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

a reply to: Krazysh0t

www.washingtonexaminer.com...

Veteran Democratic operative Donna Brazile finally admitted that she used her former position as a CNN commentator to relay questions ahead of debates to Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primary.

So how will the feds determine the value of this "possible" campaign contribution?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Krazysh0t

www.washingtonexaminer.com...

Veteran Democratic operative Donna Brazile finally admitted that she used her former position as a CNN commentator to relay questions ahead of debates to Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primary.

So how will the feds determine the value of this "possible" campaign contribution?

I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. Why don't you forward that article to the FBI and ask them? Though I'm not aware of any laws against rigging debates, but again, I'm not a lawyer. Perhaps you know better than I do. Then again, I'm 100% positive that the FBI knows better than you do and AREN'T looking into this (to my knowledge) so I'm going to wager there isn't a law against that.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: shooterbrody

Well, you'll have to go back to my initial comment that says that this is an interesting story, but we don't know enough to begin to place culpability on anyone for any illegal doings, yet.

Secondly, you're the one making the positive claims in your narrative, so YOU are the one who needs to show us the evidence that backs up your claim.

You should note (again, if you missed it the first time) that I said "if" at the start of my comment.

IF.

Read what I write, not what you think that I'm saying. This is not the first time that you have mistakenly attributed a claim to me that I did not make.

IF is cool.
If the law was broken what law?
Is there a law putting a monetary value on a newspaper story?
One that was "bought and buried" then published anyway by a rival?

What people don't realize is that Trump had already committed impeachable offenses. Everyone keeps repeating -- what has he done or joking that he should be impeached for silly things.

How many people here realize that the Congress impeachment of Bill Clinton for lying has set the precedent for the impeachment of Donald Trump?

Bill Clinton lied under oath about a sex act but he never had any hush money involved and he never violated any campaign finance laws. Donald Trump has not testified under oath yet, and I guarantee you he never will as he wouldn't make it one minute into the hearing without incriminating himself with his big mouth, but it seems he has broken campaign finance laws and has lied, the same as Clinton.

Even if nothing else is found at the end of Mueller's investigation, but it is proven that he lied to the lawmakers and to the American people, even if it's not under oath, and that finance laws have been broken -- an impeachment will be recommended, the same as with Bill Clinton.

We already have a pretty good idea how all this is going to end, it's just a matter of time. Will he resign, like Nixon did, or will he be the first American President to actually be impeached? (Clinton's impeachment only passed in Congress)

From the NY times story(way down at the bottom) your story is based on and links:

In Ms. McDougal’s case, A.M.I. has argued that First Amendment protections cover the right to publish as much as the right not to publish.
If faced with campaign finance charges — which would be extraordinary for a news organization — the company could argue that its executives did not know the ins and outs of the laws they were alleged to have violated. Under criminal provisions, prosecutors would have to prove the violation was “knowing and willful,” said Brendan Fischer, the director of federal reform at the Campaign Legal Center.
At the same time, Mr. Trump’s campaign could argue that Mr. Cohen acted on his behalf without his knowledge, as his lawyer rather than an agent of his campaign. Mr. Giuliani appeared to lay the groundwork for such an argument on Friday when he said that the conversation captured on the tape, which took place weeks after A.M.I. completed the McDougal deal, appeared to be the first time Mr. Trump had heard about the arrangement and was therefore “exculpatory.”

If
If
If
cause you know the NYT likes the president sooo much....

a reply to: shooterbrody

Why are you so intent on emphasizing the word "if"? Not a single person in this thread has said that AMI is definitively guilty. I'm pretty sure we all understand the definition of the word "if" here and your emphasis is unnecessary. The IF part is why we are having a discussion in fact.

originally posted by: Kharron
What people don't realize is that Trump had already committed impeachable offenses. Everyone keeps repeating -- what has he done or joking that he should be impeached for silly things.

How many people here realize that the Congress impeachment of Bill Clinton for lying has set the precedent for the impeachment of Donald Trump?

Bill Clinton lied under oath about a sex act but he never had any hush money involved and he never violated any campaign finance laws. Donald Trump has not testified under oath yet, and I guarantee you he never will as he wouldn't make it one minute into the hearing without incriminating himself with his big mouth, but it seems he has broken campaign finance laws and has lied, the same as Clinton.

Even if nothing else is found at the end of Mueller's investigation, but it is proven that he lied to the lawmakers and to the American people, even if it's not under oath, and that finance laws have been broken -- an impeachment will be recommended, the same as with Bill Clinton.

We already have a pretty good idea how all this is going to end, it's just a matter of time. Will he resign, like Nixon did, or will he be the first American President to actually be impeached? (Clinton's impeachment only passed in Congress)

lying is perjury
you should look that up
krazy can tell you all about that one

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: shooterbrody

Why are you so intent on emphasizing the word "if"? Not a single person in this thread has said that AMI is definitively guilty. I'm pretty sure we all understand the definition of the word "if" here and your emphasis is unnecessary. The IF part is why we are having a discussion in fact.

from your op

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.

not an if in sight....
shadiness and hot water eh?

a reply to: shooterbrody

From the words you JUST quoted:

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'm going to go ahead and assume you understand the definition of "possibly" and "possible" here and not insult your intelligence by posting the definition.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
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?

Yes.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: shooterbrody
www.gq.com...
Is fox news to be grilled by the feds for not running this story?

That depends on if the Feds uncover evidence from the Cohen search that implicates them for wrongdoing first. You can't just skip steps in the federal investigation process just to make random points of comparison.

Question...what if no money changed hands and they squased the story just because? seems that would not violate the finiancial laws.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: shooterbrody
www.gq.com...
Is fox news to be grilled by the feds for not running this story?

That depends on if the Feds uncover evidence from the Cohen search that implicates them for wrongdoing first. You can't just skip steps in the federal investigation process just to make random points of comparison.

Question...what if no money changed hands and they squased the story just because? seems that would not violate the finiancial laws.

Then I guess they are not guilty. Same as would be the case for any criminal prosecution that can't prove its case definitively.

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: shooterbrody
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?

Yes.

So you favor censorship then? cause thats what it is when the government dictates how and if something is reported.

a reply to: Krazysh0t


You should have included these in your "possibilities"
mic.com...

They are about as likely as the feds going after a newspaper for not publishing a story that someone else published.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: shooterbrody
www.gq.com...
Is fox news to be grilled by the feds for not running this story?

That depends on if the Feds uncover evidence from the Cohen search that implicates them for wrongdoing first. You can't just skip steps in the federal investigation process just to make random points of comparison.

Question...what if no money changed hands and they squased the story just because? seems that would not violate the finiancial laws.

Then I guess they are not guilty. Same as would be the case for any criminal prosecution that can't prove its case definitively.

Now here comes the hard part for the FBI proving money changed hands between trumps campaign itself right?

a reply to: shooterbrody

Nice deflection because you were shown to be wrong. Why can't you just admit you were wrong instead of attacking me with some mud pit low bar deflection (btw I purposely didn't put this thread in the mud pit)?

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: shooterbrody
www.gq.com...
Is fox news to be grilled by the feds for not running this story?

That depends on if the Feds uncover evidence from the Cohen search that implicates them for wrongdoing first. You can't just skip steps in the federal investigation process just to make random points of comparison.

Question...what if no money changed hands and they squased the story just because? seems that would not violate the finiancial laws.

Then I guess they are not guilty. Same as would be the case for any criminal prosecution that can't prove its case definitively.

Now here comes the hard part for the FBI proving money changed hands between trumps campaign itself right?

Maybe. I don't know what the FBI found from the Cohen raid yet. That's why I'm eager to hear about developments for this case in the coming weeks. Let's see where it goes. To be honest, there is no skin off my back if they are found to be not guilty. If not guilty, then it is what it is. I just don't respect the publications that AMI prints (since it is tabloid trash and largely a bunch of fake news) so I see no loss in them going down.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Wrong about?
How is one wrong about a "possible" story?

I just don't respect the publications that AMI prints (since it is tabloid trash and largely a bunch of fake news) so I see no loss in them going down.

www.ushmm.org...
careful who you see no loss in them going down, rights are for all not just some

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: shooterbrody
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?

Yes.

So you favor censorship then? cause thats what it is when the government dictates how and if something is reported.

Of course not. I'm a writer, so naturally I loathe censorship.
I'm in favor of keeping journalism from crossing the line. Ironically, it's for their own good. Keep the free press free.
Most of the reputable media--and yes, I consider WaPo, NYT, and others to be quite reputable--understand that.
The Enquirer? Not so much evidently....