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.

 

National Enquirer kept safe with damaging Trump stories

page: 1
19
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+1 more 
posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Safe, as in a vault. Kept buying out the negative stories and killing them to protect the President, just like the McDougal pay-off.


The National Enquirer kept a safe containing documents on hush money payments and other damaging stories it killed as part of its cozy relationship with Donald Trump leading up to 2016 presidential election, people familiar with the arrangement told The Associated Press.

The detail came as several media outlets reported on Thursday that federal prosecutors had granted immunity to National Enquirer chief David Pecker, potentially laying bare his efforts to protect his longtime friend Trump.

If this is true, and National Enquirer was indeed given immunity then we are about to see the vault open and the skeletons pour out.

Avenatti said he was now representing 5 women and said he had proof they were all paid hush money right before the election. Did National Enquirer buy out more of those stories?


The Trump records were stored alongside similar documents pertaining to other celebrities’ catch-and-kill deals, in which exclusive rights to people’s stories were bought with no intention of publishing to keep them out of the news. By keeping celebrities’ embarrassing secrets, the company was able to ingratiate itself with them and ask for favors in return.

But after The Wall Street Journal initially published the first details of Playboy model Karen McDougal’s catch-and-kill deal shortly before the 2016 election, those assets became a liability. Fearful that the documents might be used against American Media, Pecker and the company’s chief content officer, Dylan Howard, removed them from the safe in the weeks before Trump’s inauguration, according to one person directly familiar with the events.

The AP cannot say whether the documents were destroyed or simply were moved to a location known to fewer people.

My guess is the prosecutors/investigators will be able to get to the bottom of that question. Were they destroyed or moved?

Associated Press

What a crazy week.


edit on 23-8-2018 by Kharron because: typo



+5 more 
posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Kharron


SO WHAT!!!!! Honestly who cares about this crap. If Trump slept with someone and paid them out of his pocket and they signed an NDA then where is the crime?


+1 more 
posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Kharron

I find it absolutely hilarious that everyone has to use the term "hush money" now to make it seem like a crime has been committed.

It's called a Non-Disclosure Agreement.

Here.. you can do a free one online right now so you can feel all edgy and tell your friends that you are a criminal too!!!

Free NDA Form

Anything else you would like to make illegal today so you can pin your Trumpy-Trump dreams on it?



+5 more 
posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 05:10 PM
link   
So if we find out that cnn, the nyt, msnbc, etc chose to not report negative stories on hillary, does that mean they all broke the law as well?



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Kharron

We have all been through this before with someone that did this in the Oval Office.

It doesn't matter.

Problem is people just want to be mad at Trump.

Nothing illegal happened and it has nothing to do with Russia.

This is all just plays to try to swing midterms.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Kharron


I know it would look bad, but, if anything Trump could probably sue them and go after damages for them violating the terms of the NDA THEY VOLUNTARILY SIGNED and get the money he paid them bac. At the end of the day this was adults having consensual sex and the woman voluntarily entering into an NDA and violating it. That is one thing I have been consistent about, back when Clinton did this I said who cares, now Trump is doing it and I still say who cares? If Melania is cool with it what business is it of yours or anyone elses. It is so funny to see the democrats who were ok with Clinton act like the moral authority now.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 05:17 PM
link   
All these stories were "classified at the time" too I suppose.

💥😁💥

Wonder why these weren't outed in Oct 2016?



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 05:17 PM
link   
It would matter if it was literally ANYONE else.

Fact.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe


Add to that he pretty much self funded his election so even the campaign money was a majority of his personal money. Such a non-issue, the latest desperation play by liberals. Schumer already said today that the vote on Kavanaugh needs to be delayed now. what a joke



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jefferton
It would matter if it was literally ANYONE else.

Fact.


Would it?

So I assume you have been ranting and raving about almost the entirity of the msm acting the mouth peice for the democratic party?



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 05:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
All these stories were "classified at the time" too I suppose.

💥😁💥

Wonder why these weren't outed in Oct 2016?



The dem scramble is fun to watch....



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Jefferton


What do you mean? Kind of an ambiguous statement



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

It has gotten to the point I am sick of saying it. So many supposedly smart people just dont get it, even if everything they say is true, it still isnt illegal and is not a campaign finance violation.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Kharron

I have this picture of you typing your recent Trump threads.

Joys on-air orgasm was a little premature, you might take a lesson from her.

Or not, it is entertaining.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
So if we find out that cnn, the nyt, msnbc, etc chose to not report negative stories on hillary, does that mean they all broke the law as well?


or worse, even leaked the debate questions to one candidate in advance
edit on pm88201818America/Chicago23p05pm by annoyedpharmacist because: typo



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 05:21 PM
link   
If they chose not to run stories about Trumps affairs, there's nothing to see. It's all hype.

However, you never know what skeletons could be in the closet, and there's a possibility of a bombshell coming out.

Any number of possibilites. Sexual assault, other crimes like bribes, for example.

It's like Al Capone's vault, but this one won't be empty.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
So if we find out that cnn, the nyt, msnbc, etc chose to not report negative stories on hillary, does that mean they all broke the law as well?
This very post dismantles the OPs narrative 😏

Seriously, leftist shifted from Russian Collusion to Hush Money???? Lmfao



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
a reply to: Kharron

We have all been through this before with someone that did this in the Oval Office.

It doesn't matter.

Problem is people just want to be mad at Trump.

Nothing illegal happened and it has nothing to do with Russia.

This is all just plays to try to swing midterms.


"Russian collusion" was always a trojan horse - Comey's and Rosenstein's best mate put in charge of an investigation based on the phony Russia story in order to get a blank cheque to investigate Trump's entire life and find anything to smear him with. The Russian con relied on there being enough complete idiots in the Democrat voter base and those idiots duly stepped forward.

That they can only find LEGAL payments to keep women quiet says a lot about how dry the well is for Mueller and his co-conspirators in this soft coup.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: Kharron


I know it would look bad, but, if anything Trump could probably sue them and go after damages for them violating the terms of the NDA THEY VOLUNTARILY SIGNED and get the money he paid them bac. At the end of the day this was adults having consensual sex and the woman voluntarily entering into an NDA and violating it. That is one thing I have been consistent about, back when Clinton did this I said who cares, now Trump is doing it and I still say who cares? If Melania is cool with it what business is it of yours or anyone elses. It is so funny to see the democrats who were ok with Clinton act like the moral authority now.


Well, the difference is that none of Bill's NDA signers were consentual sex....




posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: xuenchen
All these stories were "classified at the time" too I suppose.

💥😁💥

Wonder why these weren't outed in Oct 2016?



The dem scramble is fun to watch....
Its the illusion of some momentum since Davis hit the airwaves, let'em ride it out 😌




top topics



 
19
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join