Jeff Bezos Exposes Enquirer Blackmail Attempt

[Cristiano]

Wow, this is really interesting:

No thank you, Mr. Pecker – Jeff Bezos – Medium

TLDR; version: AMI (parent company of The Enquirer) threatened in writing to expose embarrassing pictures (ie dick pics) of Jeff Bezos unless the Washington Post stopped its investigation of AMI and ties to Saudi Arabia. Bezos called their bluff and instead announced it all to the world.

Jeff Bezos accuses National Enquirer of extortion, shows emails with threats to publish nudes

 

[GoblinCampFollower]

I'm not a fan of Bezos, but I think he's a great righteous Paladin compared to the Enquirer. The Enquirer has always gleefully participated in slander and blackmail while hiding behind "free speech." It's like how the Church of Scientology figured out they can't be prosecuted for fraud if they claim it's their religion.

This was certainly the wise and strong thing for him to do if he's telling the truth. It's best to just go public with blackmail material if it won't actually get you in legal trouble.

 

[Cristiano]

Jeff Bezos essentially accused the National Enquirer of having a political motive for exposing his affair, and insinuated a Trump connection

 

[Jolene Benoir]

Sleezy tabloid owner trying to blackmail the world's richest man to alter the press on behalf of the sleezy President. I hope both of them go down, and hard.

 

[Katheryne Helendale]

Does anybody even take The National Enquirer seriously?

 

[Jolene Benoir]

Does anybody even take The National Enquirer seriously?

Most, no, but perhaps a few in MAGA households. Neither they nor the Enquirer have much of a foot in reality land.

 

[Free]

Does anybody even take The National Enquirer seriously?

I Think This Will Be Very Big

I give Bezos credit. This is a very bold move at the cost of substantial personal embarrassment. But the malign role of AMI in American public life has an importance that goes far beyond that.

 

[Free]

Ronan Farrow Says He Has Also Faced 'Blackmail Efforts From AMI'

Ronan Farrow had a message for Jeff Bezos on Thursday: Me, too.

Farrow, whose journalistic efforts have detailed sexual misconduct accusations against the likes of Les Moonves and Harvey Weinstein, took to Twitter on Thursday to express solidarity with Amazon boss Bezos, after Bezos said that he had received a blackmail threat from National Enquirer parent company AMI.

In response to a tweet from Bezos on Thursday, Farrow tweeted, “I and at least one other prominent journalist involved in breaking stories about the National Enquirer’s arrangement with Trump fielded similar ‘stop digging or we’ll ruin you’ blackmail efforts from AMI.”

 

[Bartholomew Gallacher]

I'm not a fan of Bezos, but I think he's a great righteous Paladin compared to the Enquirer. .

Definitely not, both are evil, but while the Enquirer is more on Barney, the dinosaur level, Bezos is more like Darth Vader at last.

 

[Free]

Definitely not, both are evil, but while the Enquirer is more on Barney, the dinosaur level

I didn't know Barney was a Trump supporter.

 

[Jopsy Pendragon]

I didn't know Barney was a Trump supporter.

Small hands, weird color, heavy reliance on short rhyming words, an over simplified world view... and heinously annoying catch phrases. They could be siblings!

 

[Beebo Brink]

Rachel Maddow covered AMI last night and sketched out some very interesting context. The company is on probation for their part in illegal Trump campaign "contributions" in kind. In exchange for a complete confession of the role they played, they escaped federal penalties. BUT part of the conditions were that they refrain from illegal activities of any kind -- but especially political manipulation -- for 3 years.

Looks like they've broken the agreement and thus the settlement that protected them from prosecution for their crimes. This is why they were so desperate to shut Bezos up.

 

[Grandma Bates]

So, this happened.....

 

[Innula Zenovka]

 

[Han Held]

Nothing will come of this.

No-thing.

And I'll tell you why:

“If Bezos were to sue and win—or gain a good settlement—the impact could go way beyond the National Enquirer,” he explained. “What follows might be nothing less than a renewed appreciation of our right to be left alone—with consequences for everything from stopping so-called ‘revenge pornographers’ to deterring others who want to make other intimate details of our private lives public.”

(source)

In short, going for the jugular against AMI would blow up spectacularly in Bezo's face. Not because of the lawsuit directly, but the pro-privacy backlash that would come from it's successful conclusion.

Watch for a settlement, 'cos I bet anything that at the end of the day this is going to just fade away.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Nothing will come of this.

No-thing.

Much of the commentary I've read today has focussed not on any civil action Bezos might bring but on AMI's possible criminal liability, both for the particular incident of what is said to be attempted blackmail and on the fact that, if AMI is guilty of criminal misconduct, that would cancel the plea-deal they earlier negotiated with Robert Mueller.

Do you say that's nothing?

 

[Grandma Bates]

Nothing will come of this.

No-thing.

And I'll tell you why:
(source)

In short, going for the jugular against AMI would blow up spectacularly in Bezo's face. Not because of the lawsuit directly, but the pro-privacy backlash that would come from it's successful conclusion.

Watch for a settlement, 'cos I bet anything that at the end of the day this is going to just fade away.

The original article can be found here. I am not sure I understand the author's point. AMI did not actually publish the details so there are not any 1st amendment issues which seems a bit of a reach for someone so well known. AMI was thwarted by Mr. Bezos' decision to leak the information himself. The legal issue is the blackmail attempt and the potential criminal charges associated with it. My guess is that any litigation between Bezos and AMI would be a difficult combination of actions to argue. Fortunately, one of the parties involved has a great deal of resources and a legal team that could likely find a way to do so. This kind of option is far out of reach of the vast majority of people. Any legal precedent will likely be limited.

 

[Shiloh Lyric]

Watch for a settlement, 'cos I bet anything that at the end of the day this is going to just fade away.

He didn't file a lawsuit. I haven't even read that he's threatened one. He seemed more about exposing them than gaining financial advantage and a civil case. Unless he files one, there won't be any 'settlement'.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

The original article can be found here. I am not sure I understand the author's point. AMI did not actually publish the details so there are not any 1st amendment issues which seems a bit of a reach for someone so well known. AMI was thwarted by Mr. Bezos' decision to leak the information himself. The legal issue is the blackmail attempt and the potential criminal charges associated with it. My guess is that any litigation between Bezos and AMI would be a difficult combination of actions to argue. Fortunately, one of the parties involved has a great deal of resources and a legal team that could likely find a way to do so. This kind of option is far out of reach of the vast majority of people. Any legal precedent will likely be limited.

Thanks. I agree, the author's point is a bit difficult to follow.

He seems to be arguing that, because of Bezos' wealth, this would be a good opportunity to attempt to persuade the courts to make invasion of privacy some sort of tort. That's sort of how it worked in the UK, though with one very important difference -- that is, there wasn't really any common law right to privacy until (and this is the important point) the Human Rights Act 1998 made the European Convention on Human Rights directly enforceable in English courts.

Before that, the plaintiff would have had to exhaust all the potential remedies available in English law all the way up to (as they were then) the Law Lords, and only then take the matter to the European Court of Human Rights to seek their ruling.

Now the plaintiff can argue directly to an English court that the behaviour complained about breaches his rights under the appropriate section of the Convention (8.1 in this case, respect for a private life) and the court can decide accordingly.

But this, as I say, required legislation. I don't really think it's the role of courts to create new rights, much as they may be needed. That should, to my mind, at least be initiated by the legislature.

 

[Beebo Brink]

He didn't file a lawsuit. I haven't even read that he's threatened one. He seemed more about exposing them than gaining financial advantage and a civil case. Unless he files one, there won't be any 'settlement'.

Bezos doesn't need to sue them. He's done far more damage to AMI by exposing them to criminal liability in the Trump scandals.