• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The President's Power to Shut Down National Enquirer Articles

Read Question

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No

    Votes: 14 77.8%

  • Other

    Votes: 4 22.2%
  • Total voters
    18
OlNate said:
Voted no, but really, who actually uses the National Enquirer as a reliable news source? lol ... :)
Click to expand...

Donald Trump does, along with Breitbart and FOX News. Media of a feather stick together. LOL.
 
Hatuey said:
Given the president's admitted power to shut down National Enquirer articles which are harmful to people he sees as opponents, will this make you less likely to trust his relationship with media figures supporting him? In the past the NE has run various stories attacking Trump opponents in the primaries. He now admitted that he holds sway over which stories they print and which ones they do not.

Will you continue to trust news organizations who support the president given his admitted influence over which stories are printed?

:lol:
Click to expand...

We know the leftwing media such as NYT and CNN works with the democrats

So it could be argued that trump is fighting fire with fire
 
Mycroft said:
Trump isn't responsible for the story getting published and he is under no obligation to preventing it from getting published. Therefore, no extortion or blackmail.
Click to expand...

Except that's not true, because Kushner stood between the National Enquirer publishing or not publishing the embarrassing article. All Joe had to do was...apologize to Trump. What's important to remember is that pulling the lever in either direction was in his power, and made it his responsibility by offering the quid pro quo. If he didn't want the responsibility, he didn't have to be in that position in the first place. Also he may not have had an "obligation" to prevent it from getting published, but he didn't have an obligation to create the conditions for blackmail/extortion either. Likewise, if I choose to be a getaway driver for a robbery, I could say it's not my obligation to drive the robbers to the police station, which begs the question: why was I in that car in the first place?

In all senses of the words, Kushner operated within the classic and legal definitions of extortion and blackmail. Everything Kushner did fell squarely within the Harvard law professor's description of blackmail and extortion, and fit the legal definitions that I posed.
 
Cardinal said:
Except that's not true, because Kushner stood between the National Enquirer publishing or not publishing the embarrassing article. All Joe had to do was...apologize to Trump. What's important to remember is that pulling the lever in either direction was in his power, and made it his responsibility by offering the quid pro quo. If he didn't want the responsibility, he didn't have to be in that position in the first place. Also he may not have had an "obligation" to prevent it from getting published, but he didn't have an obligation to create the conditions for blackmail/extortion either. Likewise, if I choose to be a getaway driver for a robbery, I could say it's not my obligation to drive the robbers to the police station, which begs the question: why was I in that car in the first place?

In all senses of the words, Kushner operated within the classic and legal definitions of extortion and blackmail. Everything Kushner did fell squarely within the Harvard law professor's description of blackmail and extortion, and fit the legal definitions that I posed.
Click to expand...

There is no guarantee that anyone...even Trump...could prevent National Enquirer from publishing the story. There was only the possibility that Trump's personal connection...not his official position as President...could influence whether it was published or not. And, there is nothing to require Trump to TRY to influence a private company's actions. It's just something that Joe wanted him to do. Trump did nothing to force Joe to do anything.

Extortion and blackmail do not apply.
 
Mycroft said:
There is no guarantee that anyone...even Trump...could prevent National Enquirer from publishing the story. There was only the possibility that Trump's personal connection...not his official position as President...could influence whether it was published or not. And, there is nothing to require Trump to TRY to influence a private company's actions. It's just something that Joe wanted him to do. Trump did nothing to force Joe to do anything.

Extortion and blackmail do not apply.
Click to expand...

Except you're ignoring the part where Kushner specifically offered that quid pro quo. Every post of yours removes an essential element from the story that makes it blackmail/extortion.

You have:

1)A third party having an article containing embarrassing information.
2)Another party (Kushner) being in the position of killing or allowing the story.
3)Kushner offering a quid pro quo as condition for the story being killed.

In every post of yours, you remove one of these elements so that the story stops being blackmail. But the story is blackmail precisely because all three of those elements exist.
 
Cardinal said:
Except you're ignoring the part where Kushner specifically offered that quid pro quo. Every post of yours removes an essential element from the story that makes it blackmail/extortion.

You have:

1)A third party having an article containing embarrassing information.
2)Another party (Kushner) being in the position of killing or allowing the story.
3)Kushner offering a quid pro quo as condition for the story being killed.

In every post of yours, you remove one of these elements so that the story stops being blackmail. But the story is blackmail precisely because all three of those elements exist.
Click to expand...

1. I want to buy a loaf of bread at the grocery store who has it for sale.

2. A friend (or former friend) is in the position of giving the money to buy the bread.

3. The friend offering to give me the money if I apologize for past transgressions.

Is that friend committing blackmail or extortion? I don't think so. How say you?
 
Mycroft said:
1. I want to buy a loaf of bread at the grocery store who has it for sale.

2. A friend (or former friend) is in the position of giving the money to buy the bread.

3. The friend offering to give me the money if I apologize for past transgressions.

Is that friend committing blackmail or extortion? I don't think so. How say you?
Click to expand...

No, because once again you're removing one of the primary elements describing blackmail. Now in your most recent post you just removed

1)A third party having an article containing embarrassing information.
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
No, because once again you're removing one of the primary elements describing blackmail. In now in your most recent post you just removed

1)A third party having an article containing embarrassing information.
Click to expand...

That article is only a concern to the person who is embarrassed...not the person who might be able to do something about it. Is there a law that says Trump MUST intercede?
 
Mycroft said:
That article is only a concern to the person who is embarrassed...not the person who might be able to do something about it. Is there a law that says Trump MUST intercede?
Click to expand...

Now in your most recent post, you just removed #3:

3)Kushner offering a quid pro quo as condition for the story being killed.

Remember that all three elements in the blackmail are present:

1)A third party having an article containing embarrassing information.
2)Another party (Kushner) being in the position of killing or allowing the story.
3)Kushner offering a quid pro quo as condition for the story being killed.
 
Hatuey said:
Given the president's admitted power to shut down National Enquirer articles which are harmful to people he sees as opponents, will this make you less likely to trust his relationship with media figures supporting him? In the past the NE has run various stories attacking Trump opponents in the primaries. He now admitted that he holds sway over which stories they print and which ones they do not.

Will you continue to trust news organizations who support the president given his admitted influence over which stories are printed?

:lol:
Click to expand...

It would be nice if the National Enquirer could be totally shut down. I think this is a good analogy to the left leaning mainstream media, who purposely choose which stories they print and which ones they don't, all with a liberal slant to them.
 
Mac77 said:
We know the leftwing media such as NYT and CNN works with the democrats

So it could be argued that trump is fighting fire with fire
Click to expand...

If Trump is using infowars and National ENquirer then that amounts to him using a bic lighter or some matches while the NYT and CNN are a flame thrower or a napalm bomb.Sure NYT and CNN are blatantly biased, but the majority of the stuff they print or air is true while the vast majority of the stuff Infowars and National Enquirer print or air is crap.
 
Sadly....we are experiencing the National Enquirer Presidency.
 
jamesrage said:
If Trump is using infowars and National ENquirer then that amounts to him using a bic lighter or some matches while the NYT and CNN are a flame thrower or a napalm bomb.Sure NYT and CNN are blatantly biased, but the majority of the stuff they print or air is true while the vast majority of the stuff Infowars and National Enquirer print or air is crap.
Click to expand...

Liberals are hollering as if they were being torched with a big flame
 
Mac77 said:
Liberals are hollering as if they were being torched with a big flame
Click to expand...

But infowars and National Enquirer are fake news rags and conspiracy loon nonsense. Most people don't believe a word from from them. So the flame isn't that big flame. The only reason liberals are complaining about this is because they think it will help further demonize Trump. If a poster posted a National Enquirer or a Infowars negative story about a liberal then that poster would be laughed at and or asked to post a credible source.
 
jamesrage said:
But infowars and National Enquirer are fake news rags and conspiracy loon nonsense.

Most people don't believe a word from from them. So the flame isn't that big flame. The only reason liberals are complaining about this is because they think it will help further demonize Trump. If a poster posted a National Enquirer or a Infowars negative story about a liberal then that poster would be laughed at and or asked to post a credible source.
Click to expand...

So is CNN and MSNBC
 
Hatuey said:
Given the president's admitted power to shut down National Enquirer articles which are harmful to people he sees as opponents, will this make you less likely to trust his relationship with media figures supporting him? In the past the NE has run various stories attacking Trump opponents in the primaries. He now admitted that he holds sway over which stories they print and which ones they do not.

Will you continue to trust news organizations who support the president given his admitted influence over which stories are printed?

:lol:
Click to expand...

The National Enquirer is several notches above CNN these days in accurate reporting . :lol:
 
Mac77 said:
So is CNN and MSNBC
Click to expand...
CNN and MSNBC post a lot more true things than Infowars and National Enquirer. Most people who are honest knows that when it comes to Politics most of what CNN and MSNBC air is done with a leftist slant and much of it is either overblown and some of it not true. So they have way more credibility than Info wars and National Enquirer.
 
jamesrage said:
CNN and MSNBC post a lot more true things than Infowars and National Enquirer.

Most people who are honest knows that when it comes to Politics most of what CNN and MSNBC air is done with a leftist slant and much of it is either overblown and some of it not true. So they have way more credibility than Info wars and National Enquirer.
Click to expand...


I'd rate it a tossup

The advantage CNN and the others have is that they have the entire lying lib media supporting them no matter what

And they support the other lib media when it needs it
 
Hatuey said:
Given the president's admitted power to shut down National Enquirer articles which are harmful to people he sees as opponents, will this make you less likely to trust his relationship with media figures supporting him? In the past the NE has run various stories attacking Trump opponents in the primaries. He now admitted that he holds sway over which stories they print and which ones they do not.

Will you continue to trust news organizations who support the president given his admitted influence over which stories are printed?

:lol:
Click to expand...

IF true, and I doubt it, then this is a very serious accusation .. trump should be impeached , IF, again , this is true .
 
I do not fully trust ANY news organization .. they all seem to have their own agenda , even NPR ! But I trust trump even less .. trump and his band of conservatives and populists ..
 
Now THIS is extortion.

CNN is not publishing "HanA**holeSolo's" name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.

CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.

How CNN found the Reddit user behind the Trump wrestling GIF - CNNPolitics.com
Click to expand...

From CNN...apologize, don't ever do that to us again...or else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom