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

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Wrong about?
How is one wrong about a "possible" story?

Are you serious with this? You just made a big deal about me not using the word "if" in my OP, thereby implying that I was claiming the allegations were true. I proved that wrong by showing I used the words possibly originally. Stop feigning ignorance on the conversation we were JUST having.

I guess we are back to sperm on a blue dress as to the relevance any of this has with the investigation

a reply to: shooterbrody

Did you miss the part where we don't have enough information yet to have a conclusions on the culpability of breaking any laws?

Why do I have to keep repeating myself?

I'll answer you more directly, so that we can be done with this line of questioning:

If the law was broken what law?

We don't know, yet, because we don't have enough information.

Is there a law putting a monetary value on a newspaper story?
One that was "bought and buried" then published anyway by a rival?

I don't know, but that's not the crux of the potential legal issue, as has already been explained to you by others in this thread.

Again, and for the last time, this will be another wait-and-see issue, as we don't have enough info yet, unless jumping to conclusions is the goal.

It's not my goal.

a reply to: Gandalf77

I enjoy vegging out and reading the Nat Enq though. Alot of us do so it would effect many who like to read the off the wall stuff.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I can't believe I'm in agreement with you on this one. I just want to follow this case and see where it goes because I don't like AMI. That's it. I haven't declared guilt. I haven't even looked at the evidence. I have my suspicions but no one has asked me them in the thread. Only just assuming my intentions instead. At least you understood that.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
I guess we are back to sperm on a blue dress as to the relevance any of this has with the investigation

I don't follow you. If laws were broken then what's wrong with seeking justice? Not everything has to be about Trump you know?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Ha...I almost made the same exact comment to you LOL

a reply to: Krazysh0t

possibly is not if
if that is the argument you seek resolution to then good on you sir

as to the topic you brought to discuss, any legal prescient for the feds taking this type of action?

a reply to: SlapMonkey

fair enough

I will ask you the same, any legal prescient for the feds taking this type of action?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Krazysh0t

possibly is not if
if that is the argument you seek resolution to then good on you sir

Now you are splitting hairs.

as to the topic you brought to discuss, any legal prescient for the feds taking this type of action?

Dunno. That's a good question.

Intent is the whole of the law.

It will take much more than one payment to prove anything.

I am pretty sure we are all free to pay people to shut up and we are all free to accept such payments.

Free Press

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Now you are splitting hairs.

no, I acquiesced to your well reasoned exchange

Dunno. That's a good question.

I looked and could find none to support the feds alleged possible allegations.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I looked and could find none to support the feds alleged possible allegations.

If' that holds true then they may have a tough case to prove.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Then you must have missed my comment earlier if you're asking me that question: YOU are the one claiming that this is a breach of the norm, so you must show that this hasn't happened before, not demand that people (who aren't even arguing for or against this action being justified yet) show YOU legal precedent about such an action.

But, I don't know, because I haven't researched any precedent yet because I'm waiting to see if that's even worth my time.

Better question--have you even researched it yet? Because if you have, I'd like to know what you researched, because we don't even know what the "what" really is, yet.

I repeat: I'm not here jump to conclusions.

DP

What's truly ridiculous with this whole circus is that the press in general, very often refuse to publish stories considered harmful to an entity they adore. Harvey Weinstein comes to mind, and I am certain there are many others we do not know about.

The National Enquirer is reportedly famous for buying rights to stories and not publishing but maintaining the rights if it becomes currently relative. They have a long precedent of this sort of action so it could be a normal practice for them.

The publishers are known to be friends of the President and it could have been done out of friendship or for the campaign, but gonna be real hard to prove that depending on what Cohen recorded about it.

Not exactly the "there" there they want, and a rather low criminality involved as campaign finance violations are usually punished with fines and don't do it against.

However, President Obama Justice Department changed that when they locked up Dinesh Souzza for his violations.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

I don't follow you. If laws were broken then what's wrong with seeking justice? Not everything has to be about Trump you know?

Sure sure, isn’t 99%, maybe more, of your posts about Trump?

What Justice? Candidates have “forgotten” they spent 100,000s of campaign monies on personal things and got a slap on the wrist.

My point is they work to find anything at all and go full attack when it is typically small thing in the past.

That is why I call it a sperm on a blue dress situation

a reply to: SlapMonkey

money.howstuffworks.com...

To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker." Frederick Douglass, 1860.

Near v. Minnesota (1931) This case helped the Supreme Court define freedom of the press and the concept of prior restraint. When Minneapolis newspaper editor Jay Near attacked local officials by claiming in print that they were associated with gangsters, Minnesota officials obtained an injunction to keep Near from publishing his paper under state law. The law said that anyone who published a "malicious, scandalous and defamatory" newspaper article was a nuisance and could be stopped from publishing such information. The Supreme Court had to determine if the Minnesota law restricted freedom of the press. The Court ruled that the law kept certain information from being published - a concept called prior restraint -- and violated the First Amendment. This case helped establish the principle that the government can't censor or prohibit a publication in advance, with a few exceptions, even though the communication might be actionable in a future proceeding

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964)
The Court held that the First Amendment protects the publication of all statements -- even those later proven false -- about the conduct of public officials unless they're made with actual malice, or knowledge that they're false or reckless. The Court dismissed Sullivan's case and established that publicly elected officials must prove an actual intent to harm in cases of libel or defamation.

I think this one would have relevance as the right to not publish will be as important as the right to publish.

New York Times Co. vs. United States (1971)
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of the Times. In dissent, Chief Justice Warren Burger noted that the "imperative of a free and unfettered press comes into collision with another imperative, the effective functioning of a complex, modern government." He challenged the wisdom of publishing the highly confidential intelligence, but respected the freedom offered by the First Amendment: "Only those who view the First Amendment as an absolute in all circumstances -- a view I respect, but reject -- can find such cases as these to be simple or easy." This case is extremely important to journalists, as the court recognized the need to find a balance between the right to a free press and the need for the government to protect national security. The ruling in favor of the press places even more responsibility on the Fourth Estate, challenging journalists to use their freedoms wisely in their role as gatekeepers for disseminating information to the public.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

I don't follow you. If laws were broken then what's wrong with seeking justice? Not everything has to be about Trump you know?

Sure sure, isn’t 99%, maybe more, of your posts about Trump?

Whether this is true or not, YOU are the one currently trying to make the thread about Trump. Trump is only ancillary to this story. Also, this isn't the mud pit. How about not slandering me, ad homineming me, or even just assuming things about my beliefs and actions and just stick to the thread topic?

What Justice? Candidates have “forgotten” they spent 100,000s of campaign monies on personal things and got a slap on the wrist.

My point is they work to find anything at all and go full attack when it is typically small thing in the past.

That is why I call it a sperm on a blue dress situation

You do know that uncovering crimes is all about following up on small threads from the past hoping they lead somewhere by investigating and uncovering evidence, right?

And then there is this....of course this will probably be tossed around as it is one of the most contentious cases in the history of the United States
harvardlawreview.org...

The FEC’s opinion mattered because under the statutory “press exemption,” federal campaign finance restrictions do not apply to costs associated with producing news.

That case, of course, went to the Supreme Court, which sided with Citizens United.

“There is no precedent supporting laws that attempt to distinguish between corporations which are deemed to be exempt as media corporations and those which are not.”

I do not think the NE will have a hard time convincing anyone they are a media corporation.

And, under the statute, press corporations are exempt from the federal disclaimer and disclosure requirements.

I wonder if the feds will actually pursue this?

As the Citizens United story demonstrates, the FEC has encountered new controversy over how to apply the press exemption. On one side, some Commissioners are concerned that unless the FEC denies the press exemption to some corporations (like a retail store that distributes a newsletter to customers), the press exemption will become a loophole through which any corporation could evade contribution prohibitions and disclosure and disclaimer requirements.

If this does make its way to the SCOTUS....oh boy I wonder if anyone will remember Merrick Garland?