Did Ami Break The Law?

There are several instances of people named Ami or AMI potentially breaking the law. One instance involves AMI, the parent company of the National Enquirer, which was accused by Jeff Bezos of engaging in a scheme to blackmail and extort him with a threat of publishing compromising photos. Another instance involves Ami Bera, who was accused of knowing about his father's illegal activities in funneling money to his campaign. Additionally, there is a case of AMI reaching an agreement with Donald Trump to finance the concealment of unfavorable information, which may have broken campaign-finance laws. Lastly, Amie's Law was passed in Wisconsin to make it easier for law enforcement to identify and notify communities about the presence of juvenile sex offenders.

AMI's extortion of Jeff Bezos

In 2019, Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon and owner of The Washington Post, accused American Media Inc. (AMI), the parent company of the National Enquirer, of "extortion and blackmail". AMI had obtained and published text messages that revealed an affair between Bezos and Lauren Sanchez, who was married to Endeavor executive chairman Patrick Whitesell at the time. This led to Bezos announcing his divorce from his wife, MacKenzie.

Following the publication of the text messages, Bezos launched an investigation into how the Enquirer had obtained his private messages. AMI then contacted Bezos' lawyers, demanding that the investigation be halted. If not, the company threatened to publish compromising photos of Bezos and Sanchez that they claimed to have in their possession.

Bezos refused to comply with AMI's demands and, instead, published the emails he had received from the company on Medium. In these emails, AMI demanded that Bezos and his lead investigator, Gavin de Becker, make public statements asserting that they had "no knowledge or basis for suggesting that AMI's coverage was politically motivated or influenced by political forces".

Bezos' decision to go public with the alleged extortion was motivated by his belief that he had a responsibility to stand up to such tactics, despite any personal embarrassment it may cause. He also noted that AMI had been investigated for its relationship with the Saudi Arabian government and was embroiled in a Justice Department investigation into President Trump's 2016 campaign.

Federal prosecutors are currently probing whether AMI's actions voided a non-prosecution agreement that the company had reached with the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York in 2018. This agreement was made after it was determined that AMI had violated campaign finance regulations by using "catch and kill" techniques to buy and bury stories alleging misconduct and affairs by then-candidate Trump.

While some experts argue that it is unclear whether AMI broke any laws, others claim that the company engaged in criminal extortion under federal or state law. The context of the communications is crucial, as information can become a bargaining chip without violating the law. However, the tone of the emails appears heavy-handed and menacing, and the nature of the negotiations seems far outside the scope of journalistic norms, according to experts.

AMI's violation of campaign finance law

AMI, the parent company of the National Enquirer, has been accused of violating campaign finance law in its dealings with Donald Trump. The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump entered into an explicit agreement with AMI chairman David Pecker to help his campaign by buying off women who claimed to have had affairs with him. AMI paid Karen McDougal $150,000 to "catch and kill" her account of an affair with Trump. This was an illegal corporate in-kind contribution to the Trump campaign, and the campaign and Trump share in the liability by accepting this illegal support.

AMI's actions were not protected by the First Amendment or by legal protections for the press. AMI was not acting as a press entity but as an arm of the Trump campaign. The company has been cooperating with the government under an immunity agreement, indicating that it has no legal defence.

In a separate case, Ami Bera's father was sentenced for illegally funneling more than $265,000 to his son's campaign. However, this article does not specify whether "Ami" in this instance is a person or an organization.

In general, federal campaign finance laws in the US put limits on campaign contributions to candidates for president and Congress. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) enforces the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA), which limits the amount of money individuals and political organizations can give to a candidate running for federal office. The FEC reviews all complaints filed and if it finds that a violation occurred, possible outcomes can range from a letter reiterating compliance obligations to a conciliation agreement, which may include a monetary civil penalty.

AMI's deal with Donald Trump

AMI, the parent company of the National Enquirer, allegedly attempted to blackmail Jeff Bezos, the world's richest person, by threatening to publish compromising photos of him. AMI also demanded that Bezos stop the Washington Post, which he owns, from reporting on AMI's ties to Donald Trump and Saudi Arabia.

In 2018, it was revealed that Donald Trump had entered into an agreement with AMI chairman David Pecker to finance the concealment of unfavourable information about Trump's alleged affairs. AMI paid Karen McDougal $150,000 to "catch and kill" her account of an affair with Trump. AMI's deal with Trump violated federal campaign finance laws, as AMI made an illegal corporate in-kind contribution to the Trump campaign.

AMI's actions in the Bezos case further highlight the company's unethical and potentially illegal tactics. While AMI claimed it was acting "lawfully" and engaging in "good-faith negotiations," experts argue that the company's behaviour constituted criminal extortion under federal or state law.

The situation involving AMI, Bezos, and Trump is particularly notable as it involves a clash between two media entities, with Bezos' ownership of the Washington Post pitted against Trump's association with AMI and Pecker. This conflict has brought to light the questionable practices employed by AMI and its potential violation of legal and ethical boundaries.

AMI's non-prosecution agreement

In 2018, American Media Inc. (AMI), the parent company of the National Enquirer, entered into a non-prosecution agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York. This agreement was related to AMI's payment of $150,000 to former Playboy model Karen McDougal, who claimed to have had an affair with then-presidential candidate Donald Trump in 2006. AMI, overseen by Trump ally David Pecker, paid McDougal for the exclusive rights to her story, but never ran it. Prosecutors argued that the payment was made to "suppress the woman's story so as to prevent it from influencing the [2016 presidential] election."

The non-prosecution agreement states that AMI will not be prosecuted for any crimes committed prior to the agreement, including perjury and obstruction of justice. However, if AMI commits any subsequent crimes, provides false or misleading information, or violates any provision of the agreement, the agreement can be revoked, and AMI will be subject to prosecution for any federal criminal violations.

In February 2019, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos accused AMI of attempting to extort and blackmail him by threatening to publish compromising photos of him and his mistress, Lauren Sanchez. Bezos claimed that AMI demanded that he and his investigator, Gavin de Becker, publicly state that they had "no knowledge or basis for suggesting that AMI's coverage was politically motivated or influenced by political forces." If they did not comply, AMI would release the photos.

Bezos's accusations raised questions about whether AMI had violated the terms of its non-prosecution agreement. Federal prosecutors began probing whether Bezos's extortion claim voided the agreement. AMI denied any wrongdoing, stating that it ""acted lawfully in the reporting of the [Bezos] story" and that it was in "good faith negotiations" with Bezos.

Legal experts offered differing opinions on whether AMI's actions towards Bezos were criminal. Some argued that AMI's demands for a public statement from Bezos could be considered extortion under federal or state law, as it involved seeking something of value through means of fear. Others noted that the context of the communications was important, and that the line between bargaining and extortion was not always clear.

AMI's legal culpability

In one case, AMI, the parent company of the National Enquirer, was accused by Jeff Bezos, the world's richest person, of engaging in a scheme to blackmail and extort him with a threat of publishing compromising photos. Bezos claimed that AMI attempted to extort him by threatening to publish racy photos unless he dropped his investigation into how the company obtained his private texts and the Washington Post (owned by Bezos) stopped reporting on AMI's ties to Donald Trump and Saudi Arabia. AMI responded that it was acting "lawfully" and was conducting "good-faith negotiations".

Legal experts and professors have differing opinions on whether AMI broke any laws. Some argue that the context of the communications is important, and it is not clear if AMI's actions violated the law without breaking into extortion. On the other hand, others argue that AMI did engage in criminal extortion under federal or state law, as they sought to obtain something of value from Bezos through means of fear.

In a separate case, AMI reached an explicit agreement with Donald Trump to help his presidential campaign by buying off women who claimed to have had affairs with him. AMI paid one such woman, Karen McDougal, $150,000 to "catch and kill" her account of an affair with Trump. This deal violated federal campaign finance laws, as AMI made an illegal corporate in-kind contribution to the Trump campaign. AMI has been cooperating with the government under an immunity agreement, indicating that they have no legal defence.

In another instance, Ami Bera's father was sentenced for illegally funneling more than $265,000 to his son's campaign. However, Ami Bera claimed that he had no knowledge of his father's illegal activities, which some have deemed implausible, given the sophisticated nature of the scheme and the involvement of Bera's family and friends.

Frequently asked questions