AMI CEO: IN THE MIDDLE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP SCANDALS

… David Pecker, AMI CEO

Attempt to extort Bezos would certainly violate the non-prosecution agreement.

OK, we now have an argument that the attorneys for the parent company of the National Enquirer, American Media Inc (AMI), is saying that the demands made to Amazon’s Jeff Bezos from the parent company of the National Enquirer, are not extortion and blackmail.  All this, while anyone that can read what the law states, would totally disagree.  Therefore, what is the legal opinion?

Here is the issue and the law:

The Washington Post, owned by Jeff Bezos, has been going after the Trump administration’s support of the Saudi Arabian’s Crown Prince, MDS, and that Trump believed that the prince did not have anything to do with the murder of The Posts’ journalist, Jamal Khashoggi.  In addition, AMI recently targeted Jeff Bezos, the world’s richest man and CEO of Amazon, who is also a frequent target of President Trump’s ire.  

AMI has since exposed Bezos’ extramarital affair with the former TV anchor, Ms. Lauren Sanchez.  AMI has also demanded that Bezos’ newspaper, The Post must stop investigating AMI and the National Enquirer, or AMI would publish lude pictures they obtained of Bezos extramarital affair.  

...Jeff Bezos, Amazon CEO

Bezos responded by increasing his investigation, using The Post and his own security chief, to understand AMI’s methods and possible political motivations. Therefore, the question is; Did AMI come after Bezos at the behest of Trump or perhaps Trump family pals, the Saudis…?  

Then, in an effort that was both brazen and bizarre, AMI has sought to quash Bezos’ investigation of both companies by threatening to publish a series of intimate photos of the CEO and Ms. Sanchez.

So, was this a legal threat from AMI and the National Enquirer of extortion and blackmail?

Here is what the law says:  “Extortion and Blackmail is the act of coercion using the threat of revealing or publicizing either true or false and damaging information about a person or business to the public, family members, or associates, unless certain demands are met.  If ‘something of value’ is demanded from an individual or a business, for the demanding person or business to not reveal or publish that true or false information about them, that would be extortion and blackmail.”

Based on that definition,, what AMI was demanding from Jeff Bezos, would definitely be both extortion and blackmail.  The “item of value” would be the damaged reputation of the well-known Amazon CEO whose personal life would be displayed in the nationwide, National Enquirer tabloid.  A paper that would be posted in every supermarket check-out counter in the US.

You must remember that last year we learned that AMI, that same company that publishes the National Enquirer, and its CEO, David Pecker, had acted as a shield to protect candidate Trump against disclosure of his extramarital activities.  

Because AMI had helped in the prosecution of Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, a non-prosecution agreement was made between AMI and the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York (SDNY).  AMI admitted that their Mr. Pecker had met with Michael Cohen in August 2015 and they had offered to help suppress stories about Trump’s infidelity.  Thereafter, AMI was involved in the hush money payments to both Stormy Daniels and former Playboy model, Karen McDougal.  In the latter cas, AMI used the “catch and kill” technique, of buying the rights to her story and then burying it.

In this latest issue, it is now appearing that this same media firm has acted as a sword slasher at President Trump’s enemies.  This attack by AMI at Jeff Bezos, the Amazon CEO and owner of the Washington Post is someone that Trump detests, as in Trump’s tweets, he calls Bezos: “Bozo”.  This is because The Post continues to issue thousands of Pinocchio’s at the president for his over 8,000 lies or mis-statements that he has made since he took office.  

Trump is also very envious of Mr. Bezos as Trump knows that Bezos could buy and sell Trump’s businesses as so much “pocket change” , when compared to Bezos’ wealth.

Bloomberg has reported that federal prosecutors have begun looking into whether AMI’s behavior with respect to actions against Bezos might be a violation of the aforementioned non-prosecution agreement. There are a number of legal questions at play here.  Did AMI’s threats amount to a crime? If so, who could be prosecuted? Why was AMI so desperate to silence allegations that it was acting politically?  How, if at all, does this squalid business fit into the large picture of Trump scandals and investigations?

The fact that AMI would take such a huge risk in trying to blackmail the richest man on the planet is totally baffling.

 AMI’s emails plainly satisfy the elements of federal extortion, Section 18 U.S.C. §875(d), which prohibits transmitting a communication in interstate commerce “containing any threat to injure the … reputation of the addressee in order to extort money or other thing of value.” These emails are interstate commerce.  The threat was to Bezos’ reputation.  AMI might argue that it wasn’t demanding a “thing of value,” but under federal law, that’s certainly wrong.

The term “thing of value” does extend to things without any transferrable monetary worth, like: continuation of a sexual relationship, , or even an apology.

So, it appears that AMI, as a corporate entity; Mr. Fine, its lawyer; and anyone within the corporation who approved Fine’s written demands of Bezos could potentially be charged with felony extortion.

By its terms, AMI’s non-prosecution agreement with the Southern District of New York (SDNY) remains effective, only so long as AMI commited no further crimes.  The attempt to extort Bezos almost certainly violates the agreement.

The Southern District of New York had originally made the calculation that the information AMI could provide was of more value to the public interest than their pursuing a legally tricky prosecution.

But now, they have to re-evaluate. Not only is extortion a serious crime, but if the SDNY wants to preserve its own credibility, it must respond sternly to a serious violation of a non-prosecution agreement.  An agreement that was possibly too generous in the first place. 

If SDNY does void the agreement and start prosecuting the company and its people, that would complicate any on-going efforts to secure information and testimony from AMI personnel about other crimes, possibly including other instances in which the company helped protect Trump.

Under the terms of the agreement, the commission of a new crime by AMI would allow the government to use anything learned during AMI’s cooperation to prosecute the corporation, whether for hush money campaign finance violations or anything else.

The question of whether such material could be used to prosecute corporate officers like Pecker or lower-ranking employees who talked to prosecutors as part of the cooperation effort is questionable and would depend largely on the particular understanding between each officer or employee and the government.

If Bezos could show that AMI’s publication activities were also driven by partisan affiliation, or worse, money or influence from a murderous foreign government like Saudi Arabia, the damage would be multiplied.  Perhaps a chance to prevent such revelations was thought worth the risk.

Finally, it’s too early to know exactly how this vulgar scandal fits in the never-ending increase of Trump investigations. 

The Daily Beast reported last week that Bezos’ investigators have looked into the Amazon CEO’s mistress’ brother, Michael Sanchez.  Sanchez is both a vocal Trump supporter and sometime business associate of Trump-world denizens Roger Stone and Carter Page. In an interview with the Washington Post, Michael Sanchez denied having anything to do with the National Enquirer’s reporting.  He has alleged that “he was told by multiple people at American Media, the Enquirer’s parent company, that the Enquirer set out to do ‘a takedown to make Trump happy.’ ”

AMI, for its part, responded by saying that it “emphatically rejects any assertion that its reporting was instigated, dictated or influenced in any manner by external forces, political or otherwise. End of speculation—and story.”

At this point, all we can say for certain is that this is not the end of the story, for AMI and possibly for Donald Trump. 

Yes, it is definitely not the end of the story.

Copyright G. Ater 2019