Publisher of National Enquirer admits paying hush money to help Trump ahead of 2016 election

[JasperL]

Right. That's exactly what I said. Mueller doesn't have the goods so he's getting someone else to find another "crime". It's all about finding a way to impeach Trump and make a solid political statement that only someone from the political class is entitled to a high level elected office. Should the people vote for an outsider they MUST be shown the error of their ways.

Or, maybe, Trump and nearly everyone around him is a criminal. Should criminals run and win the Presidency, they put a bullet on their back like all Presidents for the past half century at least, and shouldn't be surprised when their criminal past catches up to them.

FWIW, I'll admit to guessing because I don't know what Mueller has found, but I read these latest developments 180 degrees different. What we're seeing is rats fleeing a sinking ship, not people who believe Trump will weather this storm and come out the other side vindicated. What's the risk in fighting a campaign finance charge for someone like Pecker? Can't be much if his good friend and President is vindicated, and President in 4 or 5 years...

And on the prosecutor side, these are career people who just are NOT acting like they're worried about being on the wrong end of what will be labeled by history as a "witch hunt" but people who are confident they WON'T be. They're playing hardball with friends of Trump and don't appear a bit worried about the career hit of a fallout.

Just as an aside, thank goodness Trump fired Preet Bharara. All the Trump lemmings would just blame him, an OBAMA!!! holdout. Now they have to square someone Trump himself appointed with their feeble defenses.

 

[Visbek]

They are not obligated to print a story they dont like anymore than CNN is obligated to report an anti-mueller story

This is not about The Enquirer refraining from publishing an article. This is about AMI and Pecker deliberately paying off people to stay quiet, in a deliberate attempt to influence an election. That's not legal.

It's also almost certainly providing corroborating evidence for information Cohen shared with the prosecutors. Meaning all the convenient character assassinations -- against a man who, by the way, was in Trump's direct employ, and talked with Trump all the time -- are moot.

We should also note that AMI has buried lots of stories on Trump's behalf for years. Some of the stories might be merely embarrassing, others may actually relate to criminal activity. AMI is apparently turning lots of it over to the prosecutors. Have fun rationalizing all of that away.

 

[Visbek]

"Hi! We're the US attorneys from the Southern District of New York. We'd like you to admit to paying off a couple of bimbos for Donald Trump. If you don't say what we want we're going to sue you and it will likely cost you $5 million dollars or more whether you beat us or not so, what do you say?"

:roll:

Yeah, that's not how it works. AMI can't just say whatever the prosecutor wants to hear, they have to prove it -- which is not that hard, when you're making multiple payoffs and stashing statements and evidence in a vault. AMI needs to be able to prove what they're admitting, and it also has to fit with the evidence that SDNY has already collected from other witnesses and, equally if not more importantly, the physical evidence SDNY has collected already.

I mean, really. If all it took was a few threats from a prosecutor to make someone roll, then why didn't prosecutors take down Obama, the Clintons, Bush 43, Cuomo, Mitch McConnell, and a host of other key politicians?

And again... The interim US Attorney in charge of the SDNY is a Trump appointee, whom Trump personally interviewed (in a break from the usual protocol btw). Does Berman have it in for Trump, too?

 

[poweRob]

I am sure you will be able to beat it

That is, if you haven't already

Like a rented mule.

 

[Visbek]

Right. That's exactly what I said. Mueller doesn't have the goods so he's getting someone else to find another "crime".

Mueller has zero influence over SDNY.

Mueller is an independent prosecutor. SDNY/Berman do not report to him. All Mueller can do is refer matters to SDNY; if Berman doesn't think they are worth investigating, then those matters won't get investigated.

And again... This wasn't a matter that Mueller dug up. This was a result of public statements made by Stormy McDaniels, who stated that Trump paid her off, and then failed to complete the payoffs. If Mueller's investigation had never started, the SDNY would still have looked into Daniels, Cohen and AMI.

It's all about finding a way to impeach Trump....

Impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. Please try to keep up.

 

[trouble13]

This is not about The Enquirer refraining from publishing an article. This is about AMI and Pecker deliberately paying off people to stay quiet, in a deliberate attempt to influence an election. That's not legal.

It's also almost certainly providing corroborating evidence for information Cohen shared with the prosecutors. Meaning all the convenient character assassinations -- against a man who, by the way, was in Trump's direct employ, and talked with Trump all the time -- are moot.

We should also note that AMI has buried lots of stories on Trump's behalf for years. Some of the stories might be merely embarrassing, others may actually relate to criminal activity. AMI is apparently turning lots of it over to the prosecutors. Have fun rationalizing all of that away.

You're inadvertently making my case for me by pointing out that they have a history of doing this before he ran for an office.

I will agree that it's a shady practice but I think calling it a crime opens a dangerous door. Every article a newspaper prints can be construed as influencing a campaign. Every article that isnt printed can be conversely argued as influential. Further more money is only one form of compensation and anything can be defined as something of value.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[marke]

Turns out that David Pecker and the National Enquirer has been cooperating with investigators in order to avoid prosecution.

I know Trump must feel bad about this. Losing your Pecker can be a pretty traumatic experience. :mrgreen:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...ts-paying-hush-money-help-trump-ahead-n947111

The National Enquired is now accusing Trump? That is rich. Who are we to believe? That is like comparing the word of Santa Claus to the word of Mother Teresa.

 

[Visbek]

You're inadvertently making my case for me by pointing out that they have a history of doing this before he ran for an office.

Incorrect. Election laws do not magically disappear just because you had a fixer before declaring your candidacy.

AMI paid significant sums, on behalf of the campaign, at the behest of the candidate, specifically in order to influence the election, and then deliberately chose not to disclose it. That's a violation of federal election laws, and a felony.

Oh, and we're not talking about some amorphous "anything has value" situation. This was $150,000 of cold hard cash that AMI paid to Karen McDougal -- right after the "Access Hollywood" tape was released.

Every article a newspaper prints can be construed as influencing a campaign.

It is, but "publishing an article" is protected by the 1st Amendment, and pretty much the whole point of a free press.

Those protected activities have nothing to do with the activities under discussion. AMI's felonious act was not that it chose to sit on a story. It's that it essentially acted on Trump's behalf, and deliberately chose not to disclose it (including lying about it after word got out btw), and in doing so gave the Trump campaign an illegal campaign contribution.

 

[iguanaman]

There is a job to get done, and the hour is late..... the best Anti Trump story that can be told without laughter must be told now.

LOL The "best anti-Trump story" is the one that happens tomorrow. It just keeps getting better.:lol:

 

[danarhea]

According to Stormy, he never had much of one in the first place.... so, why should he feel the loss?



No, you did not know about illegal payoffs nor did you know about Stormy or Karen before the election. Given that Trump won by a mere 80,000 votes, the outcome of the election was likely at stake. This was a material fraud.




You are missing the point. Buying a story to kill it on behalf of the candidate when the story could have changed the outcome of the election is a crime.

To be exact, it is an illegal campaign contribution, which is a felony.

 

[trouble13]

Incorrect. Election laws do not magically disappear just because you had a fixer before declaring your candidacy.

AMI paid significant sums, on behalf of the campaign, at the behest of the candidate, specifically in order to influence the election, and then deliberately chose not to disclose it. That's a violation of federal election laws, and a felony.

Oh, and we're not talking about some amorphous "anything has value" situation. This was $150,000 of cold hard cash that AMI paid to Karen McDougal -- right after the "Access Hollywood" tape was released.



It is, but "publishing an article" is protected by the 1st Amendment, and pretty much the whole point of a free press.

Those protected activities have nothing to do with the activities under discussion. AMI's felonious act was not that it chose to sit on a story. It's that it essentially acted on Trump's behalf, and deliberately chose not to disclose it (including lying about it after word got out btw), and in doing so gave the Trump campaign an illegal campaign contribution.

How do you know it was specifically done to influence the campaign and can you prove it?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[danarhea]

How do you know it was specifically done to influence the campaign and can you prove it?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

It's actually part of the plea, and will be entered into the official record. That Pecker is not going to be charged means he gave up very valuable information.

 

[Visbek]

How do you know it was specifically done to influence the campaign and can you prove it?

Erm... I don't know how you missed it, but the publisher specifically admitted it was done to influence the campaign. It's also corroborating evidence gathered in the Cohen case.

Not to mention that.. as I said... a $150,000 hush payment was made just days after the "Access Hollywood" tape. You do remember that video, right? You really think that's a coincidence? C'mon.

 

[JasperL]

:roll:

Yeah, that's not how it works. AMI can't just say whatever the prosecutor wants to hear, they have to prove it -- which is not that hard, when you're making multiple payoffs and stashing statements and evidence in a vault. AMI needs to be able to prove what they're admitting, and it also has to fit with the evidence that SDNY has already collected from other witnesses and, equally if not more importantly, the physical evidence SDNY has collected already.

I mean, really. If all it took was a few threats from a prosecutor to make someone roll, then why didn't prosecutors take down Obama, the Clintons, Bush 43, Cuomo, Mitch McConnell, and a host of other key politicians?

And again... The interim US Attorney in charge of the SDNY is a Trump appointee, whom Trump personally interviewed (in a break from the usual protocol btw). Does Berman have it in for Trump, too?

Just a FWIW, he was "appointed" by the SDNY District court and is no longer interim.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Berman

He was also a law partner of Rudy 9/11....

 

[trouble13]

It's actually part of the plea, and will be entered into the official record. That Pecker is not going to be charged means he gave up very valuable information.

Do you believe Trump forced pecker not to publish the story?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

Erm... I don't know how you missed it, but the publisher specifically admitted it was done to influence the campaign. It's also corroborating evidence gathered in the Cohen case.

Not to mention that.. as I said... a $150,000 hush payment was made just days after the "Access Hollywood" tape. You do remember that video, right? You really think that's a coincidence? C'mon.

Sure I remember the decades old video footage that NBC trotted out to influence the campaign and by your standards they and Clinton should face criminal charges.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[upsideguy]

To be exact, it is an illegal campaign contribution, which is a felony.

Yes, you are correct. It was also a form of a fraud as the Trump campaign overtly worked to hide material facts concerning his character from the American voter.

 

[iguanaman]

You're inadvertently making my case for me by pointing out that they have a history of doing this before he ran for an office.

I will agree that it's a shady practice but I think calling it a crime opens a dangerous door. Every article a newspaper prints can be construed as influencing a campaign. Every article that isnt printed can be conversely argued as influential. Further more money is only one form of compensation and anything can be defined as something of value.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Then you would be asking for the law to be changed then. You do know it is not a "option" for prosecutors to not enforce the law right? When Trump asked Comey to "just let Flynn slide" he was asking him to break the law for him. Cohen just went to jail for that. Trump's kids are in the barrel now. Or Trump could cut a deal and resign. It's up to him.

 

[Mach]

How do you know it was specifically done to influence the campaign and can you prove it?

Doesn’t matter what we know, it’s what can be evidenced.
AMI has gone on record with investigators admitting it. Cohen has admitted it. The timing supports it. The complex scheme to pay and obscure the payments, speaks to intent as well.

AMI has immunity, Cohen has been sentenced....all that’s left is individual-1.

 

[Cardinal]

Do you believe Trump forced pecker not to publish the story?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

And the goal post moves...

 

[danarhea]

Do you believe Trump forced pecker not to publish the story?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

When there is a conspiracy, neither of the participants are forcing the other to do anything. Both are making the choice together. Pecker just gave up his involvement, as well as Trump's, which is why he won't be doing time. But I am sure that you, along with others, will now be calling Pecker a "libtard rat". LOL.

 

[Athanasius68]

How can Trump be 'clean' if he directed people to pay hush money to mistresses during campaigns? That is money spent for campaign purposes that was never declared. That is simply illegal.

And if pecker struck an immunity deal that means they got him doing something worth singing about.

Would you have been happier had he paid off his mistresses using campaign funds?

 

[Athanasius68]

Yes, you are correct. It was also a form of a fraud as the Trump campaign overtly worked to hide material facts concerning his character from the American voter.

Are you serious? There was some mystery as to the nature of Donald Trump the man? It was front and center during the campaign.

 

[JasperL]

You're inadvertently making my case for me by pointing out that they have a history of doing this before he ran for an office.

I will agree that it's a shady practice but I think calling it a crime opens a dangerous door. Every article a newspaper prints can be construed as influencing a campaign. Every article that isnt printed can be conversely argued as influential. Further more money is only one form of compensation and anything can be defined as something of value.

Ok, but there's a difference. If someone/some entity pays the NYT to publish a story to help a candidate, that's a form of campaign ad which is perfectly fine and legal to do as such, but the funding/payment has to be disclosed and the funding run through an eligible entity, with rules about limits, disclosure, etc.

The arrangement here is paying for silence, but I imagine it's the same principle, paying for non-coverage instead of coverage. It's a legal thing to do as long as the money is accounted for by the campaign, etc... I'm no campaign lawyer, but maybe it's fine here if the Trump campaign took ordinary and legal donations and ran the bimbo eruption payments through as 'legal and professional' or something. Who knows, but that's not what they did and the form and substance matter. They have to or we might as well have no rules on campaign spending and disclosure.

 

[JasperL]

Would you have been happier had he paid off his mistresses using campaign funds?

If the payments were disclosed, they would have almost certainly been legal, if that's your question.

The way I think of the payments is as campaign advertising. Perfectly legal to buy ads, favorable coverage, etc. so long as the payments are disclosed, and are from legally obtained campaign funds.