The Third Man In the Room

Trump was in the room during hush money discussions with tabloid publisher

So there was a meeting to discuss the illegal hush money payments to Trump's whores. Pecker was there (he owns the Inquirer/AMI) and of course Cohen was there...

And it turns out the third man in the room was none other than Donald J Trump.

He knows he was there. He knows that Mueller knows he was there.

And he knows he's cooked


Wow, a publisher decided to buy a story, STOP THE FUCKING PRESSES. LMAO

.

There was a bit more to it than that. It's called "capture and kill". It is where a publisher will buy the exclusive rights to a persons story (meaning no other publication can publish it), and then, when they have the exclusive rights, they put the story in a box in the storage room and forget about it, ensuring the story never sees the light of day.
 
What part of "it isn't a crime" do you morons not understand..... hush money is not illegal you moron..... Congress has a slush fund that has paid out 17 million dollars for "hush Money" for the women the members of congress have molested, as in sexually assualted......not casual sex....... tax dollars...you asshat......

The purpose and payee of that expense needed to be reported. This is not rocket science. The payee has stated the disbursed funds were election expenses.

So all of the Congress people who paid off mistresses, etc are also criminals?? Hmm

Congress passed a self serving law protecting themselves from sexual harrassment prosecution.

But this does not protect them from the media, or the court of public opinion

~S~

Yeah, but now Congress critters have to pay for their sexual harassment suits out of their own pockets. Taxpayers are no longer gonna be funding their bad behavior.

New legislation would require lawmakers to pay sexual harassment settlements themselves

New legislation would require lawmakers to pay sexual harassment settlements themselves
  • Lawmakers have long been able to use taxpayers' money to pay for sexual harassment settlements.
  • A new piece of bipartisan legislation would prohibit that practice, requiring members to pay such settlements themselves.
  • It would also allow accusers to file complaints without being forced to sign a nondisclosure agreement.
 
Trump was in the room during hush money discussions with tabloid publisher

So there was a meeting to discuss the illegal hush money payments to Trump's whores. Pecker was there (he owns the Inquirer/AMI) and of course Cohen was there...

And it turns out the third man in the room was none other than Donald J Trump.

He knows he was there. He knows that Mueller knows he was there.

And he knows he's cooked


Wow, a publisher decided to buy a story, STOP THE FUCKING PRESSES. LMAO

.

There was a bit more to it than that. It's called "capture and kill". It is where a publisher will buy the exclusive rights to a persons story (meaning no other publication can publish it), and then, when they have the exclusive rights, they put the story in a box in the storage room and forget about it, ensuring the story never sees the light of day.


Or they save it for a later date, either way, it's not illegal.

.
 
Trump has denied any knowledge of wrongdoing

Evidence of his wrongdoing is starting to leak out
 
Trump was in the room during hush money discussions with tabloid publisher

So there was a meeting to discuss the illegal hush money payments to Trump's whores. Pecker was there (he owns the Inquirer/AMI) and of course Cohen was there...

And it turns out the third man in the room was none other than Donald J Trump.

He knows he was there. He knows that Mueller knows he was there.

And he knows he's cooked


Wow, a publisher decided to buy a story, STOP THE FUCKING PRESSES. LMAO

.

There was a bit more to it than that. It's called "capture and kill". It is where a publisher will buy the exclusive rights to a persons story (meaning no other publication can publish it), and then, when they have the exclusive rights, they put the story in a box in the storage room and forget about it, ensuring the story never sees the light of day.


Or they save it for a later date, either way, it's not illegal.

.
It is when you do it in regards to a campaign.

You've been lied to and you're repeating those lies
 
Trump was in the room during hush money discussions with tabloid publisher

So there was a meeting to discuss the illegal hush money payments to Trump's whores. Pecker was there (he owns the Inquirer/AMI) and of course Cohen was there...

And it turns out the third man in the room was none other than Donald J Trump.

He knows he was there. He knows that Mueller knows he was there.

And he knows he's cooked


Wow, a publisher decided to buy a story, STOP THE FUCKING PRESSES. LMAO

.

There was a bit more to it than that. It's called "capture and kill". It is where a publisher will buy the exclusive rights to a persons story (meaning no other publication can publish it), and then, when they have the exclusive rights, they put the story in a box in the storage room and forget about it, ensuring the story never sees the light of day.


Or they save it for a later date, either way, it's not illegal.

.
It is when you do it in regards to a campaign.

You've been lied to and you're repeating those lies


From what I understand AMI had done this before, so if there is a pattern that was established before the campaign, it would kill the theory that it was only for the campaign, rather to protect Trumps brand, reputation and family. But you're free to ignore history and remain ignorant.

.
 
From what I understand AMI had done this before, so if there is a pattern that was established before the campaign, it would kill the theory that it was only for the campaign, rather to protect Trumps brand, reputation and family. But you're free to ignore history and remain ignorant.

The original conspiracy meeting was in 2015. Is that what you are referring to because it doesn't save you..it hurts you
 
These Republicans refuse to believe it. I told them about the shell companies and they say it's a lie, that there were no shell companies, they attacked the links.

It's called "determined ignorance" and they refuse to accept the news of the day.

Meghan McCain compares Obama's campaign finance fines with Trump's felonies.
"Determined ignorance". I've been calling it willful blindness for years.
Invincible ignorance is invincible...
 
From what I understand AMI had done this before, so if there is a pattern that was established before the campaign, it would kill the theory that it was only for the campaign, rather to protect Trumps brand, reputation and family. But you're free to ignore history and remain ignorant.
Dead right. Except for AMI's admissions.
upload_2018-12-15_13-57-3-png.234726

upload_2018-12-15_13-57-33-png.234727

upload_2018-12-15_13-57-59-png.234728

American-Media-Inc-Non-Prosecution-Agreement.pdf
 
Trump was in the room during hush money discussions with tabloid publisher

So there was a meeting to discuss the illegal hush money payments to Trump's whores. Pecker was there (he owns the Inquirer/AMI) and of course Cohen was there...

And it turns out the third man in the room was none other than Donald J Trump.

He knows he was there. He knows that Mueller knows he was there.

And he knows he's cooked


What part of "it isn't a crime" do you morons not understand..... hush money is not illegal you moron..... Congress has a slush fund that has paid out 17 million dollars for "hush Money" for the women the members of congress have molested, as in sexually assualted......not casual sex....... tax dollars...you asshat......

But keep dreaming...
Ahhh but it is. In fact Cohen just pled guilty to it and will serve time for it.

Bank fraud...conspiracy...illegal campaign contributions.

All Trump had to do was pay her directly with his own money and report it and it WOULD have been legal...but then he never would have gotten elected if he did that....would he?
'


The campaign contributions wasn't a crime..... he isn't getting any time for that and his lawyer....clinton friend lanny davis, had him plead to an act that wasn't even a crime....but by pleading to the crime, he got a 20 year sentence reduced to 3 years simply so they could fabricate a link to Trump...

Nothing Trump did was illegal, dipstick..... he could have paid her out of campaign funds, and it would simply have been a fine.

Payoffs to Mistresses as In-Kind Contributions? | National Review

The Southern District of New York (SDNY) lodged campaign-finance charges against Cohen. He elected to plead guilty without contesting them. This, I believe, was more a strategic calculation than an assessment of the legal adequacy of the charges: The campaign-finance counts had a negligible effect on the sentencing-guidelines calculation (which was driven by the more serious tax- and bank-fraud charges); and Cohen’s defense team perceived that the SDNY is trying to make a case on President Trump, so pleading guilty to two extra felonies paradoxically improved his chances for sentencing leniency.

The strategy worked. Though his sentencing guidelines called for 51 to 61 months’ imprisonment and he was not a full-fledged cooperator, the SDNY nevertheless agreed to a nine-to-19-month shave off his guideline range (i.e., about 42 months). The SDNY said this was because Cohen cooperated with the Mueller probe; I think Cohen’s rolling over on the campaign-finance allegations made the SDNY more amenable to leniency. In agreeing to the reduction, the SDNY was well aware that, with such a signal sent, it would be routine for the court to go below the reduction suggested by prosecutors. Judge William H. Pauley did just that, imposing a sentence of just 36 months. (To repeat my pet peeve on this point, I believe President Trump’s highly inappropriate agitation for Cohen to be given a severe sentence probably influenced the judge to reduce the sentence, in order to show independence.)

Because Cohen never challenged the legal sufficiency of the charge, Judge Pauley never ruled on it. To my mind, it would have been preferable if Pauley had directed the parties to brief the issue. I do not believe a judge should ever take a plea if there is a colorable legal question about whether what is charged is actually a crime. To be fair, though, the question of whether a third-party payment that is not a direct campaign expense constitutes an in-kind contribution is arguably what we call a “mixed question of law and fact” on which even experts have differed. In the John Edwards case, to take the best example, the FEC believed similar transactions were not in-kind contributions; the Justice Department disagreed and indicted Edwards on them; the trial judge allowed the case to go to the jury (implicitly a finding that a rational juror could convict); the jury acquitted on some counts and hung on others; and then the Justice Department decided to drop the case rather than retry it. The question is murky.

In any event, all Judge Pauley did in Cohen’s case was accept guilty plea. Without ruling on the matter, he assumed that the charge was legally adequate. In a guilty plea, the defendant typically waives his right to challenge legal and factual issues on appeal. The most we can say, then, is that the matter is settled as to Cohen, but that’s because of the waiver, not because the judge made a ruling on the pertinent question.
 
From what I understand AMI had done this before, so if there is a pattern that was established before the campaign, it would kill the theory that it was only for the campaign, rather to protect Trumps brand, reputation and family. But you're free to ignore history and remain ignorant.

The original conspiracy meeting was in 2015. Is that what you are referring to because it doesn't save you..it hurts you


Nope, this story proves AMI has captured and killed stories on Trump for almost two decades, which kills the assumption that the McDougall story was uniquely connected to the election.
For the better part of two decades, Mr. Pecker had ordered his staff at American Media to protect Mr. Trump from troublesome stories, in some cases by buying up stories about him and filing them away.

National Enquirer Had Decades of Trump Dirt. He Wanted to Buy It All.
If the NY Slimes says it, it must be true, right?

.
 
If the NY Slimes says it, it must be true, right?
Ffs!

AMI have admitted it was for election purposes in their non-prosecution agreement !

WTF is going on here? Can no one read?
 
Last edited:
If the NY Slimes says it, it must be true, right?
Ffs!

AMI have admitted it was for election purposes in their non-prosecution agreement !

WTF is going on here? Can no one read?


Right, I wonder what incentivized them to say that. Oh right, the non-prosecution agreement. I bet it saved them millions in attorneys fees.

.
 
Right, I wonder what incentivized them to say that. Oh right, the non-prosecution agreement. I bet it saved them millions in attorneys fees.
Trump fluffers will fluff Trump. Fair enough. I suppose next you'll assert their attorneys advised against signing.
 
Right, I wonder what incentivized them to say that. Oh right, the non-prosecution agreement. I bet it saved them millions in attorneys fees.
Trump fluffers will fluff Trump. Fair enough. I suppose next you'll assert their attorneys advised against signing.


Statements for special dispensation are always suspect. A business made a business decision, go figure. I mean what's a little suborning perjury to get prosecutors what they want, after all AMI will never have to go to court.

.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top