Connect with us

News

WSJ Makes New Accusations Against POTUS in Stormy Scandal

The President’s rough week continues to spiral downhill.

Published

on

Donald Trump

President Trump has been under fire from all corners of the media as of late, with a whirlwind week finally coming to a close.

Over the course of the last few days, President Trump has been goaded into anger on several occasions by the resistance-fueled mainstream media, most notably after an ugly exchange in the East Room of the White House with CNN’s Jim Acosta.

Acosta’s actions during the waning moments of this confrontation have since inspired the revocation of his White House press credentials.

Trending: Barack & Michelle Obama Purchase Home for Nearly $12 Million on Almost 30 Acres of Land

Now, in the moments after Donald Trump boarded a flight for France, the Wall Street Journal is attacking him once again, this time for his assumed role in payments made to Stormy Daniels an another alleged mistress.

take our poll - story continues below

Which Democrat will drop out of the race next?

  • Which Democrat will drop out of the race next?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

As a presidential candidate in August 2015, Donald Trump huddled with a longtime friend, media executive David Pecker, in his cluttered 26th floor Trump Tower office and made a request.

What can you do to help my campaign? he asked, according to people familiar with the meeting.

Less than a year later, Mr. Trump asked Mr. Pecker to quash the story of a former Playboy model who said they’d had an affair. Mr. Pecker’s company soon paid $150,000 to the model, Karen McDougal, to keep her from speaking publicly about it. Mr. Trump later thanked Mr. Pecker for the assistance.

The Trump Tower meeting and its aftermath are among several previously unreported instances in which Mr. Trump intervened directly to suppress stories about his alleged sexual encounters with women, according to interviews with three dozen people who have direct knowledge of the events or who have been briefed on them, as well as court papers, corporate records and other documents.

But did he break the law?

Mr. Trump’s involvement in the payments, by itself, wouldn’t mean he is guilty of federal crimes, according to Richard Hasen, a law professor at University of California, Irvine, who specializes in election law. A criminal conviction would require proof Mr. Trump willfully skirted legal prohibitions on contributions from companies or from individuals in excess of $2,700, he said.

In a week in which the President has been quick to respond to nearly anyone even whispering his name, there is no doubt a retort being formulated for Twitter as we speak.

Save conservative media!

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

News

Hungarian Officials Says Impeachment Witness George Clinton Not Credible. ‘I Was There, He Was Not.’

Published

on

A top Hungarian official recently stated that George Kent is not a credible witness for the impeachment proceedings against President Trump, poking fun at his allegations that Prime Minister Viktor Orban encouraged the president to view Ukraine negatively. Here’s more from Washington Examiner: “This is a great honor for us, to be honest, that we were portrayed as a central European country which can change the position of the president of the United States,” Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto joked in an interview with the Washington Examiner on the sidelines of the NATO Leaders’ Meeting. “It can be taken as an honor. Well, I’m afraid it has distance from reality, to be honest.” Orban emerged as an unlikely player in the Ukraine impeachment controversy in October, when a senior State Department official testified that the Hungarian leader had contributed to Trump’s distaste for Ukraine. George Kent, one of the State Department’s top officials for Europe, told lawmakers that Orban echoed Russian President Vladimir Putin in portraying Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as in a “thrall” of corruption. “He’s not that credible in this regard,” Szijjarto said of Kent, whom he noted did not attend Orban’s May 13 meeting with Trump. “Simply because he was not there. I was there, he was not there.” “Viktor Orban’s beef with Ukraine is derived in part [from] his vision, in my opinion, of a greater Hungary. This issue of greater Hungary is at the top of Orban’s agenda. And so he has picked this particular issue and, for instance, blocked all meetings in NATO with Ukraine at the ministerial level or above because of this particular issue. So, his animus towards Ukraine is well-known, documented, and has lasted now two years,” Kent continued. Kent then went on to say in his testimony that the Hungarian…

Continue Reading

News

Washington Post Writer Says Journalists Need To Persuade Citizens To Support Trump Impeachment

Published

on

As the day and time draws near for the House of Representatives to vote on articles of impeachment, which are being drafted now, against President Trump, much of what the public thinks about this whole situation hasn’t changed all that much since before the public hearings began. Which is precisely why Washington Post columnist Margaret Sullivan is calling on journalists to try and find better ways to change hearts and minds on the issue and persuade Americans to get on board with booting the president. Here’s more from TheBlaze: “Despite the hardened positions, some members of the public are still uncertain,” Sullivan writes. “Some are persuadable, and yes, it matters. Maybe, just maybe, it’s the job of American journalism in this moment to get serious about trying to reach these citizens.” Sullivan notably does not take an overt position regarding whether people need to be persuaded for or against impeachment. The closest she comes to that is when she writes, “We do live in a country that abides by laws and a Constitution, and nobody ought to be above them.” “And far too often, those [television news] broadcasts fall prey to a false equivalency: This side said this, and this side said that, and we don’t want to make anyone mad, so we’ve got to cut to commercial now,” Sullivan writes. Sullivan speaks against “epistemological nihilism,” a term coined by New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg to describe the “long-term Republican strategy” of saying that there are no set facts or truth, something stated by House Judiciary Committee ranking member Doug Collins (R-Ga.) during Wednesday’s hearing. So what, exactly, does Sullivan purpose to help win folks over? How about a “movie trailer” kind of approach which takes big chunks of the impeachment narrative and condenses it into a “targeted, well-informed…

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week

Send this to a friend