[tptacek]

See response below. Renato Mariotti is an expert, as is Ken White, who concurs (and also provides a further analysis of the case law on this).

[thaumasiotes]

I'm quoting from Renato Mariotti's thread here:

> 10/ What is extortion? Typically it's when someone demands money in exchange for keeping something embarrassing private. While we ordinarily have a First Amendment right to say whatever we please, it can be a crime to threaten to say something unless money is paid.

> 15/ To make this out as an extortion case, prosecutors would have to argue that the claims Bezos had against AMI constituted "money or property" of Bezos and that the whole settlement proposal was merely window dressing for the extortion of Bezos by AMI.

But that is nonsense when compared to Washington's legal code, which specifically defines "extortion" to include demands for "services [...] includ[ing] sexual favors". I feel confident that sexual favors and other services are neither money nor property.

[tptacek]

You've left out the tweet immediately preceding 15:

14/ Was AMI's action slimy? Yes.

Is it consistent with some of the questionable practices that AMI engaged in on behalf of Trump and others? Yes.

But is this the sort of case federal prosecutors would charge as extortion? No.

[thaumasiotes]

I already said that AMI's conduct does not appear to be federal blackmail. I didn't look at federal extortion at all.

But I'm making a claim about the law of Washington, not federal law.