It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Feds Believe National Enquirer Publisher Acted as Political Supporter for Trump Campaign

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2018 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: shooterbrody

If there are laws against such activity, and evidence pointing that those laws have possibly been violated, then of course they should be investigating it.

A free press is not free to break the law.


Feel free to show me the law that says the press has to print anything.
Feel free to show me the law that says the press is not allowed to buy exclusive rights to a story.
What I see is the feds attempting to twist an existing law to effect free speech.




posted on Jul, 23 2018 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: shooterbrody

If campaign finance laws were violated don't you want justice? Or do you not support law and order? It's not like the laws in question here aren't on the books. You guys are always going on about how laws need to be enforced. So if enforcing this law requires us to go there then what's the problem?


There is no problem.

Unless we get the whole "fruit of the poisonous tree" deal brought to bear.

What exactly is illegal about the evidence procured for this case?



The "in" for Cohen derives from the farce of the Mueller investigation.

But that wasn't obtained illegally. Your personal opinion on the matter isn't going to hold up in Federal court.



posted on Jul, 23 2018 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Is this the kind of scrutiny you want the Federal Government to pursue against the free press?
So the feds will now be divining who the free press can endorse,or how they choose to endorse? What stories they cover and why? What stories they dont and why?


This is NOT government scrutiny of the free press,

This IS government scrutiny of possibly ILLEGAL political campaign activity by the corporate owner of a newspaper (loosely speaking), not the paper itself, but its owner.

The right is often complaining about the so-called “liberal” MSM. Would you be as triggered about “government scrutiny of the free press” if a liberal media mogul (Jeff Bezos, perhaps?) practiced a little “catch and kill” on a story proving Obama snorted coke in the Oval Office? (Yeah, I bet you believe he did, don’t you?)
edit on 23-7-2018 by Bhadhidar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2018 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Clearly the Nat Eng should been running snip like this.




posted on Jul, 23 2018 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

True, but they also broke the stories about Jesse Jackson's and John Edward's secrete extramarital love children. They also reported Tiger Wood's affairs before anyone else. They reported on Steve Jobs being ill just months before he died.

I'm not saying that they should always be trusted, but I am saying that they cannot be immediately disregarded just because their normal stories don't always have meat behind them.



posted on Jul, 23 2018 @ 01:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Words

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Words

Endorsing or even donating money to Clinton isn't the problem here.


I know that. I'm just saying it's weird. We know that Clinton campaigners regularly colluded with journalists. We know that journalists donated overwhelmingly to the clinton campagin. We know that nearly every outlet endorsed Hillary. Is "political supporter" a legal term?

Who cares about what "we know"? It only matters if it broke the law and if it can be proven in a court of law. None of what you just listed is illegal. It may be morally dubious but it isn't illegal. Trump PAYING a newspaper with campaign money to not print a story and the paper complying is a TOTALLY different situation than anything you just suggested.


Who cares about what we don't know? Your suggestion regarding "Trump PAYING a newspaper with campaign money to not print a story" is speculation without evidence. But it would be interesting to see how this turns out.



posted on Jul, 23 2018 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Bhadhidar

Thanks. You said it better than I was saying it.



posted on Jul, 23 2018 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Words

Actually I was wrong about that. AMI bought the story and squashed it. There may be evidence that they colluded with the Trump campaign to do so given the evidence procured from Cohen. Sorry about that.



posted on Jul, 23 2018 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Words

Actually I was wrong about that. AMI bought the story and squashed it. There may be evidence that they colluded with the Trump campaign to do so given the evidence procured from Cohen. Sorry about that.


No apology required. Frankly, if true, I think that would be the end of Trump.



posted on Jul, 23 2018 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Especially when the story was "broken" by the WSJ nov 4 2016 PRIOR to the election.
www.wsj.com...

The fact that this was revealed to the public before the election, and trump still won shows how ridiculous this exercise is.
How will the feds prove this had any effect on the outcome of the election?



posted on Jul, 23 2018 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: shooterbrody

If campaign finance laws were violated don't you want justice? Or do you not support law and order? It's not like the laws in question here aren't on the books. You guys are always going on about how laws need to be enforced. So if enforcing this law requires us to go there then what's the problem?


There is no problem.

Unless we get the whole "fruit of the poisonous tree" deal brought to bear.

What exactly is illegal about the evidence procured for this case?



The "in" for Cohen derives from the farce of the Mueller investigation.

But that wasn't obtained illegally. Your personal opinion on the matter isn't going to hold up in Federal court.


Luckily we aren't in federal court, man.
So my opinion is welcome.

But thanks for reminding me that were I ever to pass a bar exam and practice law, that I'd need to have a better argument. Much appreciated.



posted on Jul, 23 2018 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Words

Maybe. Maybe not. I'm not actually worried about Trump on this one. I'm more concerned with the fate of AMI and their publications.

For reference these are what AMI prints

Current

Closer
Flex
Girls World
Globe
In Touch
J-14
Life & Style
Men's Fitness
Men's Journal
Muscle & Fitness
Muscle & Fitness Hers
National Enquirer
National Examiner
OK!
RadarOnline.com
Soap Opera Digest
Star
Us Weekly



posted on Jul, 23 2018 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
Especially when the story was "broken" by the WSJ nov 4 2016 PRIOR to the election.
www.wsj.com...

The fact that this was revealed to the public before the election, and trump still won shows how ridiculous this exercise is.
How will the feds prove this had any effect on the outcome of the election?

It's not about proving its effect on the election... That is irrelevant. The violation is on possibly conspiring to help the Trump campaign. Full stop. The outcome of the conspiracy doesn't matter. Do you not arrest someone who breaks into a jewelry store but fails to steal anything?



posted on Jul, 23 2018 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bhadhidar

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Is this the kind of scrutiny you want the Federal Government to pursue against the free press?
So the feds will now be divining who the free press can endorse,or how they choose to endorse? What stories they cover and why? What stories they dont and why?


This is NOT government scrutiny of the free press,

This IS government scrutiny of possibly ILLEGAL political campaign activity by the corporate owner of a newspaper (loosely speaking), not the paper itself, but its owner.

The right is often complaining about the so-called “liberal” MSM. Would you be as triggered about “government scrutiny of the free press” if a liberal media mogul (Jeff Bezos, perhaps?) practiced a little “catch and kill” on a story proving Obama snorted coke in the Oval Office? (Yeah, I bet you believe he did, don’t you?)

I don't care which side of the press it is, the federal government in no way should be telling the press what to print or not to print.
The fact that the WSJ printed this story November 4th makes a moot point any of the "campaign contribution" bs.
The story was printed. The national enquirer was not successful in their alleged mission.
BTW the NE has settled with Mcdougal and she is free to sell her story to whomever she wants to now, she just has to pay a fee to the NE.



posted on Jul, 23 2018 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

oh so this is "conspiracy to commit campaign fraud" now?
lol that is laughable



posted on Jul, 23 2018 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Well, you'll have to go back to my initial comment that says that this is an interesting story, but we don't know enough to begin to place culpability on anyone for any illegal doings, yet.

Secondly, you're the one making the positive claims in your narrative, so YOU are the one who needs to show us the evidence that backs up your claim.

You should note (again, if you missed it the first time) that I said "if" at the start of my comment.

IF.

Read what I write, not what you think that I'm saying. This is not the first time that you have mistakenly attributed a claim to me that I did not make.



posted on Jul, 23 2018 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Krazysh0t

oh so this is "conspiracy to commit campaign fraud" now?
lol that is laughable

This is the following:

If A.M.I. and Cohen were working together for the Trump campaign’s benefit, that could put the publisher in jeopardy for possibly violating campaign finance law. The payment for McDougal’s story–and her silence–could be viewed as an in-kind contribution, well beyond the maximum amount allowed. Cohen is reportedly already being looked at for a possible similar violation regarding a payment he made to Stormy Daniels.

Additionally, if A.M.I. was working in coordination with Trump himself, that could be in violation of a prohibition against corporations coordinating with campaigns.



posted on Jul, 23 2018 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Words

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Words

Endorsing or even donating money to Clinton isn't the problem here.


I know that. I'm just saying it's weird. We know that Clinton campaigners regularly colluded with journalists. We know that journalists donated overwhelmingly to the clinton campagin. We know that nearly every outlet endorsed Hillary. Is "political supporter" a legal term?


is "enemy of the people" chanted over and over by trump to describe the press a clue to you?.....how about we have Obama chanting over and over "republicans are the enemy of the people"...would that be ok by you?



posted on Jul, 23 2018 @ 01:34 PM
link   
www.gq.com...
Is fox news to be grilled by the feds for not running this story?



posted on Jul, 23 2018 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
www.gq.com...
Is fox news to be grilled by the feds for not running this story?

That depends on if the Feds uncover evidence from the Cohen search that implicates them for wrongdoing first. You can't just skip steps in the federal investigation process just to make random points of comparison.




top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join