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

a reply to: shooterbrody

Is there a law putting a monetary value on a newspaper story? 

Not that I am aware of but perhaps there should be. When people get paid to dish dirt, they often embellish and dish truck loads of dirt. I can't think of a better example of this than the gossip page the National Enquirer is, normally paying house keepers and drivers to dish out truly unverified gossip on the rich and famous.

The Weekly World NEWS often found people, more than likely paid, to provide details on the secret lab living quarters of Bat Boy.

There is a long tradition of our press deciding on what stories to print and not print based on favoritism.

We had a President who was largely confined to a wheel chair due to childhood polio but one is hard pressed to find a picture of him in the wheel chair, and Kennedy's numerous affairs were common knowledge amount the White House press core but no reporting of it least they destroy the Camelot image.

I am sure at some point, we may learn more of President Reagan's struggles after being shot but the press was careful to not dig too deep at that time or report on it.

This is at worst a campaign finance violation and at best a publisher wishing to buy the rights to a story waiting to publish when they could actually confirm it, since only 2 people know exactly what happened.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Not one of those are the same issue that may POSSIBLY be at hand IF the concerns surrounding POSSIBLE evidence found in Cohen's files are found to prove illegal activity surrounding election laws.

You're missing the main point. Again.

I'm done with this discussion.

But to be fair, maybe one of those rulings will matter in the end, but the point is still the same--you don't know, because you have no idea to which law(s) the evidence MAY fall under.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I knew that i'd seen something dodgy a while ago re the holding for National Enquirer ...

National Enquirer paid doorman $30,000 to keep quiet about Trump affair Rumor

Eight months before the company that owns the National Enquirer paid $150,000 to a former Playboy model who claimed she’d had an affair with Donald Trump, the tabloid’s parent made a $30,000 payment to a less famous individual: a former doorman at one of Trump’s New York buildings.

As it did with the model, the Enquirer signed the ex-doorman to a contract that effectively prevented him from going public with a tale that might hurt Trump’s campaign for president.

...snip ...

The Associated Press confirmed the details of the Enquirer’s payment through a review of a confidential contract and interviews with dozens of current and former employees of the Enquirer and its parent company, American Media Inc (AMI).

Sajudin got $30,000 in exchange for signing over the rights, “in perpetuity,” to a rumor he’d heard about Trump’s sex life – that the president had fathered a child with an employee at Trump World Tower, a skyscraper he owns near the UN.

The contract subjected Sajudin to a $1m penalty if he disclosed either the rumor or the terms of the deal to anyone.

... snip ...

The parallel between McDougal’s and the ex-doorman’s dealings with the Enquirer raises new questions about the roles that the Enquirer and Cohen may have played in protecting Trump’s image during the election.

Prosecutors are investigating whether Cohen broke banking or campaign laws in connection with AMI’s payment to McDougal and a $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels that Cohen said he paid out of his own pocket.

Link

There's also this from tonight :

Michael Cohen: at least 12 tapes handed to investigators after raid on Trump lawyer

Ultimately, Cohen payed off .. some people ... as a gift to Trump
Trump, personally and from his own pocket, then repayed Cohen
to avoid any possibility of being accused of using compaign money
and spending law violations and so on and so forth ...

That, to me, would seem to be the synthesis of the whole
"Trump buying porn stars silence" thing

I could leave it at that ... but ...conspiracy, conspiracy ...
The most ardent tRump defenders are Pecker (AMI), Murdoch/Sinclair_Broadcast_Group
all of whom pretty much have a stranglehold on US news production

Gaslighting is already a thing

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Whether this is true or not, YOU are the one currently trying to make the thread about Trump. Trump is only ancillary to this story. Also, this isn't the mud pit. How about not slandering me, ad homineming me, or even just assuming things about my beliefs and actions and just stick to the thread topic?

Why are we even going down this path. You have Trump in the title, your story is linked to him, linked to maybe his past actions. Also, what slander? The vast majority of your posts are about Trump, this time you are saying it is not about Trump.., OK whatever

You do know that uncovering crimes is all about following up on small threads from the past hoping they lead somewhere by investigating and uncovering evidence, right?

Does that mean to fine tooth comb decades of a person’s life.

I would think most people could not pass that.

Plus my reference was about Clinton in how they went from a land sale scam to sperm on a blue dress. I never said anything about Trump...geez

a reply to: SlapMonkey
52 USC 30101: Definitions

(B) The term "expenditure" does not include-
(i) any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate;

Seems election law says the NE news story paid for is not an expenditure since trump or the GOP doesn't own the NE.

a reply to: Cassi3l

Interesting stuff here. It does look like some shady stuff went down. I wonder what kind of evidence the Feds got off of Cohen to kick this into higher gear like this. Cohen's evidence may be the linchpin in this entire investigation.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Why are we even going down this path. You have Trump in the title, your story is linked to him, linked to maybe his past actions. Also, what slander? The vast majority of your posts are about Trump, this time you are saying it is not about Trump.., OK whatever

Do you know what the word "ancillary" means?

Does that mean to fine tooth comb decades of a person’s life.

Yes. If that is what it takes.

I would think most people could not pass that.

Yeah. That can become a problem from time to time. There are many many felony crimes on the books. It's hard for even the most up standing citizen to obey all of them. Though, how does the saying go? "If you did nothing wrong then you have nothing to hide"? I'm not really weeping over either Cohen's personal life and history being investigated while under taking a federal investigation. AMI is the same case. In fact, I have less sympathy for a corporation being investigated.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Dammit, man...like I said, you may be correct, but we must wait and see. There are other election laws out there.

Take a breath, give the investigation a little time, and we can revisit when more is known. There's no need to rush rush rush to try to be the first to make a determination on something like this--that serves no purpose to anyone who actually works in the legal field in instances like this.

Relax.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: shooterbrody

Dammit, man...like I said, you may be correct, but we must wait and see. There are other election laws out there.

Take a breath, give the investigation a little time, and we can revisit when more is known. There's no need to rush rush rush to try to be the first to make a determination on something like this--that serves no purpose to anyone who actually works in the legal field in instances like this.

Relax.

yeah because it does our country so much better to allow this kind of "speculation" to hang around when it is pretty easy to disprove

oh and there is this
thehill.com...
www.cbsnews.com...

cause people "act" guilty and all that

wait and see and hope it all burns down
"they" will get him on "something" eventually....wont ''they"?

a reply to: shooterbrody

Man, you're irrational on this, and you are making assumptions about me or the reason that I cite for waiting that are silly.

I have said nothing about hoping anything burns down. I have said nothing about "them" getting him (who is him?) on "something," and I have not cited anything about people "acting" guilty or anything about speculation (other than I refuse to speculate because we don't have evidence from which to form an intelligent opinion).

As for the recording that Trump's team waived privilege--do we know what it says? Your sources don't have a transcript or recording of it, and the opinions offered in the sources are all speculation at this point.

Which means we need to wait and see if more evidence arises.

Peace out--I'm done with this circuitous avenue of discussion. I'll wait for more evidence while you embrace speculation. Do whatever you want to do...I'm not losing any sleep over your choice to jump the gun.

originally posted by: Kharron 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)

Did they stop teaching American history in school or something ?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Yes. If that is what it takes.

The problem is no one in Washington can survive that level of investigation, and it is not like they try to do anything wrong, but then you got 10,000 laws...you know the drill. Then they have the option of a slap on the wrist or 10 years in jail, but hey give me two names and we can make it a slap...McCarthyism all over again.

Yeah. That can become a problem from time to time. There are many many felony crimes on the books. It's hard for even the most up standing citizen to obey all of them. Though, how does the saying go? "If you did nothing wrong then you have nothing to hide"? I'm not really weeping over either Cohen's personal life and history being investigated while under taking a federal investigation. AMI is the same case. In fact, I have less sympathy for a corporation being investigated.

We are seeing that the fake dossier is more and more the PRIMARY reason for the initial investigation. The whole start of all this is so wrong, so now we are going to run everyone associated with this administration threw the "lets find anything at all"...

We both know they are after the big fish, they would give instant immunity if it led anywhere higher up in any way... That is not what justice is all about..

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Yes. If that is what it takes.

The problem is no one in Washington can survive that level of investigation, and it is not like they try to do anything wrong, but then you got 10,000 laws...you know the drill. Then they have the option of a slap on the wrist or 10 years in jail, but hey give me two names and we can make it a slap...McCarthyism all over again.

Hillary Clinton appears to be surviving that level of investigation and more.

We are seeing that the fake dossier is more and more the PRIMARY reason for the initial investigation. The whole start of all this is so wrong, so now we are going to run everyone associated with this administration threw the "lets find anything at all"...

We both know they are after the big fish, they would give instant immunity if it led anywhere higher up in any way... That is not what justice is all about..

All I see is a bunch of armchair lawyers who think they know how investigations work trying to interject their opinions on how the investigation should be handled based on information only released to the public.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

They might want to be real careful here, as the decades long incestuousness between Democrats and the majority of the media, including fund raisers, buried stories, contributions, campaigning under the guise of "news", and quid-pro-quo "exclusive" interviews could very easily become fair game for investigations and exposures if they decide to get uppitty over this AMI/Trump connection.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Well how about collecting the evidence and presenting it to the authorities then? If its so obvious to you then you should have no problem doing so. Though I do hope you will recognize you were wrong if you can't prove it or the authorities tell you that they didn't break any laws.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

www.politico.com...
observer.com...
time.com...
observer.com...
www.washingtonpost.com...
dailycaller.com...
nypost.com...
www.politico.com...
www.huffingtonpost.com...
fortune.com...
www.bostonherald.com...
www.foxnews.com...
www.heartland.org...
thehill.com...

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Good luck sending all those links to the Feds. I'm sure those newspaper articles will go a long way to proving their guilt in a court of law.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Good luck sending all those links to the Feds. I'm sure those newspaper articles will go a long way to proving their guilt in a court of law.

...says the man who started his OP with a link to an online newspaper.


Yeah, so as I said, the Dems may want to tread lightly here or find their own malfeasance and conveniently pliant media exposed alongside whatever nonsense it is they're currently trying to pin on the Trump campaign today.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I'm just reporting on current events. You are suggesting that the feds need to investigate additional criminal activity. YOU need to prove your point. I already did.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I am suggesting that when they open the door to one party, they will find the same door is currently accessing the other party. That's not a statement of belief, it's a statement of fact and the handful of links I put up show that there is smoke there. Hey, there's another good one that's arisen over the past 2 years "where there's smoke, we should be looking for fire" ya?