As if this whole thing we have today couldn’t get any more surreal, here they come, you have to hand it to Pecker and Dildo.
To summarize the linked legal opinions, it looks like the reason this might not be a crime is that the demand wasn’t for money, nor for anything with an easily-assigned monetary value. But Bezos could of course argue that point: The Post’s stock in trade is stories, and so publishing stories brings in income for the Post, and so ceasing to run a story would mean a decrease in the Post’s income.
How successful Bezos’ lawyers would be at that argument is not known, of course, but they could certainly make it hard on Pecker. And of course there’s also the question of how Pecker obtained the compromat in the first place, which probably involved someone committing a crime.
“You’re right, I did lose a million dollars last year. I expect to lose a million dollars this year. I expect to lose a million dollars next year. You know, Mr. Thatcher, at the rate of a million dollars a year, I’ll have to close this place in… 60 years.”
Nice thing about having $100+ billion at your disposal is you can spend $500,000,000 on lawyers to fight the issue… and you’ll still have $100+ billion afterward.
Good plan boys. Going through a divorce really puts a man in a mellow, forgiving mood. I don’t see how trying to blackmail one of the worlds most powerful men in that mood could backfire at all. Carry on.
Does anyone else feel this may have been standard practice at the Enquirer, to the point where they no longer differentiated between targets?
It wouldn’t surprise me. What does surprise me is that a kid walking down the street with a joint tucked behind his ear is breaking the law, but these yahoos might not be.
Remember, they pulled this on Joe Scarborough and Mika Brez… of MSNBC, back in 2017. The National Enquirer threatened to reveal their relationship, so Joe and Mika went on the air and revealed their relationship.
Counterpoint: opinion piece on CNN wherein a former prosecutor argues that he would bring charges and thinks he could win. (link)
Well by now, if the public prosecutor responsible doesn’t prosecute, their spouse may have reasonable cause to suspect they are having an affair.
Yeah, I don’t buy the ‘terms of settlement’ argument. At all. Maybe that strategy works on somebody who can’t afford the legal fight, but I’m guessing Bezos will not be deterred.
[tin foil hat time]
Lindsey Graham is a strong possibility to have had this happen to him. From “Trump will destroy the GOP!” to “My Lips Are Orange!”, his change of heart may have been brought about by blackmail attempts by an entity which is known for blackmailing people on behalf of Trump.
[/tin foil hat time]
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.
He thinks that it’s marginal and that he might be able to convince a jury.
The “revenge porn” thing is obvious in retrospect. I’m curious about whether the laws as phrased cover this sort of behavior. If they don’t, almsot certainly they should.
And the point about how they’re trying to preserve their reputation is pretty interesting as well.
Threatening to expose revenge porn as to quash investigation into a murder…
Usually this stuff is used to get something of value - “give me $4 million and the pictures go away”, “If you continue to press this issue, we will have no recourse but to…”. And, if done right, can be legally hand-waved away.
But this was done as to quash an investigation into a murder. And that, maybe… after all, I’m no expert here… that, maybe, will get more prosecutoral(sp?) interest than a typical extortion scheme.
It’s a poetic language isn’t it?
I know the Duke of Wellington’s classic response has been mentioned but another gem was from the UK satirical magazine “Private Eye”
Our life has become a real-life fictional thriller book.
John Grisham is no doubt negotiating the rights as we speak.
Having read both pro & con arguments provided up-thread (BTW, thanks fellas!) I’d say the chances of getting a criminal conviction are…murky. A good prosecutor can make the “broad definition of ‘property’” argument work, but a good defense attorney can throw shade on that with a strict “monetary only” interpretation. In the end I can see this going up the appeal chain, maybe even to SCOTUS, and by that point all bets are off. And if by chance AMI manages to skate on the criminal charges, Bezos can file a civil suit and really turn the screws.
“…and then the Russian submarine commander joins the CIA, and rises in the ranks until he is the only ranking admin person when the meteor hits, and becomes President, when it is revealed that he was boinking Alex Trebek’s mom…”
I mean, it’s not like Trump has admitted on Twitter that he controls whether the blackmail stories get published in the National Enquirer. Oh, wait, he did.
“Watched low rated @Morning_Joe for first time in long time. FAKE NEWS. He called me to stop a National Enquirer article. I said no! Bad show”