National Enquirer made up the story about Ted Cruz's father and Lee Harvey Oswald, former publisher says

[playtime]

You don't have a link to that law?

this will hafta do & any law course would accept it as a valid source.

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/IF11291.pdf


& FYI - here's a little diddy you may not know... i remember when this happened & i do believe carol burnett set the precedent for that sleazy rag mag.

BURNETT v. NATIONAL ENQUIRER INC (1983)​

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.​

Carol BURNETT, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. NATIONAL ENQUIRER, INC., Defendant and Appellant.​

Civ. 66447.​

Decided: July 18, 1983​

​

Williams & Connolly by John G. Kester, Harold Ungar, Washington, D.C., Selvin & Weiner by Paul P. Selvin, Los Angeles, for defendant and appellant. Barry B. Langberg, Stephen S. Monroe, Paul S. Ablon, Richard P. Towne, Hayes & Hume, Beverly Hills, for plaintiff and respondent. Jack C. Landau, Judy D. Lynch, Pierson, Ball & Dowd by J. Laurent Scharff, Washington, D.C., for amici curiae.​

On March 2, 1976, appellant caused to appear in its weekly publication, the National Enquirer, a “gossip column” headlined “Carol Burnett and Henry K. in Row,” wherein a four-sentence item specified in its entirety that:
“In a Washington restaurant, a boisterous Carol Burnett had a loud argument with another diner, Henry Kissinger.   Then she traipsed around the place offering everyone a bite of her dessert.   But Carol really raised eyebrows when she accidentally knocked a glass of wine over one diner and started giggling instead of apologizing.   The guy wasn't amused and ‘accidentally’ spilled a glass of water over Carol's dress.”
Maintaining the item was entirely false and libelous,1 an attorney for Ms. Burnett, by telegram the same day and by letter one week later, demanded its correction or retraction “within the time and in the manner provided for in Section 48(a) of the Civil Code of the State of California,” failing which suit would be brought by his client [respondent herein], a well known actress, comedienne and show-business personality.
[...]
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ca-court-of-appeal/1840156.html

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

this will hafta do & any law course would accept it as a valid source.

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/IF11291.pdf


& FYI - here's a little diddy you may not know... i remember when this happened & i do believe carol burnett set the precedent for that sleazy rag mag.

BURNETT v. NATIONAL ENQUIRER INC (1983)​

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.​

Carol BURNETT, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. NATIONAL ENQUIRER, INC., Defendant and Appellant.​

Civ. 66447.​

Decided: July 18, 1983​

​

Williams & Connolly by John G. Kester, Harold Ungar, Washington, D.C., Selvin & Weiner by Paul P. Selvin, Los Angeles, for defendant and appellant. Barry B. Langberg, Stephen S. Monroe, Paul S. Ablon, Richard P. Towne, Hayes & Hume, Beverly Hills, for plaintiff and respondent. Jack C. Landau, Judy D. Lynch, Pierson, Ball & Dowd by J. Laurent Scharff, Washington, D.C., for amici curiae.​

On March 2, 1976, appellant caused to appear in its weekly publication, the National Enquirer, a “gossip column” headlined “Carol Burnett and Henry K. in Row,” wherein a four-sentence item specified in its entirety that:
“In a Washington restaurant, a boisterous Carol Burnett had a loud argument with another diner, Henry Kissinger.   Then she traipsed around the place offering everyone a bite of her dessert.   But Carol really raised eyebrows when she accidentally knocked a glass of wine over one diner and started giggling instead of apologizing.   The guy wasn't amused and ‘accidentally’ spilled a glass of water over Carol's dress.”
Maintaining the item was entirely false and libelous,1 an attorney for Ms. Burnett, by telegram the same day and by letter one week later, demanded its correction or retraction “within the time and in the manner provided for in Section 48(a) of the Civil Code of the State of California,” failing which suit would be brought by his client [respondent herein], a well known actress, comedienne and show-business personality.
[...]
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ca-court-of-appeal/1840156.html

Thanks.

Sounds like fake is fine, fake and libelous isn't.

 

[playtime]

Thanks.

Sounds like fake is fine, fake and libelous isn't.

fake like

is funny AF ...

but what the enquirer did for donny was way libelous, & illegal for the campaign boosts.

he & pecker go way back too - back to the days when donny made sure he & his whore marla were all over that tabloid, that humiliated his1st wife, ivana & his then 3 young spawn. what a duo.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

fake like

is funny AF ...

but what the enquirer did for donny was way libelous, & illegal for the campaign boosts.

he & pecker go way back too - back to the days when donny made sure he & his whore marla were all over that tabloid, that humiliated his1st wife, ivana & his then 3 young spawn. what a duo.

And fake like this.......

but what the enquirer did for donny was way libelous, & illegal for the campaign boosts.

Depends. The bar is higher for public figures.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Thanks.

Sounds like fake is fine, fake and libelous isn't.

No kidding?

And fake like this.......
View attachment 937726


but what the enquirer did for donny was way libelous, & illegal for the campaign boosts.

Depends. The bar is higher for public figures.

Nope, not.like that at all. First of all, the headline is a lie. Second of all, it's not libelous for them to say the laptop story has the hallmarks of Russian disinformation. Not by any stretch of your very vivid imagination. Sorry.

Also, they reported nothing but facts. I really don't think you're grasping this at all.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No kidding?

Nope, not.like that at all. First of all, the headline is a lie. Second of all, it's not libelous for them to say the laptop story has the hallmarks of Russian disinformation. Not by any stretch of your very vivid imagination. Sorry.

Also, they reported nothing but facts. I really don't think you're grasping this at all.

I agree, their cover up of damaging info before an election is not libelous.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I agree, their cover up of damaging info before an election is not libelous.

Well I am happy for you and your delusions, if they make you happy.

 

[playtime]

I agree, their cover up of damaging info before an election is not libelous.

except it violated election laws. you know - the very ones that sent michael cohen ...


... are you ready?

...

to prison. at the di-rection of ...

can you guess?

...

donny.

NEWS • PRESS RELEASES

District Attorney Bragg Announces 34-Count Felony Indictment of Former President Donald J. Trump​

APRIL 4, 2023
Read the Indictment and the Statement of Facts
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin L. Bragg, Jr. today announced the indictment of DONALD J. TRUMP, 76, for falsifying New York business records in order to conceal damaging information and unlawful activity from American voters before and after the 2016 election. During the election, TRUMP and others employed a “catch and kill” scheme to identify, purchase, and bury negative information about him and boost his electoral prospects. TRUMP then went to great lengths to hide this conduct, causing dozens of false entries in business records to conceal criminal activity, including attempts to violate state and federal election laws.

TRUMP is charged in a New York State Supreme Court indictment with 34 counts of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree.[]
“The People of the State of New York allege that Donald J. Trump repeatedly and fraudulently falsified New York business records to conceal crimes that hid damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election,” said District Attorney Bragg. “Manhattan is home to the country’s most significant business market. We cannot allow New York businesses to manipulate their records to cover up criminal conduct. As the Statement of Facts describes, the trail of money and lies exposes a pattern that, the People allege, violates one of New York’s basic and fundamental business laws. As this office has done time and time again, we today uphold our solemn responsibility to ensure that everyone stands equal before the law.”

According to court documents and statements made on the record in court, from August 2015 to December 2017, TRUMP orchestrated his “catch and kill” scheme through a series of payments that he then concealed through months of false business entries.

In one instance, American Media Inc. (“AMI”), paid $30,000 to a former Trump Tower doorman, who claimed to have a story about a child TRUMP had out of wedlock.

In a second instance, AMI paid $150,000 to a woman who alleged she had a sexual relationship with TRUMP. When TRUMP explicitly directed a lawyer who then worked for the Trump Organization as TRUMP’s Special Counsel (“Special Counsel”) to reimburse AMI in cash, the Special Counsel indicated to TRUMP that the payment should be made via a shell company and not by cash. AMI ultimately declined to accept reimbursement after consulting their counsel. AMI, which later admitted its conduct was unlawful in an agreement with federal prosecutors, made false entries in its business records concerning the true purpose of the $150,000 payment.

In a third instance – 12 days before the presidential general election – the Special Counsel wired $130,000 to an attorney for an adult film actress. The Special Counsel, who has since pleaded guilty and served time in prison for making the illegal campaign contribution, made the payment through a shell corporation funded through a bank in Manhattan.

After winning the election, TRUMP reimbursed the Special Counsel through a series of monthly checks, first from the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust – created in New York to hold the Trump Organization’s assets during TRUMP’s presidency – and later from TRUMP’s bank account. In total, 11 checks were issued for a phony purpose. Nine of those checks were signed by TRUMP. Each check was processed by the Trump Organization and illegally disguised as a payment for legal services rendered pursuant to a non-existent retainer agreement. In total, 34 false entries were made in New York business records to conceal the initial covert $130,000 payment. Further, participants in the scheme took steps that mischaracterized, for tax purposes, the true nature of the reimbursements.
https://manhattanda.org/district-at...ndictment-of-former-president-donald-j-trump/

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

except it violated election laws. you know - the very ones that sent michael cohen ...


... are you ready?

...

to prison. at the di-rection of ...

can you guess?

...

donny.

NEWS • PRESS RELEASES

District Attorney Bragg Announces 34-Count Felony Indictment of Former President Donald J. Trump​

APRIL 4, 2023
Read the Indictment and the Statement of Facts
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin L. Bragg, Jr. today announced the indictment of DONALD J. TRUMP, 76, for falsifying New York business records in order to conceal damaging information and unlawful activity from American voters before and after the 2016 election. During the election, TRUMP and others employed a “catch and kill” scheme to identify, purchase, and bury negative information about him and boost his electoral prospects. TRUMP then went to great lengths to hide this conduct, causing dozens of false entries in business records to conceal criminal activity, including attempts to violate state and federal election laws.

TRUMP is charged in a New York State Supreme Court indictment with 34 counts of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree.[]
“The People of the State of New York allege that Donald J. Trump repeatedly and fraudulently falsified New York business records to conceal crimes that hid damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election,” said District Attorney Bragg. “Manhattan is home to the country’s most significant business market. We cannot allow New York businesses to manipulate their records to cover up criminal conduct. As the Statement of Facts describes, the trail of money and lies exposes a pattern that, the People allege, violates one of New York’s basic and fundamental business laws. As this office has done time and time again, we today uphold our solemn responsibility to ensure that everyone stands equal before the law.”

According to court documents and statements made on the record in court, from August 2015 to December 2017, TRUMP orchestrated his “catch and kill” scheme through a series of payments that he then concealed through months of false business entries.

In one instance, American Media Inc. (“AMI”), paid $30,000 to a former Trump Tower doorman, who claimed to have a story about a child TRUMP had out of wedlock.

In a second instance, AMI paid $150,000 to a woman who alleged she had a sexual relationship with TRUMP. When TRUMP explicitly directed a lawyer who then worked for the Trump Organization as TRUMP’s Special Counsel (“Special Counsel”) to reimburse AMI in cash, the Special Counsel indicated to TRUMP that the payment should be made via a shell company and not by cash. AMI ultimately declined to accept reimbursement after consulting their counsel. AMI, which later admitted its conduct was unlawful in an agreement with federal prosecutors, made false entries in its business records concerning the true purpose of the $150,000 payment.

In a third instance – 12 days before the presidential general election – the Special Counsel wired $130,000 to an attorney for an adult film actress. The Special Counsel, who has since pleaded guilty and served time in prison for making the illegal campaign contribution, made the payment through a shell corporation funded through a bank in Manhattan.

After winning the election, TRUMP reimbursed the Special Counsel through a series of monthly checks, first from the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust – created in New York to hold the Trump Organization’s assets during TRUMP’s presidency – and later from TRUMP’s bank account. In total, 11 checks were issued for a phony purpose. Nine of those checks were signed by TRUMP. Each check was processed by the Trump Organization and illegally disguised as a payment for legal services rendered pursuant to a non-existent retainer agreement. In total, 34 false entries were made in New York business records to conceal the initial covert $130,000 payment. Further, participants in the scheme took steps that mischaracterized, for tax purposes, the true nature of the reimbursements.
District Attorney Bragg Announces 34-Count Felony Indictment of Former President Donald J. Trump

except it violated election laws. you know

Except, it didn't.

34-Count Felony Indictment

You know what they say about a ham sandwich.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

except it violated election laws. you know

Except, it didn't.

34-Count Felony Indictment

You know what they say about a ham sandwich.

That the feds convict them about 90%+ of the time.

I noticed you guys sure are having a hard time finding ham sandwches!

 

[playtime]

except it violated election laws. you know

Except, it didn't.

34-Count Felony Indictment

You know what they say about a ham sandwich.

you know what they say about MAGA hats...

 

[elektra]

 

[sealybobo]

David Pecker, the former publisher of the National Enquirer, testified at Donald Trump's trial Tuesday that the tabloid completely manufactured a negative story in 2016 about the father of Sen. Ted Cruz, of Texas, who was then Trump's rival for the GOP presidential nomination.

The paper had published a photo allegedly showing Cruz's father, Rafael Cruz, with Lee Harvey Oswald handing out pro-Fidel Castro pamphlets in New Orleans in 1963, not long before Oswald assassinated President John F. Kennedy.


Trump repeatedly referred to the story on the campaign trail and in interviews.

“I mean, what was he doing — what was he doing with Lee Harvey Oswald shortly before the death? Before the shooting?” Trump said in an interview with Fox News in May 2016. “It’s horrible.”

Manhattan prosecutor Joshua Steinglass asked Pecker about the story's origins during the trial Tuesday in Manhattan. Pecker said that then-National Enquirer editor-in-chief Dylan Howard and the tabloid's research department got involved, and Pecker indicated that they faked the photo that was the foundation for the story.

“We mashed the photos and the different picture with Lee Harvey Oswald. And mashed the two together. And that’s how that story was prepared — created I would say," Pecker said on the witness stand.

Steinglass also entered into evidence National Enquirer headlines published during the 2016 race about Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., who was also running for president. They suggested that he had a love child and had a connection to cocaine.

Asked why the tabloid ran stories about the senators and candidate Ben Carson, Pecker said, "After the Republican debates, and based on the success that some of the other candidates had, I would receive a call from Michael Cohen, and he would direct me and direct Dylan Howard which candidate and which direction we should go.”

National Enquirer made up the story about Ted Cruz's father and Lee Harvey Oswald, former publisher says

The Texas senator told NBC News that he's "not interested in revisiting ancient history."

www.nbcnews.com

Tabloid Publisher Testifies Trump Asked Him to ‘Help the Campaign’​

“Mr. Pecker said that the pivotal moment was an August 2015 meeting at Trump Tower in Midtown Manhattan.”

An outcome of that Trump Tower meeting were negative headlines attacking Mr. Trump’s rivals and positive stories that promoted him. Prosecutors said that negative coverage included stories about Ben Carson, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio while they were seeking the Republican Party’s nomination.

Live Updates: Tabloid Publisher Testifies Trump Asked Him to ‘Help the Campaign’

The jury heard testimony about what prosecutors say was a conspiracy to bury negative news, including a porn star’s claim of a sexual encounter with Donald Trump. The longtime publisher of The National Enquirer will resume his testimony on Thursday.

www.nytimes.com

---

More Pecker leaks! Was there anything that Trump would not do to win? No wonder he threw a fit when he lost. Talk about having the media in your pocket.

Republicans are crying that Nancy is lying about her opponent. They claim they caught her a big lie! So I asked them if they want Democrats to fight Republicans with one arm tied behind their backs.

In 2016 we know the National Enquirer put out a story that Ted Cruz' father was involved in the Kennedy assassination. A lie Trump spread too. Just like he lied about Obama being born in Kenya. He loved that lie.

So Republicans, if you caught Nancy lying about her opponent, keep in mind her opponent is lying when they say they would not sign a federal abortion ban. Or they are lying when they say they won't make 25% cuts to social security and medicare.