4 ms·

> ... many of them think it's clearly enough to bring charges, but it's not clear cut case in the court. > They are in no-prosecution agreement with federal pr

> ... many of them think it's clearly enough to bring charges, but it's not clear cut case in the court. > They are in no-prosecution agreement with federal prosecutors under conditions that the firm can't do any crimes in next two years or the deal is off These two facts are crazy to me, because the prosecution doesn't have to win in court to tear up the deal. The prosecution generally just has to show that they made a determination in good faith that a crime was committed. So there is a _much_ lower bar to tear up the deal if the prosecution thinks something smells criminal. I just don't get why you would possibly risk the immunity deal for this. The reward doesn't seem worth the risk at all.

jaxn 8y ago
Maybe they are in the habit of doing things like this and getting away with it?
rubyfan 8y ago
That’s my guess why they were blackmailing in the first place. He already knew they were illegally obtained and they knew that would blow their deal with the government. They weren’t taking any additional risk, more like playing a risky game they thought they could win. Maybe they thought the richest married man in the world wouldn’t want to deal with the embarrassment of having his dirty laundry shared with the world. Seems like he called their bluff.
awakeasleep 8y ago
It's not weird if you think of AMI as a fundamentally predatory organization. They don't know how to operate outside that frame. A leopard knows it can't afford to get kicked in the head by a zebra. But hunting is the way it evolved to live. Even if it has a close call or gets injured, it can't afford to stop hunting. AEI had a close call with the deferred prosecution. Im guessing the organizational culture or business pressures do not allow the company to alter course significantly for years required.
jchallis 8y ago
They have been playing high stakes poker for a long time and are used to bluffing with embarrassing information . Their mistake was to think that would deter Bezos.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> I just don't get why you would possibly risk the immunity deal for this. Because the investigation they are trying to kill is bound to uncover serious crimes that are not covered by the non-prosecution agreement that in aggregate present much more serious exposure. I mean, that would be a rational motive, at least.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

jaxn 8y ago

Maybe they are in the habit of doing things like this and getting away with it?

rubyfan 8y ago

That’s my guess why they were blackmailing in the first place. He already knew they were illegally obtained and they knew that would blow their deal with the government. They weren’t taking any additional risk, more like playing a risky game they thought they could win. Maybe they thought the richest married man in the world wouldn’t want to deal with the embarrassment of having his dirty laundry shared with the world. Seems like he called their bluff.

awakeasleep 8y ago

It's not weird if you think of AMI as a fundamentally predatory organization. They don't know how to operate outside that frame. A leopard knows it can't afford to get kicked in the head by a zebra. But hunting is the way it evolved to live. Even if it has a close call or gets injured, it can't afford to stop hunting. AEI had a close call with the deferred prosecution. Im guessing the organizational culture or business pressures do not allow the company to alter course significantly for years required.

jchallis 8y ago

They have been playing high stakes poker for a long time and are used to bluffing with embarrassing information . Their mistake was to think that would deter Bezos.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> I just don't get why you would possibly risk the immunity deal for this. Because the investigation they are trying to kill is bound to uncover serious crimes that are not covered by the non-prosecution agreement that in aggregate present much more serious exposure. I mean, that would be a rational motive, at least.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]