Trump’s Alleged Love Child Back In News After Doorman Freed From Contract

Donald Trump’s Alleged Secret Love Child Back In News After Doorman Freed From Contract Keeping Him Quiet

The attorney for the doorman, Marc Held, claims his client, Dino Sajudin, signed a contract with American Media Inc. (AMI), which is the parent company of the National Enquirer, that prohibited him from discussing the knowledge he had about Donald’s alleged affair and child. Now that he’s been released from the contract, however, he is choosing to discuss it openly.

So this story is hitting the news now. I think it has several ramifications. One is that it looks like Pecker is now willing to allow some of these stories out into the open.

What I could glean from the articles I read is there was little to no verification for this story by Sajudin, the doorman, yet the Inquirer was still willing to dish out thirty grand for the story. Part of the agreement between Sajudin and the Inquirer’s parent company ''American Media Inc. was that should Sajudin talk about the contract he would have to pay AMI a million bucks.

But now that Pecker has released Sajudin from that contract he says he is willing to do so to whoever will listen.
The contract between Sajudin and AMI was signed in 2015 but there is no information yet as to when this affair would have taken place nor is there any information yet about a ''love child''

Now here is a questionable story. Vague at best but interesting none the less as why would this big corporation dole out cash like that unless there was some kind of vetting around it first. Maybe there was a carteblanch request from Trump to to squelch any and all defamatory stories about him.
But more is that this story should not be taken at face value. We all know how media, be it big media or small media like to be the first to toss ''breaking news into the inforsphere'' and grab the first headlines,

Much like I am doing here by posting this for ATS.

I also have to wonder if maybe this might be part of a stalling tactic, dribbling out these ''unconfirmed'' stories one at a time to continue the ''distraction'' of the Trump phenomenon. I mean, why would Pecker and AMI just not release All of the stories and contracts in his supposed ''vault''.
www.inquisitr.com... %28The+Inquisitr+-+News%29&utm_content=Yahoo+Search+Results

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I remember reading a headline a few days ago that Melania took a solo trip to Africa. Probably knew ahead of time the poop show that was about to unfold in her world.



It took a lot for Melania to be dragged away from Donald, less than hundred women, just one love child.

Hurry girl it's waiting there for you! Bless the rains down in Africa!

a reply to: Swills

And her solo trip may have nothing to do at all with what is going on at all, it may be just what it is publicized to be. However the timing is interesting.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I dunno, it worked for Dave Chappelle.

This article is in the "rumors" section of the inquisitor...
A bit like the ATS hoax bin if you ask me.

Super questionable story.

However, what if there is an illegitimate Jon Snow somewhere out there... the true heir to the Trump empire? After the family all goes to prison, the newly found child inherits the company!

And he's got webbed feet and bat ears!

a reply to: Kharron

Yes, questionable. But I love your notion of a ''lost child'' who would inherit after all the rest are in prison. Clearly not going to happen but still, what a concept.

What I find interesting about this story is how far into ''National Inquirerland'' we seem to have come. Stories that one day would have never been considered as viable are now coming to be seen as ''totally possible'' in light of current information coming to light around Mr. Trump.

No longer can we as conscientious people just take any information that comes at us as gospel be it from large media or small media like ATS. Fact and fiction are blurring and our ability to distinguish between them is calling us all to greater astuteness in our evaluations of our political structures.

This would be a great story for Trump for 3 reasons:

1) Generally, people won't care too much.
2) The media pushing it 24/7 would once highlight their complete hypocrisy (after ignoring Bill's love child)
3) It highlights a case where Trump used the National Enquirer to bury a story when he was not running for election - further evidence that the so-called campaign violation is just the latest liberal fantasy.

Great - crack on...

... or are love child's the latest in the growing list of impeachable offences?

a reply to: JAY1980

Well, it's not like Donald constantly has affairs and cheated on every single wife, present one included. It's not like we've learned that he doesn't use a condom and that the National Enquirer has been working with him to buy out people's stories and then never run them. In fact, threatening to sue the person for 1 million dollars if they ever speak about it.

But now, this doorman is free from that lawsuit because AMI has no power over him anymore.

a reply to: UKTruth

You point out good questions about this latest news. Yes it was before his run in 2015, however we cannot ignore that he had been planning his run for potus long before the 2016 elections. This easily could have been a preemptive move on his part.

Myself, I do not hold that the campaign violation is really a viable course of hope. For me , his cover up monies go more to demonstrating that Trump is not a man of the people, a man who will stand up and take the consequences for his own actions but rather will use his wealth to cover up any and all ''bad press'' due to his own actions. That reeks of exactly what I have thought to be one of the great hallmarks of conservative morals.

originally posted by: UKTruth
This would be a great story for Trump for 3 reasons:

1) Generally, people won't care too much.
2) The media pushing it 24/7 would once highlight their complete hypocrisy (after ignoring Bill's love child)
3) It highlights a case where Trump used the National Enquirer to bury a story when he was not running for election - further evidence that the so-called campaign violation is just the latest liberal fantasy.

Great - crack on...

... or are love child's the latest in the growing list of impeachable offences?

Oh I remember that story! Bill's mixed race love child! Thanks for that one.

I also remember the paternity test showing it a hoax, reported by Time magazine last millennium.

Which brings up an interesting point... do you think Donald Trump would also submit to a paternity test?

a reply to: Kharron

Ha! That paternity test was done by the FBI
Nothing to see here folks... move along.

Regardless, my 3 points stand.

Bring it on.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

You complain about 'conservative morals'? At least they have some - swing left and pretty soon you'll be in hell.
It would be great if the liberal media started pushing your view that prior to the election Trump only used NDA's because he was planning to break campaign finance laws when he did run.
That would be superb in fact... the desperation would be something to behold and very revealing.

Seriously, I think you might struggle to find a single person who thinks the Don hasn't slept around, married or not.
I certainly wouldn't characterise him as having conservative morals. It's just it's never been really that important to Americans it seems - Kennedy? Clinton? Bathhouse Barry?

a reply to: UKTruth

I made no complaint about conservative morals. I pointed out that trumps actions seem to go against what I understand conservative morals to be. See the difference? Maybe I worded my original point in a manner that was not quite clear to you. Maybe I should have said, reeks of a moral standard completely apart from proclaimed conservative morality.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: UKTruth

I made no complaint about conservative morals. I pointed out that trumps actions seem to go against what I understand conservative morals to be. See the difference? Maybe I worded my original point in a manner that was not quite clear to you. Maybe I should have said, reeks of a moral standard completely apart from proclaimed conservative morality.

Fair enough, but the standard you are referencing never had much of a bearing on who was elected President.
So it really shouldn't be a consideration now.

a reply to: UKTruth

Seriously, I think you might struggle to find a single person who thinks the Don hasn't slept around, married or not.
I certainly wouldn't characterise him as having conservative morals. It's just it's never been really that important to Americans it seems - Kennedy? Clinton? Bathhouse Barry?

As usual you do a fine job at pointing out the hypocrisy of liberals all the while claiming that conservatives think it ok for the same values they abhor in in liberals is just okey dokey with them if the guy is a conservative. No, you can't be saying that as it would be two faced.

My point is that Republican morals constantly claim to hold the the notion that one needs to be responsible for their actions, to accept the consequences of those actions. I agree with those morals, yet now you are saying that Trump supporters do not hold to that standard, That is is ok to just toss some of his wealth at problems he has in his past. Now to me, that is two faced. He is no conservative as I have come to understand them.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: UKTruth

I made no complaint about conservative morals. I pointed out that trumps actions seem to go against what I understand conservative morals to be. See the difference? Maybe I worded my original point in a manner that was not quite clear to you. Maybe I should have said, reeks of a moral standard completely apart from proclaimed conservative morality.

Fair enough, but the standard you are referencing never had much of a bearing on who was elected President.
So it really shouldn't be a consideration now.

Once again I disagree. Trump not only carried those people to whom this kind of behavior is acceptable, but he also, and to an overwhelming degree carried with people who proclaim from their pulpits that this kind of behavior is unacceptable morally. For those few who do not care, there is no hypocrisy. But for those who do hold to these moral standards, the hypocrisy is blinding. They have chosen bed-fellows they preach against in their innermost lives.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: UKTruth

Seriously, I think you might struggle to find a single person who thinks the Don hasn't slept around, married or not.
I certainly wouldn't characterise him as having conservative morals. It's just it's never been really that important to Americans it seems - Kennedy? Clinton? Bathhouse Barry?

As usual you do a fine job at pointing out the hypocrisy of liberals all the while claiming that conservatives think it ok for the same values they abhor in in liberals is just okey dokey with them if the guy is a conservative. No, you can't be saying that as it would be two faced.

My point is that Republican morals constantly claim to hold the the notion that one needs to be responsible for their actions, to accept the consequences of those actions. I agree with those morals, yet now you are saying that Trump supporters do not hold to that standard, That is is ok to just toss some of his wealth at problems he has in his past. Now to me, that is two faced. He is no conservative as I have come to understand them.

You are mixing up two things.

Being held accountable and accepting consequences for his job as the President means that he needs to do what he said he would do when the people elected him. In that sense he one of the best Presidents the US has ever had. He was not elected to preach about monogamy and family values, and nor should he have been. That's for the church.
For some reason, the left want the Govt. to get involved in how we lead our private lives. I say, stay the hell away from everything and anything that you are not elected to administer.

As far as his infidelities that is between him and Melania - he's accountable to her on that score, not you or I or anyone else.
The values you are referencing are rooted in Christianity - and they do not include judging others sins.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: UKTruth

I made no complaint about conservative morals. I pointed out that trumps actions seem to go against what I understand conservative morals to be. See the difference? Maybe I worded my original point in a manner that was not quite clear to you. Maybe I should have said, reeks of a moral standard completely apart from proclaimed conservative morality.

Fair enough, but the standard you are referencing never had much of a bearing on who was elected President.
So it really shouldn't be a consideration now.

Once again I disagree. Trump not only carried those people to whom this kind of behavior is acceptable, but he also, and to an overwhelming degree carried with people who proclaim from their pulpits that this kind of behavior is unacceptable morally. For those few who do not care, there is no hypocrisy. But for those who do hold to these moral standards, the hypocrisy is blinding. They have chosen bed-fellows they preach against in their innermost lives.

You are again confusing two things.

Conservatives want Trump to lower their taxes.
They want their Pastor to be their moral compass.