Moon, my ass!
You call that a pressed ham? Walt, hit the retaliate button!
Oh, let’s see.
Any button! They all retaliate!
Getting the moon because I set up the Taint Team topic so Bayard could warn of a Santorum smear.
Man, I pegged that correctly.
May I have the mineral rights?
FBI raid on President Trump’s lawyer Cohen’s office find’s Obama’s birth certificate.
In this day and age, I’m not at all ashamed to admit I had to actually google to make sure this was a joke.
Not talking about BatBoy and the moon landing hoaxes.
The National Enquirer may be facing allegations of illegal campaign donation to Mr Trump. The NY Times is reporting that may be part of what the search warrant on Cohen was about: that Cohen and the publisher of the Enquirer may have worked together to kill “unfortunate” stories about Trump, to avoid political embarrassment and aid his campaign. If so, buying stories to kill them may qualify as unreported campaign donations.
Investigators Focus on Another Trump Ally: The National Enquirer
Something like this. Notice Joy is missing.
I’m still not sure if Trump actually is operating with Bill the Cat’s brain.
Because having your lawyer indirectly use campaign funds to pay off a mistress days before an election commits multiple felonies.
The Enquirer could quite plausibly claim in court that nobody would read it for actual news reporting.
And there’s a new story floating around: that the Enquirer paid a doorman in New York for exclusive rights to a story that Trump had a love-child with someone who worked for him.
But the editor of the Enquirer said they didn’t publish the story, because they couldn’t confirm it and publishing it would be contrary to their journalism ethics.
The article I read (can’t find the link) points out that instead, they were publishing articles about Hilary’s numerous lesbian affairs. :rolleyes:
That was also my thought.
Please use more descriptive thread titles. I have edited the thread title.
I’m going to disagree with the word “plausibly”. They could certainly claim that no one would read it, but it’s not credible. “Trump sleeps with porn star and then pays her off” would certainly grab attention. As would, “Trump has love child”. Then, as now, the media cycle was dominated by all things Trump: what he ate, who he talked to, and this was shortly after the infamous Access Hollywood tape, which would only increase interest in this topic.
I’ll also disagree with the premise that anyone reads the National Enquirer for actual news reporting. I’ll let stories like this one make that argument:
Be it noted that the guy who runs the National Enquirer’s name is Pecker.
Nuff said.
If he didn’t use funds from the campaign and did it himself the money becomes campaign funds which were not reported, and ditto.
Plus it seems that whatever he told the banks smelled to high heaven, also ditto.
That won’t fly. Too many successful libel suits against the Enquirer. That demonstrates that people read it and believe its reports are true, ie news.
Cohen had a habit of taping conversations with associates.
Ruh-roh!
The Washington Post is going to release the tapes, isn’t it?
I mean, it’s going to release tapes of a sitting President doing shady shit while the conversation was being recorded.
Stupid Nixon just shouldn’t be this Nixonian. It’s practically a Seltzer and Friedberg movie.