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: 4
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme


Explain how Obama broke FEC laws and were only fined but you all want trump impeached and criminally charged if he did the same?




posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Kharron


So you want to deflect away from the facts I posted about seeking consel



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Just when you thought honest journalism was dead, the Enquirer is being taken seriously as a news source.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Didn't obama spend 2 million to keep his records sealed so no one would find out he went to school on a foreign visa, had a fake birth certificate, had fake social security numbers (plural), was disbarred, what's the difference?



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Kharron


Again WHO CARES?

I care about stuff like this:
www.aei.org...


Indeed, the 2013 Obama budget declared, “In the 21st Century, real GDP growth in the United States is likely to be permanently slower than it was in earlier eras


Yet here we are with Trump, Record low unemployment, Lower taxes, no health insurance mandate, 4%+ GDP, That is what most americans care about. Not what is in the National Enquirers safe.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Kharron


Where are Omarosa's tapes of the sitting President? They'd contain more damaging info, than anything the National Enquirer could unveil from pre-2016.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

If they paid for them, then it would be "in kind" contribution that, if more than 2700 bucks...would violate campaign finance laws. Assuming they were killed for the sake of furthering political ambitions, and not saving marriages or reputations. That is perfectly legal business between 2 adults.

Thing is...its not really much if you look at precedence. The only real risk is content...what is in those stories? If its Trump diddling porn stars, I don't think anyone cares. The urge to give that middle finger to DC is too strong.

If its worse, like criminal stuff...that is another story.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: norhoc

This isn't about justice. Folks either want him to walk free no matter what, or want him impeached and imprisoned no matter what. Those 2 positions are without reason or logic.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan




If its worse, like criminal stuff...that is another story.



Like money laundering with trumps Russian connections?

ig.ft.com...



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Well of course evidence of trump doing criminal activities would be a big deal

My question is about the in kind contributions

If a media company want to buy stories of trump banging ladies, and keep them from getting out, that is being alleged to be an in kind contribution that must be filed

But what about if a media company gets stories about trump or Hillary, and chooses not to run it to help them?

Or perhaps an even better question, if a media company had ties to Hillary’s campaign, and bought the access Hollywood tape to make trump look bad

Then held on to that tape and released it to have maximum effect to help Hillary win


Is that a contribution?

It seems so vague.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

It all boils down to intent, apparently. Based on what we saw with John Edwards verdict, and how they handled Hillary's server deal...its all intent.

Would the NYT intend to aid Hillary for President (the legal entity) with their killing of the story? If so, then yes...it would be an in kind contribution that would need to be disclosed and below the 2700 dollar amount. Did Hillary know of this? If so, she would likely be fined for not dealing with it appropriately (or, her campaign likely would...im not sure of how the entity can protect the candidate legally, or if it can at all).

If the goal was to keep Bill from getting jealous and going on another spree, then it would not be an in kind contribution. If would be personal business.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Perhaps the National Enquirer has some nasty dirt with trumps connection with Jeffery Epstein and the Lolita express.

news.vice.com...
edit on 23-8-2018 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12


Or Bill Clinton's, seeing as he and Epstein are buddies. You liberals and your fan fiction you like to write about Trump



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 07:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: olaru12


Or Bill Clinton's, seeing as he and Epstein are buddies. You liberals and your fan fiction you like to write about Trump


Remember, Clinton and trump used to be buddies as well.

news.vice.com...



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

But that just seems crazy.

We know that positive media coverage can be worth a lot of money.

And so if a media company is intending for their coverage to help one candidate win (which seems obvious for places like fox, cnn, nyt, etc.) then all of that coverage would have to be filed as a contribution.

The darn law is just so vague



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I think with media its always a contribution.

I worked in radio just long enough to understand that you have to track the airtime, etc, for each candidate to ensure equality of voice. Or something like that.

There were rules the station manager was super retentive over relating to selling ads to campaigns. I suck at sales, so was only there a few months.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 07:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
Perhaps the National Enquirer has some nasty dirt with trumps connection with Jeffery Epstein and the Lolita express.

news.vice.com...
Joe Scarborough? Lmfao, yeah NO, nice try.

Anything of actual merit or just the usual opinion piece?



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 07:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: olaru12


Or Bill Clinton's, seeing as he and Epstein are buddies. You liberals and your fan fiction you like to write about Trump


Remember, Clinton and trump used to be buddies as well.

news.vice.com...
Yeah and some of us USE to watch CNN, go figure.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 07:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Grambler

I think with media its always a contribution.

I worked in radio just long enough to understand that you have to track the airtime, etc, for each candidate to ensure equality of voice. Or something like that.

There were rules the station manager was super retentive over relating to selling ads to campaigns. I suck at sales, so was only there a few months.


But would the media then also have to keep records of how much money they pay for stories, on top of just the airtime?

And also, I dont see how this could be enforced.

If a youtuber with millions of followers like pewdiepie runs stories helping one candidate, would he have to file that as a donation with the FEC? Surely not.
edit on 23-8-2018 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 08:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Kharron

I am Still waiting for the " President Trump had Sex with 6 Alien Females from the Epsilon Bootis System while Married to Marla Maples " Story to Finally be Confirmed . Think it is in that safe ?
edit on 23-8-2018 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join