Feds Believe National Enquirer Publisher Acted as Political Supporter for Trump Campaign

Feds Believe National Enquirer Publisher Acted as Political Supporter for Trump Campaign, Report Says
This is some interesting news here. Apparently while digging through Cohen's swamp dealings to cover up Trump's payments to Karen McDougal the Feds have honed in on some shadiness with National Enquirer's parent company A.M.I. for possibly using political money. A.M.I. is in hot water for two possible things here. I'll post the excerpt from the article itself below and bold the key details:

Federal investigators looking into President Donald Trump‘s former lawyer Michael Cohen have been digging into payments made to women who claimed to have had affairs with Trump in the past. Now, it appears that American Media Inc., the publisher of the National Enquirer who made one of those payments, could be in trouble as well, according to The New York Times.

In 2016, A.M.I. paid former Playboy model Karen McDougal $150,000 for her story about a relationship she said she had with Trump from 2006 to 2007. The deal gave A.M.I. the rights to the story, which they chose to sit on, effectively keeping the allegations under wraps. The deal also included an arrangement for McDougal to publish columns in A.M.I.’s publications, which she claims they did not fulfill.

Prosecutors are now looking at whether A.M.I.’s behavior crossed the line from journalism into political activity, given that they spent money on something that is believed to be for the benefit of Trump’s campaign. McDougal, in a lawsuit, claims that her attorney at the time, Keith Davidson, had been in touch with Cohen regarding the status of the agreement.

If A.M.I. and Cohen were working together for the Trump campaign’s benefit, that could put the publisher in jeopardy for possibly violating campaign finance law. The payment for McDougal’s story–and her silence–could be viewed as an in-kind contribution, well beyond the maximum amount allowed. Cohen is reportedly already being looked at for a possible similar violation regarding a payment he made to Stormy Daniels.

Additionally, if A.M.I. was working in coordination with Trump himself, that could be in violation of a prohibition against corporations coordinating with campaigns.

I'm eager to hear the details in the coming weeks as to where this goes. I've never been a fan of National Enquirer since they are the original name you think of when you think "fake news", so seeing them go down is great in my eyes.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

That's kinda crazy because I think nearly every publication in the US endorsed Hillary and most journalists donated to the Clinton campaign.

a reply to: Words

Endorsing or even donating money to Clinton isn't the problem here. For one, the money changing hands here was FROM the Trump campaign to A.M.I. Not the other way around.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

From your story...

Prosecutors are now looking at whether A.M.I.’s behavior crossed the line from journalism into political activity

Is this the kind of scrutiny you want the Federal Government to pursue against the free press?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Like you, I'm interested to see how and if this develops much further. Too early to tell any culpability in illegal election dealings, though.

a reply to: shooterbrody

If campaign finance laws were violated don't you want justice? Or do you not support law and order? It's not like the laws in question here aren't on the books. You guys are always going on about how laws need to be enforced. So if enforcing this law requires us to go there then what's the problem?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Is this the kind of scrutiny you want the Federal Government to pursue against the free press?
So the feds will now be divining who the free press can endorse,or how they choose to endorse? What stories they cover and why? What stories they dont and why?

a reply to: shooterbrody

Do I want the press to obey campaign finance laws? Yes. Yes I do.

So the feds will now be divining who the free press can endorse,or how they choose to endorse?

Where is it implied or said that the press obeying existing laws on the books will suddenly make it so the Fed is deciding on who the press can endorse?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Words

Endorsing or even donating money to Clinton isn't the problem here.

I know that. I'm just saying it's weird. We know that Clinton campaigners regularly colluded with journalists. We know that journalists donated overwhelmingly to the clinton campagin. We know that nearly every outlet endorsed Hillary. Is "political supporter" a legal term?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: shooterbrody

If campaign finance laws were violated don't you want justice? Or do you not support law and order? It's not like the laws in question here aren't on the books. You guys are always going on about how laws need to be enforced. So if enforcing this law requires us to go there then what's the problem?

There is no problem.

Unless we get the whole "fruit of the poisonous tree" deal brought to bear.

originally posted by: Words

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Words

Endorsing or even donating money to Clinton isn't the problem here.

I know that. I'm just saying it's weird. We know that Clinton campaigners regularly colluded with journalists. We know that journalists donated overwhelmingly to the clinton campagin. We know that nearly every outlet endorsed Hillary. Is "political supporter" a legal term?

Who cares about what "we know"? It only matters if it broke the law and if it can be proven in a court of law. None of what you just listed is illegal. It may be morally dubious but it isn't illegal. Trump PAYING a newspaper with campaign money to not print a story and the paper complying is a TOTALLY different situation than anything you just suggested.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The payment for McDougal’s story–and her silence–could be viewed as an in-kind contribution, well beyond the maximum amount allowed.

As long as the feds are going to apply this equally I am all for it.
You understand any payment for any story that could have political ramifications on an election will be fair game?
It will be one way to get rid of paid for stories in the press. It will also chill the press.
Funny to see you cheer that.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: shooterbrody

If campaign finance laws were violated don't you want justice? Or do you not support law and order? It's not like the laws in question here aren't on the books. You guys are always going on about how laws need to be enforced. So if enforcing this law requires us to go there then what's the problem?

There is no problem.

Unless we get the whole "fruit of the poisonous tree" deal brought to bear.

What exactly is illegal about the evidence procured for this case?

In other news.

Water is wet.

Film at 11.

a reply to: shooterbrody

I really don't think you understand what is going on here and are trying to conflate political endorsements or money that isn't in violation of campaign finance laws with this situation.

The Enquirer runs stories based on "sizzle". They ran one where the Trump Tower doorman said that businessman Trump had a revolving door of beauties coming in and out hanging on his shoulders, at all times of the day and night. After no video tapes of this were found, the doorman admitted he just wanted money.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I believe I do.
A paper paid for exclusive rights to a story that may have effected an election.
The paper did not publish the story.
The feds want to prosecute the paper for not publishing a story they paid for.
This will set legal precedence with respect to the free press choosing what they print and how they obtain that information.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: shooterbrody

If campaign finance laws were violated don't you want justice? Or do you not support law and order? It's not like the laws in question here aren't on the books. You guys are always going on about how laws need to be enforced. So if enforcing this law requires us to go there then what's the problem?

There is no problem.

Unless we get the whole "fruit of the poisonous tree" deal brought to bear.

What exactly is illegal about the evidence procured for this case?

The "in" for Cohen derives from the farce of the Mueller investigation.

a reply to: shooterbrody

If there are laws against such activity, and evidence pointing that those laws have possibly been violated, then of course they should be investigating it.

A free press is not free to break the law.

the FEDS who are trying to cover their own arses right? this stinks of former CIA brennan (who still has his security cleareances) OP this will make the press stop covering canidates they contribute money to in the worst case. Do you or the democrats really want that? Its a catch 22 here.