Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
www.salon.com
Not illegal. Not campaign contributions.
Still haven't worked up the sack to say it. Sad.Timing is everything, isn't it?
Odd about that.
Read the indictment and follow the trial, before acting like you're aware of things that it's obvious you are not.And this breaks what law, specifically?
One under appreciated aspect of what Pecker deceitfully did for Trump is the extent of the hit pieces that were published at the NE focusing on Don's opponents. The lie about Ted Cruz's dad being the most famous. But there were many others.What I Saw Working at The National Enquirer During Donald Trump’s Rise - By Lachlan Cartwright
Inside the notorious “catch and kill” campaign that now stands at the heart of the former president’s legal trial.
I pulled up the indictment and the statement of facts on my iPhone. At the center of the case is the accusation that Trump took part in a scheme to turn The National Enquirer and its sister publications into an arm of his 2016 presidential campaign. The documents detailed three “hush money” payments made to a series of individuals to guarantee their silence about potentially damaging stories in the months before the election. Because this was done with the goal of helping his election chances, the case implied, these payments amounted to a form of illegal, undisclosed campaign spending. And, Bragg argued, because Trump created paperwork to make the payments seem like regular legal expenses, that amounted to a criminal effort at a coverup. Trump has denied the charges against him.
What I Saw Working at The National Enquirer During Donald Trump’s Rise
Inside the notorious “catch and kill” campaign that now stands at the heart of the former president’s legal trial.www.nytimes.com
The documents rattled off a number of seedy stories that would have been right at home in a venerable supermarket tabloid, had they actually been published. The subjects were anonymized but recognizable to anyone who had followed the story of Trump’s entanglement with The Enquirer. His affair with the porn star Stormy Daniels, of course, was the heart of it. There was also Karen McDougal, the Playboy Playmate of the Year in 1998, whose affair with Trump was similarly made to disappear, the payments for the rights to her story made to look like fees for writing a fitness column and appearing on magazine covers. (Trump has denied involvement with both women.) There were others that were lesser known, too, like Dino Sajudin, a former Trump World Tower doorman who claimed that Trump had a love child with one of the building’s employees; the story was never published, and Sajudin was paid $30,000 to keep quiet about it.
What I Saw Working at The National Enquirer During Donald Trump’s Rise
Inside the notorious “catch and kill” campaign that now stands at the heart of the former president’s legal trial.web.archive.org
To me this is unbelievable. Before Mr. Trump's official entry into presidential politics - he becoming a politician - this kind of story that surfaced years ago, would've killed the career of an aspiring politician. But with Mr. Trump's troll-like campaign (proof/not opinion is his personal/family insults and attacks on a debate stage, breaking of norms, rules...unheard of before 2015), the bizarre became acceptable to small but then growing a segment of the population.
View attachment 928170
This is a story that needs telling.
The two men Trump and his pal Pecker were known to do sleazy favors for each other.One under appreciated aspect of what Pecker deceitfully did for Trump is the extent of the hit pieces that were published at the NE focusing on Don's opponents. The lie about Ted Cruz's dad being the most famous. But there were many others.
Trump's atrocious behavior has been so normalized people hardly bat an eye at the whole sordid episode. The adultery, the attempt to deceive the public and Melania, the horrible stories about opponents he tacitly approved of. It's all just the kind of despicable stuff Don always finds himself in the middle of.The two men Trump and his pal Pecker were known to do sleazy favors for each other.
So?That's why Trump claimed 3-5 million illegals voted. You see how he lies?
Tabloid fodder: Hush-money trial reveals Trump's humiliating truth
If there was a hell, Trump's punishment would be a trial where people tell the truth about him all day
Using your logic Hitlery should be on trial for paying Russians for a fake dossier to help her campaign.Of course it was. It was something of value to the campaign. The very definition of a campaign contribution. And at $130,000, it far exceeded the limit Cohen was legally allowed to pay. And most obviously, Cohen was convicted, among other crimes, of a campaign finance violation.
So you can’t cite the statute.Read the indictment and follow the trial, before acting like you're aware of things that it's obvious you are not.
So?The two men Trump and his pal Pecker were known to do sleazy favors for each other.
Fact: The indictment lists the crimes.So you can’t cite the statute.
Got it.
www.usmessageboard.com
He hired Free beacon and Orbis.. he's a billionaire hedge fund Republican who opposed Trump.
It was something of value to the campaign. The very definition of a campaign contribution.
One under appreciated aspect of what Pecker deceitfully did for Trump is the extent of the hit pieces that were published at the NE focusing on Don's opponents. The lie about Ted Cruz's dad being the most famous. But there were many others.
Another fail.Fact: The indictment lists the crimes.
I've gone on record saying it was enough for me to see Mr. Trump brought before justice. Any specific outcome matters less to me. There are general and nuanced arguments out there from many scholars, and armchair legal experts. On social media and places like usmb, I see the average person regurgitating key phrases (fed into their minds by ideological and political mouthpieces), like underlying crimes, predicate crimes, intent to defraud, election interference, all while ignoring any coherent arguments of legal and judicial interpretations of particular state or federal statutes.
This is a pretty damn good piece:
Bragg's Case against Trump, a Legal Embarrassment, a Historic Mistake?
I've gone on record saying it was enough for me to see Mr. Trump brought before justice. Any specific outcome matters less to me. There are general and nuanced arguments out there from many scholars, and armchair legal experts. On social media and places like usmb, I see the average person...
Character.
Another fail.
Try again.
No one said it was.Is publishing lies about political figures illegal?
Yet Trump kept giving interviews to NYT journalists.Right.
Like a positive story in the New York Times would be something of value to a campaign.
