Doorman: Trump had affair with Housekeeper, and has an Illegitimate Child

[Soggy in NOLA]

Alleged...

 

[Synthaholic]

Oh Gawd

Dang s0n....its between you and Clayton for the battle of deepest matrix dweller

Matrix dweller? TRUMP FUCKS WOMEN WHO AREN'T HIS WIFE. AMI pays off people who KNOW THIS. AMI paid off this guy!

Screwing makes babies. WTF is so implausible about the plausibilty?

This isn't hard.

CNN has been caught lying about Trump in the past. They're sighting the Enquirer for God sakes.

He can tell his story. He supposedly passed a lie detector test. Believe him or don't. There are NO legal implications for Trump on this ONE.

Well, unless he paid monies OUT OF HIS FOUNDATION for the alleged kid.

Says CNN.
And you still believe CNN?

Not "says CNN". It’s everywhere.

Can you list any examples of CNN broadcasting proven lies?

 

[Synthaholic]

Ex-Trump World Tower doorman releases 'catch-and-kill' contract about alleged Trump affair - CNNPolitics

More evidence that Trump used the media to silence negative stories that coulda woulda shoulda impacted his campaign. Can we still call his presidency legitimate?

It isn’t evidence. It’s hearsay from a doorman for god sake. The contract is between him and the national enquirer.

Then why was he paid to keep quiet?

 

[Synthaholic]

Ex-Trump World Tower doorman releases 'catch-and-kill' contract about alleged Trump affair - CNNPolitics

More evidence that Trump used the media to silence negative stories that coulda woulda shoulda impacted his campaign. Can we still call his presidency legitimate?

Yes..... nothing he has done is illegal. Still waiting for any crime to be exposed....

Not reporting hush money to quiet a porn star two weeks before a presidential election proves Trump was trying to hide an affair so it wouldn't influence the election. Not reporting that money is a crime. So no, you are wrong. Trump is in legal jeopardy, and what he did is illegal. And he did it twice with porn stars, that we know of.

And on top of that, the Manhattan DA is pursuing criminal charges with the Trump organization; Breaking: Manhattan D.A. looking at charges for Trump Org: NYT

Wrong..... it isn't illegal no matter how you try to make it illegal. Trump did not break the law, and even if you manage to mangle the law, obama simply paid a 380,000 dollar fine after taking illegal 2 million dollars in actual illegal money from foreigners during his campaign

You’re in denial. It is very much illegal.

 

[jknowgood]

Does the op care about Clinton's black kid? He is willing to give dna to prove it. But Clinton won't give his, because we know the out come.

 

[Synthaholic]

Trump is the most litigious president in history with over 3000 lawsuits to his name

Correct. And if this doorman was trying to spread a lie, trump would sue his ass off, not pay him off.

 

[Synthaholic]

Poor CNN, the latest ratings report has sent them scurrying into past articles for news - $30,000 rumor? Tabloid paid for, spiked, salacious Trump tip

Rachel Maddow has the #1 show in ALL of cable, not just news.

Lawrence O’Donnell has the #2 show in ALL of cable, not just news.

 

[Synthaholic]

Does the op care about Clinton's black kid? He is willing to give dna to prove it. But Clinton won't give his, because we know the out come.

#whataboutism

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yeah, cuz Trump would confide in this doorman and tell him this huge secret

I doubt trump confided anything in him, nor is such an odd claim necessarily true for all of this to be true ...what a bizarre defense....

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Does the op care about Clinton's black kid? He is willing to give dna to prove it. But Clinton won't give his, because we know the out come.

The 5 billion Clinton threads are over there ->

 

[Godboy]

Yeah, cuz Trump would confide in this doorman and tell him this huge secret

I doubt trump confided anything in him, nor is such an odd claim necessarily true for all of this to be true ...what a bizarre defense....

What is more bizarre is that there are people who believe a ridiculous story about a fucking doorman having this huge national scoop. Do you think Trump walked in to his building one day with a woman an a kid and he whispered to the doorman, "psst, check it out, this is my illegitimate child"?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What is more bizarre is that there are people who believe a ridiculous story about a fucking doorman having this huge national scoop. D

Who are you whining about? Are you whining about the people who paid him $30,000 to keep quiet? Please clarify, thanks.

And -- brace yourself, because I am about to use a simple tool called "logic" that sometimes is very shocking to people 9n this board -- its quite possible that the doorman and housekeeper spoke. Or that -- going to go out on a limb, here -- the doorman observed the comings and goings of the housekeeper and saw the child.

 

[Billy_Bob]

NOW it’s getting good!


Ex-Trump World Tower doorman releases 'catch-and-kill' contract about alleged Trump affair - CNNPolitics

Exclusive: Ex-Trump World Tower doorman releases 'catch-and-kill' contract about alleged Trump affair

A former Trump World Tower doorman who says he has knowledge of an alleged affair President Donald Trump had with an ex-housekeeper, which resulted in a child, is now able to talk about a contract he entered with American Media Inc. that had prohibited him from discussing the matter with anyone, according to his attorney.

On Friday, Marc Held -- the attorney for Dino Sajudin, the former doorman -- said his client had been released from his contract with AMI, the parent company of the National Enquirer, "recently" after back-and-forth discussions with AMI.

CNN has exclusively obtained a copy of the "source agreement" between Sajudin and AMI, which is owned by David Pecker.

The contract appears to have been signed on Nov. 15, 2015, and states that AMI has exclusive rights to Sajudin's story but does not mention the details of the story itself beyond saying, "Source shall provide AMI with information regarding Donald Trump's illegitimate child..."

The contract states that "AMI will not owe Source any compensation if AMI does not publish the Exclusive..." and the top of the agreement shows that Sajudin could receive a sum of $30,000 "payable upon publication as set forth below."

But the third page of the agreement shows that about a month later, the parties signed an amendment that states that Sajudin would be paid $30,000 within five days of receiving the amendment. It says the "exclusivity period" laid out in the agreement "is extended in perpetuity and shall not expire."

The amendment also establishes a $1 million payment that Sajudin would be responsible for making to AMI "in the event Source breaches this provision."

"Mr. Sajudin has been unable to discuss the circumstances regarding his deal with American Media Inc. and the story that he sold to them, due to a significant financial penalty," Held told CNN. "Just recently, AMI released Mr. Sajudin from the terms of his agreement and he is now able to speak about his personal experience with them, as well as his story, which is now known to be one of the 'catch and kill' pieces. Mr. Sajudin hopes the truth will come out in the very near future."

In April, Sajudin told CNN he claims to have knowledge of a relationship Trump had with his former housekeeper that resulted in a child.

You idiots need to get over yourselves...

Another left wing ejaculation they are going to wear....

 

[2aguy]

Wrong..... it isn't illegal no matter how you try to make it illegal. Trump did not break the law, and even if you manage to mangle the law, obama simply paid a 380,000 dollar fine after taking illegal 2 million dollars in actual illegal money from foreigners during his campaign

Your broken record defense won't help you. Trump is guilty of these crimes, and when they are pursued on the state level, there is no one to pardon. Not reporting this hush money is a campaign finance violation. Cohen already plead guilty in aiding with that scheme when the money was not reported. So you can forget these desperate attempts of yours that mean nothing. And your Obama side bar is for cowards who have to change the subject.

You don't know what you are talking about...... paying money in an NDA is not a crime. You can't make it a crime by repeating the same lie over and over again. He pled guilty to a crime that wasn't a crime.... on legal advice from lanny davis....a clinton minion. Obama actually committed campaign finance violations in the millions and all he did was pay a fine, you moron.

You really are clueless, and an idiot;
Trump, in his Wednesday morning tweet, appeared to be referring to a $375,000 fine levied by the Federal Election Commission in early 2013 against Obama's 2008 presidential campaign over a slew of campaign finance violations, including missing filing deadlines for disclosing large donations during the final weeks of the campaign, reporting the wrong dates on certain contributions, and not returning donations that exceeded the campaign contribution maximum quickly enough.

The violations amounted to "a small, technical paperwork error that people who were trying to get it right might make," Epner said. "$375,000 for the FEC is a meaningful fine, but compared to the amounts that were involved it's tiny."

An actual violation and all they got was a fine... you moron. And then you have to explain the millions hilary laundered during her campaign.

You do know what a "moron" is right? It's an idiot who surrenders to another subject like Hillary. Wouldn't you know, that would be you.

A "fine for technical paperwork" is different than "knowing and willfully" committing crimes. There you go, being a "moron" again.

How about the former head of the FEC who actually knows about election finance issues?

Former FEC Chair: Trump Hush Money Unseemly, But Not Illegal

Wait—didn’t Cohen admit that these payments were directedby Trump? Maybe—but again—so what?

Former chair of the FEC, Bradley Smith, has more (via WaPo):

…[R]egardless of what Cohen agreed to in a plea bargain, hush-money payments to mistresses are not really campaign expenditures.

It is true that “contribution” and “expenditure” are defined in the Federal Election Campaign Act as anything “for the purpose of influencing any election,” and it may have been intended and hoped that paying hush money would serve that end. The problem is that almost anything a candidate does can be interpreted as intended to “influence an election,” from buying a good watch to make sure he gets to places on time, to getting a massage so that he feels fit for the campaign trail, to buying a new suit so that he looks good on a debate stage. Yet having campaign donors pay for personal luxuries — such as expensive watches, massages and Brooks Brothers suits — seems more like bribery than funding campaign speech.

That’s why another part of the statute defines “personal use” as any expenditure “used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign.” These may not be paid with campaign funds, even though the candidate might benefit from the expenditure. Not every expense that might benefit a candidate is an obligation that exists solely because the person is a candidate.

Suppose, for example, that Trump had told his lawyers, “Look, these complaints about Trump University have no merit, but they embarrass me as a candidate. Get them settled.” Are the settlements thus “campaign expenses”? The obvious answer is no, even though the payments were intended to benefit Trump as a candidate.

If the opposite were true and they were considered campaign expenses, then not only could Trump pay them with campaign funds, but also he would be required to pay these business expenses from campaign funds. Is that what campaign donations are for?

[…]

Yes, those payments were unseemly, but unseemliness doesn’t make something illegal. At the very least, the law is murky about whether paying hush money to a mistress is a “campaign expense” or a personal expense.

Mr. Smith ends with some very wise words: “Laws, once stretched from their limited language and proper purpose, are difficult to pound back into shape. We should proceed with caution here.”

Noted Democrat and liberal Alan Dershowitz, who has become one of the president’s most vocal defenders on legal issues, says this campaign finance law violation business is total nonsense as well.

 

[dave p]

Ex-Trump World Tower doorman releases 'catch-and-kill' contract about alleged Trump affair - CNNPolitics

More evidence that Trump used the media to silence negative stories that coulda woulda shoulda impacted his campaign. Can we still call his presidency legitimate?

It isn’t evidence. It’s hearsay from a doorman for god sake. The contract is between him and the national enquirer.

Then why was he paid to keep quiet?

They wanted an exclusive to what may have been a story. It’s pretty simple, even you should be able to understand.

 

[Hossfly]

NOW it’s getting good!


Ex-Trump World Tower doorman releases 'catch-and-kill' contract about alleged Trump affair - CNNPolitics

Exclusive: Ex-Trump World Tower doorman releases 'catch-and-kill' contract about alleged Trump affair

A former Trump World Tower doorman who says he has knowledge of an alleged affair President Donald Trump had with an ex-housekeeper, which resulted in a child, is now able to talk about a contract he entered with American Media Inc. that had prohibited him from discussing the matter with anyone, according to his attorney.

On Friday, Marc Held -- the attorney for Dino Sajudin, the former doorman -- said his client had been released from his contract with AMI, the parent company of the National Enquirer, "recently" after back-and-forth discussions with AMI.

CNN has exclusively obtained a copy of the "source agreement" between Sajudin and AMI, which is owned by David Pecker.

The contract appears to have been signed on Nov. 15, 2015, and states that AMI has exclusive rights to Sajudin's story but does not mention the details of the story itself beyond saying, "Source shall provide AMI with information regarding Donald Trump's illegitimate child..."

The contract states that "AMI will not owe Source any compensation if AMI does not publish the Exclusive..." and the top of the agreement shows that Sajudin could receive a sum of $30,000 "payable upon publication as set forth below."

But the third page of the agreement shows that about a month later, the parties signed an amendment that states that Sajudin would be paid $30,000 within five days of receiving the amendment. It says the "exclusivity period" laid out in the agreement "is extended in perpetuity and shall not expire."

The amendment also establishes a $1 million payment that Sajudin would be responsible for making to AMI "in the event Source breaches this provision."

"Mr. Sajudin has been unable to discuss the circumstances regarding his deal with American Media Inc. and the story that he sold to them, due to a significant financial penalty," Held told CNN. "Just recently, AMI released Mr. Sajudin from the terms of his agreement and he is now able to speak about his personal experience with them, as well as his story, which is now known to be one of the 'catch and kill' pieces. Mr. Sajudin hopes the truth will come out in the very near future."

In April, Sajudin told CNN he claims to have knowledge of a relationship Trump had with his former housekeeper that resulted in a child.

Is this the child in question?

 

[blackhawk]

 

[skookerasbil]

That made me laugh out loud man!!

 

[Fang]

My 401K is skyrocketing, my company is doing great in this economy and the job market looks incredible. I don't care if Trump screwed his housekeeper AND the doorman's wife AND 10 women in the building across the street.

 

[WTP]

Your broken record defense won't help you. Trump is guilty of these crimes, and when they are pursued on the state level, there is no one to pardon. Not reporting this hush money is a campaign finance violation. Cohen already plead guilty in aiding with that scheme when the money was not reported. So you can forget these desperate attempts of yours that mean nothing. And your Obama side bar is for cowards who have to change the subject.

You don't know what you are talking about...... paying money in an NDA is not a crime. You can't make it a crime by repeating the same lie over and over again. He pled guilty to a crime that wasn't a crime.... on legal advice from lanny davis....a clinton minion. Obama actually committed campaign finance violations in the millions and all he did was pay a fine, you moron.

You really are clueless, and an idiot;
Trump, in his Wednesday morning tweet, appeared to be referring to a $375,000 fine levied by the Federal Election Commission in early 2013 against Obama's 2008 presidential campaign over a slew of campaign finance violations, including missing filing deadlines for disclosing large donations during the final weeks of the campaign, reporting the wrong dates on certain contributions, and not returning donations that exceeded the campaign contribution maximum quickly enough.

The violations amounted to "a small, technical paperwork error that people who were trying to get it right might make," Epner said. "$375,000 for the FEC is a meaningful fine, but compared to the amounts that were involved it's tiny."

An actual violation and all they got was a fine... you moron. And then you have to explain the millions hilary laundered during her campaign.

You do know what a "moron" is right? It's an idiot who surrenders to another subject like Hillary. Wouldn't you know, that would be you.

A "fine for technical paperwork" is different than "knowing and willfully" committing crimes. There you go, being a "moron" again.

How about the former head of the FEC who actually knows about election finance issues?

Former FEC Chair: Trump Hush Money Unseemly, But Not Illegal

Wait—didn’t Cohen admit that these payments were directedby Trump? Maybe—but again—so what?

Former chair of the FEC, Bradley Smith, has more (via WaPo):

…[R]egardless of what Cohen agreed to in a plea bargain, hush-money payments to mistresses are not really campaign expenditures.

It is true that “contribution” and “expenditure” are defined in the Federal Election Campaign Act as anything “for the purpose of influencing any election,” and it may have been intended and hoped that paying hush money would serve that end. The problem is that almost anything a candidate does can be interpreted as intended to “influence an election,” from buying a good watch to make sure he gets to places on time, to getting a massage so that he feels fit for the campaign trail, to buying a new suit so that he looks good on a debate stage. Yet having campaign donors pay for personal luxuries — such as expensive watches, massages and Brooks Brothers suits — seems more like bribery than funding campaign speech.

That’s why another part of the statute defines “personal use” as any expenditure “used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign.” These may not be paid with campaign funds, even though the candidate might benefit from the expenditure. Not every expense that might benefit a candidate is an obligation that exists solely because the person is a candidate.

Suppose, for example, that Trump had told his lawyers, “Look, these complaints about Trump University have no merit, but they embarrass me as a candidate. Get them settled.” Are the settlements thus “campaign expenses”? The obvious answer is no, even though the payments were intended to benefit Trump as a candidate.

If the opposite were true and they were considered campaign expenses, then not only could Trump pay them with campaign funds, but also he would be required to pay these business expenses from campaign funds. Is that what campaign donations are for?

[…]

Yes, those payments were unseemly, but unseemliness doesn’t make something illegal. At the very least, the law is murky about whether paying hush money to a mistress is a “campaign expense” or a personal expense.

Mr. Smith ends with some very wise words: “Laws, once stretched from their limited language and proper purpose, are difficult to pound back into shape. We should proceed with caution here.”

Noted Democrat and liberal Alan Dershowitz, who has become one of the president’s most vocal defenders on legal issues, says this campaign finance law violation business is total nonsense as well.

The Federal Election Act takes precedence over what you just posted from this opinion, and is not interpreted in the way the ex- chairman would like for it to be interpreted. If we went by anything can be looked at as an expenditure, the entire FEA would be totally useless. It wouldn't make sense to even have a Federal Election Act.

That said, these expenditures will be looked upon as campaign expenditures for a bunch of reasons. The first being that they denied the payments in the beginning.And remember, Trump back in April saying he knew nothing about the payments. Which if he didn't, like he said he didn't, that is a campaign violation right there, when Cohen made the payment without Trump's knowledge. But then again, Trump is on audio knowing about the payment intention. Lol!

They also said there were no affairs, further advancing the evidence that these were in fact campaign expenses to hide that embarrassment, which would influence the election. That goes to the knowing and will full statute within the act itself, which they were active participants. And last, they never reported that money.

the federal elections campaign act - Google Search

That effort could run afoul of federal election law’s "knowing and willful" standard. While most reporting violations involve systemic accounting lapses that draw fines, a conscious scheme to keep activities hidden can trigger criminal penalties with a maximum penalty of five years in prison.

The fact that they kept activities hidden is one of the key factors in the criminality of this case.