[NYT] National Enquirer Chief Given Immunity to Testify re: Trump/Cohen Payments
18 replies, posted
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/23/us/politics/david-pecker-immunity-trump.html
Pecker "flipping" is pretty significant. For years, the National Enquirer bought the rights to every major Trump scandal that they could, with the express intention of not publishing them. Years of "Catch and Kill" stories may now be entered as evidence. More importantly, Pecker is a party in, and thus witness to, the felony crimes that Cohen implicated Trump in.
National Enquirer turning on Trump is pretty fuckin' big anyway, because they are an absurd right wing tabloid rag who has long hailed Trump as the second coming of Jesus (sometimes literally, in all probability).
I can only hope the dominoes are continuing to fall.
Not surprising, men at Trump's age tend to have problems with their Pecker.
Off topic but man high school must've been rough with a name like that.
Well there goes my comedic enjoyment of seeing the covers of those magazines while at Walmart.
Though seriously, if the fucking hard-right Tabloids are turning on Trump. His days are truly numbered...
how the hell do you "buy" the rights to a scandal?
From the wiki
"Pecker has described himself as a close friend of Donald Trump. Pecker supported Trump's initial run for president as part of the Reform Party in 2000."
Something tells me Trump has never had a genuine friend at this point...
"Intellectual property" as a whole was a mistake, and American laws regarding it are particularly bad.
How many loyalists have turned on Trump now?
realtalk, with the amount of people who have turned on trump and are assisting Mueller and the investigation.
He's probably paranoid as fuck right now.
Hopefully as the tide starts to turn, more and more 'loyalists' will flip sides to try and stay on the winning side.
I mean he was posting at 12:10AM on twitter about NO COLLUSION!!! last night
And then going on about how Manafort is loyal
You pay someone a lump sum (or some agreed payment) in order for exclusive rights to their story, basically them agreeing to not talk about it with any other publication either for a certain period of time or indefinitely in cases like these. It's like a voluntary paid gag order, except places like The Enquirer will pay for exclusive access, stick a clause in that says that they don't have to publish it within a certain time frame, or at all if they decide not to, as a way of buying up stories to just shut people up. The penalties for breaking such a contract can be ruinous.
Okay but technically other journalists can independently cover the story if they find out about it, right?
Yeah, they're not bound by any contract agreement. The problem is getting people who will talk because if the story started with one person, finding a way deeper can be impossible, even learning about it could be.
Yes, but it'd be difficult to push a full story with the principle participant not being able to discuss anything.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
