president being hurt by this. how could he do this to me? but here s the flip side, all right? gotc gotchas. it ain t the only tape. that means the feds now have similar recordings of trump and maybe others. for all the hype, what s out about the tape, this transcript tells us only a little part at best. how so? well, what if there s proof that trump, by tape, document, or testimony, that trump did know about the payment before? well then you have a mendacity issue potentially at a minimum, aka lying. what if there were communiques about the national enquirer chief david pecker helping trump in the election that are not in this one transcript? now, not in any way to slander pecker, to this point there s no credible allegation against him to my mind, but i m laying it out as a potential gotcha of front-running this tape in the first place. and this idea of setting up a company to buy back all the dirty bits about trump that a mirks, the parent company of the
of what s in there and why the trump team seems to like it, renato. here s what they say that you need to combat for the purposes of our discussion tonight. the transcript makes it clear that trump is finding out about this after the fact. so he didn t set it up. the transcript makes clear that he was thinking about buying back what ami, the parent company of the national enquirer, had through a legitimate corporate entity. so it shows it s not a campaign violation. and there is no proof that he ever paid back david pecker even though they have a conversation about it in here, which proves he wasn t paying pecker back, which means pecker wasn t doing a donation for him to help his campaign. assess. well, it s hard to know in a vacuum. but i would say is this clearly shows at some point in the process he was aware of the payment. the question is when was he aware, and what did he do at that point? so it s really hard to say from one limited conversation. it strikes me that this is,
that means the feds now have similar recordings of trump and maybe others. for all the hype, what s out about the tape, this transcript tells us only a little part at best. how so? well, what if there s proof that trump, by tape, document, or testimony, that trump did know about the payment before? well then you have a mendacity issue potentially at a minimum, aka lying. what if there were communiques about the national enquirer chief david pecker helping trump in the election that are not in this one transcript? now, not in any way to slander pecker, to this point there s no credible allegation against him to my mind, but i m laying it out as a potential gotcha of front-running this tape in the first place. and this idea of setting up a company to buy back all the dirty bits about trump that ami, the parent company of the enquirer, had. well, team trump says there was no such payment, just a discussion. is that true? and the deal to re-buy rights through a corporation, it begs exp
the transcript makes it clear that trump is finding out about this after the fact. so he didn t set it up. the transcript makes clear that he was thinking about buying back what ami, the parent company of the national enquirer, had through a legitimate corporate entity. so it shows it s not a campaign violation. and there is no proof that he ever paid back david pecker even though they have a conversation about it in here, which proves he wasn t paying pecker back, which means pecker wasn t doing a donation for him to help his campaign. assess. well, it s hard to know in a vacuum. but i would say is this clearly shows at some point in the process he was aware of the payment. the question is when was he aware, and what did he do at that point? so it s really hard to say from one limited conversation. it strikes me that this is, you know, we re essentially seeing one like one sentence in a conversation. what i would say is, you know,
separate $150,000 deal for her story with american media, inc. before the election. ami whose chief david pecker who is a close friend of trump never ran the story. trump s campaign denied any knowledge of the ami deal in a november 2016 wall street journal report on the agreement. the fbi seized the tape and others during an april raid of cohen s office. part of the southern district of new york s criminal investigation into his business dealings. including the $130,000 payment he made to porn star stormy daniels days before the 2016 election to keep her quiet about the alleged 2006 sexual encounter with trump that trump denies. you had sex with him? yes. you were 27. he was 60. were you physically attracted to him? no. not at all? no. the secret recordings may provide an answer to one of the