legal consequences here. they have an immunitity deal with federal prosecutors in the cohen case and that deal disappears if they ve committed crimes. i want to get to that but i want to put more meat on the bones so people can see what s this this letter. bezos is saying that the enquirer was trying to force him to say that he didn t think the enquirer was going after him for political reasons. so the enquirer was trying to get bezos there is in his letter, affirming that they have no knowledge or basis for suggesting that ami s coverage was politically moat vaded or influenced by political sources. they re threatening him with naked selfies because they think it s so important for him to say it wasn t political. okay. why? i mean, why? that is fascinating. this is america. and then one other aspect here that bezos points out there are say connection that s particularly relevant when involving the washington post and jamal khashoggi who was a columnist of the post, h
motivated. it certainly could be, but i don t know what the underlying facts of that particular story are. so, the idea that the enquirer was insisted that it wasn t political, we ll see what the washington post learned. apparently the washington post learned that it was politically motivated. certainly the way to get at the truth is not through blackmail and extortion, at least in a colloquial, if not legal, sense. shan wu is also with us. do you have a read, shan, on whether you think if all of these allegations against ami that jeff bezos has written, prove to be true if they broke the law? i think so. i think i take a bit more
federal criminal code, gross negligence has the same definition, approximately every in the criminal code, right? in my experience your statement is generally correct, yes. so if gross negligence would be vague under one particular statute of the criminal code, then we should be concerned that it s vague under every other section of the criminal code? that is correct. for example, there s jury instruction that s would say inform a jury as to how to evaluate a gross negligence standard to convict someone of a crime. and assuming that it wasn t political in nature as to why gross negligence wasn t looked forward in any particular case, has under your leadership, under the doj has anybody reviewed this, looked at it and made any proposals to congress particularly regarding whether or not we need to tighten up gross negligence language, let s say in the espionage act but in any section of the federal
the federal code particularly in the federal criminal quota, it has the same definition everywhere in the criminal code. in my experience, your statement is generally correct, yes. of gross negligence would be vague under one particular statute of the criminal code, then we should be concerned that it is vague under every other section of the criminal code. that is correct and for example, jury instructions i would say can form a jury as to how to evaluate a person standard to convict someone of a crime. assuming that it wasn t political in nature as to why gross negligence wasn t looked forward in any particular case, under your leadership under the doj has anybody reviewed this, looked at it and made any proposals to congress particularly regarding whether or not we need to tighten up gross negligence language not just in the espionage act, but in any section?
thank you. because somebody s name is with no apost-fe. that is not voter fraud. that s not something that happens in the country. where she s impersonating another te sean. that doesn t exist. you re more likely to be struck by lightning. thank you. i understand integrity. i don t know what we re doing. we re prohibiting people from voting. the state official who ordered the elderly people off the bus. says it wasn t political. i would like to hear the perspective of someone on the bus. it locks bad. obviously it s seniors who want to vote make it easy. the story is a little bit