimes. They have also pledged to give truthful and complete answers to anything they are questioned about and to turn over any documents and records that the prosecution requests. Here is the agreement. > **[American Media Inc Ami Non Prosecution Agreement](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5540792-American-Media-Inc-Ami-Non-Prosecution-Agreement.html)** So it seems to me that the prosecutors could call the AMI executives into their office and question them about their actions. And if they lie about anything, the deal’s off. If they withhold information, the deal’s off. The prosecutors could require them to turn over all documentation about the source of the Bezo photos. If they hold back anything, the deal’s off. And the agreement says that the agreement is void if they commit any crimes, not if they are convicted of any crimes. IANAL, but if the prosecutors decide that what they did was a crime, they’re toast. The prosecutors aren’t obligated to give them a chance to present their harebrained theories about things of value to a jury before they void the agreement. But that’s just my opinion and it may involve some wishful thinking. But it’s probably not going to get that far. They’ll get him on the lies. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2019, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-enquirer-tries-to-blackmail-bezos-over-wash-post-stories/829145/97 "2019-02-10T01:23:27Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > “autofocus”? Maybe “astonished.” ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2019, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-enquirer-tries-to-blackmail-bezos-over-wash-post-stories/829145/98 "2019-02-10T01:35:06Z")
> [@Ann\_Hedonia](#): > > Remember, there are other things in the non-prosecution agreement in addition to the requirement not to commit any more crimes. They have also pledged to give truthful and complete answers to anything they are questioned about and to turn over any documents and records that the prosecution requests. > > Here is the agreement. > > [DocumentCloud](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5540792-American-Media-Inc-Ami-Non-Prosecution-Agreement.html) > > So it seems to me that the prosecutors could call the AMI executives into their office and question them about their actions. And if they lie about anything, the deal’s off. If they withhold information, the deal’s off. The prosecutors could require them to turn over all documentation about the source of the Bezo photos. If they hold back anything, the deal’s off. > > And the agreement says that the agreement is void if they commit any crimes, not if they are convicted of any crimes. IANAL, but if the prosecutors decide that what they did was a crime, they’re toast. The prosecutors aren’t obligated to give them a chance to present their harebrained theories about things of value to a jury before they void the agreement. But that’s just my opinion and it may involve some wishful thinking. > > But it’s probably not going to get that far. They’ll get him on the lies. While I’m liking the groove you’re laying down, simply on account of the fact that it discomfits a turdblossom like Pecker, if the SDNY used the fact of this incident to go after AMI, wouldn’t it look a lot like the federal prosecutor was doing it ON BEHALF of Bezos? Surely the immunity agreement doesn’t call for AMI to let the SDNY bird-dog them indefinitely. Does it? ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2019, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-enquirer-tries-to-blackmail-bezos-over-wash-post-stories/829145/99 "2019-02-10T02:01:43Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > While I’m liking the groove you’re laying down, simply on account of the fact that it discomfits a turdblossom like Pecker, if the SDNY used the fact of this incident to go after AMI, wouldn’t it look a lot like the federal prosecutor was doing it ON BEHALF of Bezos? Wait, so, if you are mugged, and the mugger is caught and convicted, did the DA not prosecute on your behalf? > [@](#): > > Surely the immunity agreement doesn’t call for AMI to let the SDNY bird-dog them indefinitely. > > Does it? No, it basically means the SDNY has AMI’s admission of guilt which they can use in court (immunity was forfeited). What the penalty would be is not clear to me. ---
**Author:** ![Ann\_Hedonia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ann_hedonia/32/319_2.png) [@Ann\_Hedonia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ann_Hedonia)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2019, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-enquirer-tries-to-blackmail-bezos-over-wash-post-stories/829145/100 "2019-02-10T02:29:37Z")
Let’s see. An entertainment magazine got a hold of embarrassing naked pictures of the owner of a major news outlet, and threatened to release those pictures unless the major news outlet changed its reporting and printed lies for dissemination to the American public. Furthermore, there is reason to believe this action was coordinated with people in the highest levels of government, in part to cover up the murder of a reporter by a sovereign government, a government with business ties to the entertainment magazine. And there is debate over whether this is illegal or even wrong or even bad? Just how far down the rabbit hole have we fallen? But to answer your question, the non-prosecution document clearly says that can be questioned about absolutely anything for the next 3 years, they don’t have to prove a connection to the existing campaign finance case. And if we’ve learned anything in the past few years, it’s that federal prosecutors are hard-assed about pretty much everything. And I don’t think it will look like they are working on behalf of Bezos. I don’t think enough attention is being paid to the “they were trying to force a major news outlet to print lies” part of the scandal. The American people were the intended victims. This article has an interesting slant, the author points out that AMI’s actions are clearly criminal at the state level in both NY and FL. In NY it’s 2nd degree coercion, in FL it’s threats extortion. Neither of those laws has a requirement regarding “thing of value”,and they both fit the current situation perfectly. > **[FL and NY State Law Solves the Problem for the SDNY with AMI](https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/2/8/1833411/-FL-and-NY-State-Law-Solves-the-Problem-for-the-SDNY-with-AMI)** > > For some reason most of the analysis of whether AMI has been determined to have committed "any crime" and therefore void their non-prosecution agreement with the SDNY has relied on federal offenses. I am not so sure we have to work so hard on this... And the prosecution agreement doesn’t specify federal crimes, so committing state crimes would violate the agreement. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-enquirer-tries-to-blackmail-bezos-over-wash-post-stories/829145.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-enquirer-tries-to-blackmail-bezos-over-wash-post-stories/829145.md?page=6)