Video Transcript
Speaker 1:
So let’s get the read on this. Does Jeff Bezos have a case? He’s putting his own reputation out on the line, and personal embarrassment that goes with it when he releases these pictures and texts. Keep in mind that The National Enquirer had already committed to doing a story, and did release the story two days before he formally separated from his wife of 25 years. So they will argue that this was already kind of baked into the cake.
Be that as it may, let’s get the legal read on it with Emily Compagno. We’ve got trial attorney, Brad Micklin, and we’ve got our own Charlie Gasparino. [Deidre] is helping us as well.
Deidre, to your point the line that stood out to me is this line quoting The Enquirer editor, and Emily, I’ll deal with you on this as a lawyer. This is The Enquirer editor, Dylan Howard, emailing to the Bezos team. “It would give us no pleasure to send this email. I hope common sense can prevail, and quickly, about saying that unless you exonerate us and say that there’s nothing untoward going on here with the stories we’re doing, more hell will come.”
That sounds like a threat.
E. Compagno:
It does sound like a threat, and that’s kind of whole thing. When you said “common sense,” do we want to have as legal an aggressive board room tactic of threatening the publication of stolen nude photographs for someone? Absolutely not. It’s also pretty clear that the thing of value that AMI saw was clearly not only the investigation itself, but what it was uncovering. There was potentially large threats to them in that capacity, although now the fact that they are likely engaging in criminal conduct opens the door for a tremendous amount of ramifications for them with the DOJ in the Southern District of New York.
Speaker 1:
All right, so Brad, at the core here is, did American media through The Enquirer, know full well that it was going to release still more threatening material after already having done so to let Jeff Bezos knows that this is serious? And, hold over on the possibility, “We won’t release that if you do this.”
Brad Micklin:
I don’t think so.
Speaker 1:
Isn’t that a threat?
Brad Micklin:
I don’t think so. I think this is just like the Super Bowl of the billionaires. You have AMI versus the Post. You have Trump versus Bezos. If you look at what was-
Speaker 1:
The president is involved here then by that?
Brad Micklin:
Well, I mean, there’s been comments back and forth between President Trump and the potential divorce of the Bezos-
Speaker 1:
But do you think it leads to any government entity that might have been able to get their hands on these things?
Brad Micklin:
No. Well, that’s a different issue-
Brad Micklin:
I think how they intercepted these messages or these communications, that may be very different. But the letter that was sent, I don’t think rises to the level of extortion.
C. Gasparino:
How could it not? I mean, let’s look at it this way. A crime was committed, we think, by someone breaking into Bezos’ or his girlfriend … somebody’s phone, right? That’s a crime, right?
Brad Micklin:
Well, that’s if that’s what happened.
C. Gasparino:
If someone breaks in, that’s a crime. Bezos hires a private investigator to figure out who committed the crime. Amid investigating that said crime, he gets a letter from AMI saying, “If you keep investigating-” did I read this right?
E. Compagno:
Mm-hmm, mm-hmm.
C. Gasparino:
“If you keep investigating, we’re going to release nude pictures of you.” That is called-
Speaker 1:
But they already had. They had already the photos-
C. Gasparino:
No, no, they had them. They said they were going to release them-
Speaker 1:
No listen. January 9th, Jeff Bezos and his wife, Mackenzie announce they’re going to divorce after 25 years. Two days after The Enquirer had already informed them That this was coming out with the texts, with the questionable pictures, they simply had more. I just wonder if at that stage, Deidre-
Deidre:
What I’m wondering too is this: so the source of the text and the photos from January, what if some people had said, “Oh, maybe it was her brother.” I mean, can the brother be charged?
Speaker 1:
The last time up, Michael Sanchez has denied any involvement. He’s a California PR type. He’s connected to … This gets even more weird-
C. Gasparino:
But you’re saying there’s no-
Speaker 1:
No, no. I’m just saying that he is connected to Roger Stone, Carter Bays.
C. Gasparino:
Right.
Speaker 1:
He gets wacky.
C. Gasparino:
But you’re saying this. I think the point you’re trying to make is that there’s no damages to Bezos on the release of the pictures themselves, which have not been released by the way. I tell you-
Speaker 1:
He’s already … What I’m saying is they already had, and the story’s coming out. He knows it’s coming out.
C. Gasparino:
No, they never said they were going to release the pictures.
Speaker 1:
No, but they said he went ahead and tried to jump the gun before the release of his story to announce he was separating from his wife. That was the-
C. Gasparino:
No, I know that, but the embarrassing part I think to Bezos is the pictures. What they’re holding over his head are the release of more stuff and pictures-
Speaker 1:
But they’re not all in this Enquirer story. The first one that ran-
C. Gasparino:
No, he didn’t. But he held the back.
Speaker 1:
But enough, that enough … no, no, no he didn’t. But enough for there that you could argue, “Well gee, what have I got to lose?”
E. Compagno:
Absolutely. And I do have a couple of points. Number one, it doesn’t matter for the crime of extortion how the threat was obtained. The embarrassing thing, or the threat of force, or fear, or violence or intimidation, that is a separate thing than the obtaining of the item. That’s number one.
Speaker 1:
Yeah.
E. Compagno:
Number two, I think this is an extreme show of force and power on Bezos’ part. He’s, “I’m the richest guy in the world. Guess what? Here’s this. You’re trying to strong arm me?” How about this, he is absolutely throwing the curtains wide open on this, frankly, sleazy-
Speaker 1:
But he’s risking a lot, and then he acknowledged that … Brad, you can help me with this. He said, “Of course, I don’t want personal photos published. But I also don’t want to participate in their well-known practice,” referring to The Enquirer, “of blackmail, political attacks, and corruption,” a clear reference to David Pecker’s association with the president.
Brad Micklin:
Sure, and I think that’s what he’s going for. I think he’s trying to tie this all together. But the question is, is it unlawful?
Speaker 1:
But that’s a leap there, right? That’s a leap.
Brad Micklin:
It’s all a leap. Everybody is assuming what was intended. AMI had the right to keep these pictures-
C. Gasparino:
A letter is a letter.
Brad Micklin:
They had the right to keep the pictures or publish them, just like when –
Speaker 1:
By the way, think about this. This is the world’s richest man-
C. Gasparino:
No, I got it.
Speaker 1:
It would be a big story anyway, and this is a tawdry one that would already get a lot of…
C. Gasparino:
What I don’t understand, is why there’s even any disagreement about this. They sent him a letter. They said, “If you don’t do this, we will do that.”
Speaker 1:
It didn’t really say that.
Deidre:
But I think in New York, and know this better than I do, but in New York you cannot publish something with an attempt to kind of create contempt or ridicule. I mean that’s New York law, right?
E. Compagno:
Yes.
Brad Micklin:
But this is also The National Enquirer we’re talking about.
E. Compagno:
Well there’s also an element of malice-
Brad Micklin:
They’re known for that. That’s what they do.
Deidre:
No, but I’m not saying they do function in New York.
E. Compagno:
[crosstalk] being a public figure. Yes, absolutely. That’s why when we get mired in these details, the bigger picture is so clear. Someone was threatened to stop doing an activity with something embarrassing, the threat of something humiliating –
Speaker 1:
Well they made it very clear. They said that … Literally, the Enquirer editor, this is an editor involved in this, Dylan Howard, who suggests very clearly that they would publish this series of additional photos of Jeff Bezos and Ms. Sanchez if AMI’s terms weren’t met. Again, I go back to the quote, the email that’s there, “It would give no editor pleasure to send this email. I hope common sense can prevail, and quickly.”
Deidre:
How would you defend-
Speaker 1:
It sounds pretty direct.
Deidre:
What if American media engaged you to defend them? What would you say legally?
Brad Micklin:
As a criminal matter goes, you can’t tell anything from that statement what was being requested or what was the offer.
Speaker 1:
It’s the editor now getting involved.
Brad Micklin:
Right, but it doesn’t say, “Give me this.” It doesn’t say, “I’m going to do that.” It says, “I hope it will prevail,” but that doesn’t mean anything.
Speaker 1:
[It means] absolve The Enquirer.
C. Gasparino:
Absolve the Enquirer.
Speaker 1:
Yeah, that’s a big different thing.
Brad Micklin:
I don’t think the letter says anything from a criminal standpoint-
C. Gasparino:
It says absolve The Enquirer, or else we’re going to show your private parts.
Brad Micklin:
But we’re talking about criminal law.
C. Gasparino:
I know that…I know that, that’s called extortion.
Brad Micklin:
No, I don’t think you can read that letter that way at all.
E. Compagno:
I do, and especially I think that the plot thickens given the allegations that Bezos put forth that the investigation wasn’t covering in terms of Saudi relationship. It kind of, to me, it thickens the plot because it’s clear there’s a thing of value-
Speaker 1:
We should explain. He owns The Washington Post.
E. Compagno:
Yes. Of course.
Speaker 1:
There were a lot of stories that obviously The Enquirer had done, talking up the Saudi princes and new visionary leader and all of that. There are a lot of weird things going on on that level, but if this investigation tries to get to the bottom of a government entity that could have gotten those texts? Well, that’s rough then, right?
E. Compagno:
You’re saying if a government-
Speaker 1:
He wants to find out how the hell this got out.
E. Compagno:
Oh, yeah absolutely.
Speaker 1:
So is obviously saying that there were other elements here, and found ways to get access to these that might not just be The Enquirer.
E. Compagno:
Absolutely. Of course, the ramifications from that would be tremendous too. I think that the larger-
Speaker 1:
He’s clearly inferring here that this is linked to-
C. Gasparino:
Yeah.
Deidre:
Yeah, he’s saying he’s targeted [politically].
E. Compagno:
Yes, and I think he’s-
Speaker 1:
And that’s a leak there.
E. Compagno:
But he is taking the power into his hands essentially, and again throwing open the curtains and saying, “If you are insinuating this, or you’re going to threaten me, then I am going to put everything out there.”
Speaker 1:
He does, he hurt himself, Charlie, if you think about this.
