National Enquirer Flips On Donald Trump

[_MeDotOrg]

It's funny, but when the President talks about 'fake news' maybe he should talk about the Enquirer. Their 'catch and kill' policy was a way from preventing people from learning the news, which would seem to be a cross-purposes with the basic purpose of a newspaper. One could argue that the biggest 'fake news' of the 2016 election was the burying of Trump's sexual liaisons and subsequent hush money payments.

One could argue that consciously withholding information that was extremely relevant to that 2016 election goes against the basic ethical principles of journalism. Donald Trump actively participated in ensuring his sex payoffs were buried as a way ensuring that people will be prevented from learning the facts of his life before the election.

[_moksha]

However the case was dropped and the Donald denied any wrongdoing.

Perhaps a lucrative settlement offer, or else a one time escape from sleeping with the fishes.

[_Dr Exiled]

Perhaps a lucrative settlement offer, or else a one time escape from sleeping with the fishes.

Too bad we probably won't ever know about this or the extent of what Epstein did. When the royal family is involved, the royal cover-up is truly huge. One wonders if the cojcolds has a man on the scene taking notes for even better cover-ups in the future?

[_Dr Exiled]

The Donald responds saying it was a private transaction and that Cohen should have stopped him from doing it in the first place.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-12-13/i-never-directed-michael-cohen-break-law-says-trump-thursday-tweetstorm

Does anyone know if the payoffs have been traced to campaign money as the source?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Perhaps a lucrative settlement offer, or else a one time escape from sleeping with the fishes.

Too bad we probably won't ever know about this or the extent of what Epstein did. When the royal family is involved, the royal cover-up is truly huge. One wonders if the cojcolds has a man on the scene taking notes for even better cover-ups in the future?

Trump has also indicated publicly he knew of Epstein’s interest in “younger” women, although he never suggested the financier crossed any legal lines. “I’ve known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy,’’ Trump told New York Magazine back in 2002. “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”

Interestingly enough, Dershowitz , who defended Epstein and who is a Trump apologist, was an Epstein client.

Let that sink in for a moment.

- Doc

[_Res Ipsa]

The Donald responds saying it was a private transaction and that Cohen should have stopped him from doing it in the first place.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-12-13/i-never-directed-michael-cohen-break-law-says-trump-thursday-tweetstorm

Does anyone know if the payoffs have been traced to campaign money as the source?

I'm not sure the money has to be traced to a "campaign source" in order for a violation to occur. If the money was used to aid the campaign, then it is a campaign contribution subject to the campaign finance laws.

[_Kevin Graham]

AMI said they met with Cohen and another member of the Trump campaign. Why is the campaign involved if it was just personal?

[_subgenius]

Nap is selling commercial time, nobody said the magic words of "solicitation" or "conspiracy".

Have you ever listened to the Cohen taped conversation with Trump?

Please tell me you did and please explain your comment above in context to that tape.

- Doc

which tape? the one that clearly confirms Cohen driving the bus? or until Cohen informs him that Trump clearly did not know about any AM payment? or where Trump tells Cohen it should be “done in a regular way that was transparent.” ? Or where you want believe that a signed check is the preferred method when one is committing a campaign finance violation?

As for any alleged evidence (that has yet to be seen) that ties a crime to Trump or members of Trump's campaign...I have not seen it, have you?
Suddenly you value Judge Nap's opinion? or are you just assuming prosecutors will prove their case with whatever they say they have? because that is why there is no such thing as defense attorneys, or not guilty verdicts?

How are you operating?

[_Chap]

Suddenly you value Judge Nap's opinion?

Well, the attention given to Andrew Napolitano may be something to do with him being a Fox News senior judicial analyst.

And somewhere upthread, when I cited an opinion on Trump's legal position from another commentator, didn't you say something like 'For every opinion you can cite from CNN on your side of the argument, I can cite a legal expert from FOX on my side'?

So I had hoped that an opinion delivered very plainly and forcibly by a Fox News senior judicial analyst might commend itself to you.

There's no pleasing some people, is there?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

My god it's like talking to a toddler. Prosecutors have tape recordings of Trump and Cohen discussing the payments and setting up shell companies, as well as referencing David Pecker, the head of AMI and who has a history of burying potentially damaging stories about Trump.

This comes after Trump and company denied everything to begin with and now we're at a place where they admit to payoffs with proof of payoffs, with proof of shell companies set up to facilitate it, all done days before the election.

This is after dozens of denials that none of this ever happened in the first place. Like, what the “F” is wrong with your brain? How do YOU operate?

- Doc