It occurred to me that American Media, Inc. may have destroyed the incriminating info on Trump that they had stored in their safe, lest it fall into the wrong hands. Or, if not destroyed, they may claim to have destroyed it rather than turn it over under subpoena. If they did that, though, would the people who originally sold the exclusive rights to AMI now be free to tell, or to resell, the stories? Could AMI enforce the exclusivity contracts while not having the information they claim the rights to?
Part of the QAnon theory is the claim that Trump pretended collusion with Russia so that he could hire Mueller to investigate Democrats while pretending to investigate Trump and the Russians.
So if Trump is meeting with a leading QAnon theorist than he is encouraging a conspiracy theory that he knows is not true.
Sorry, but that’s not as bad as a BJ in the Oval Office. :dubious: Yeah. Right.
I can’t imagine any media outlet, least of all the National Enquirer, destroying anything like that. That would be like flushing diamonds down the toilet.
Jesus, opening the National Inquirer safe is going to be like the ending of Cabin in the Woods. That said, this won’t change anything. I thought maybe if the child is with an undocumented immigrant it might affect his supporters, but they would just use that as proof that he isn’t racist.
If they wanted the increased circulation and advertising revenue they’d get by running a story, they would have run it already. They bought these stories to deliberately bury them.
Threatening to release the stories would give them leverage against Trump, but only if they could release them on their own terms. If they come out now under some sort of legal proceeding, AMI loses that leverage and looks bad for having held onto them. In that sense, they could decide that having this info is a liability.
Which brings me back to my question, if AMI goes on record saying they don’t have damaging stories on Trump, can they still enforce their exclusivity to publish them?
Aren’t they going to impeach Rod Rosenstein as soon as that political hack, Kavanaugh, is confirmed to the supreme court? They then wouldn’t need to fire Sessions.
To bury them FOR NOW. Stories like that are a long term investment for the future. No media outlet, even a mainstream one, would ever destroy something so potentially valuable. Even if it means saving them for the tell-all book that won’t be published until after thump is dead.
IMHO your thinking is too short-term. Leverage against thump right now is a minor consideration in the long game.
Pecker may have genuinely destroyed the files. It’s a lesson from Watergate and the tapes. If evidence exists, it can be subpoenaed. But if you destroy that evidence, you can never be compelled to produce it. And it you’re going to destroy evidence you want to make sure you do it early before it officially is declared evidence and you face charges for destroying it.
I am confused: AMI’s Chief Content Officer claims that Sajudin’s story was spiked because it was “not credible”. This is the National Fucking Enquirer, folks, sister publication to AMI’s Weekly World News – this claim strikes me as, uh, not credible.
Must be pretty common, my experience with Enquirer: my local store carries it in the impulse buy section, right next to the cash registers. I always look. For the longest time, it was mostly Jennifer Aniston and Brad Pitt, so on and so forth, and then suddenly: Bat Boy: Hillary/Obama’s Love Child? and Bible Proves Hillary Is The Whore of Babylon, so on and so forth.
First reactions were shock, horror and dismay. Downhill from there.
