Ex-Trump World Tower doorman: Trump had affair resulting in a child

[ProudModerate2]

Exclusive: Ex-Trump World Tower doorman releases 'catch-and-kill' contract about alleged Trump affair.

A former Trump World Tower doorman who says he has knowledge of an alleged affair President Donald Trump had with an ex-housekeeper, which resulted in a child, is now able to talk about a contract he entered with American Media Inc. that had prohibited him from discussing the matter with anyone, according to his attorney.

On Friday, Marc Held -- the attorney for Dino Sajudin, the former doorman -- said his client had been released from his contract with AMI, the parent company of the National Enquirer, "recently" after back-and-forth discussions with AMI.
CNN has exclusively obtained a copy of the "source agreement" between Sajudin and AMI, which is owned by David Pecker.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/24/politics/trump-tower-doorman-contract-ami/index.html

[|˶˙ᵕ˙ )ﾉﾞ]

Imagine finding out Donald Trump is your long lost father. Finally you have an explanation for why you have this urge to grift, rawdog, and scam people.

[Koharu]

This feels so much like a soap opera.

It'll be interesting to see how this shakes out.

[Tartarus Sauce]

We might have a new contender for worst week for Trump. As if the going-ons in the Manafort and Cohen trials hadn’t been enough.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

Lol Trump has a mexican child.

[DINGO Joe]

Lol Trump has a mexican child.

Naw, almost certainly eurotrash.

[Sestak]

We’ll see. Because of pile-on potential, every allegation/insinuation such as this should be looked into on its own.

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

If someone were spreading the news that Obama had a "love child", they'd be branded a racist by the red avatars, and the narratives on how this was his "private life" etc, that Grover Cleveland had a "love child", and all sorts of stuff and nonsense as that.

Would it shock me to find out that this is true?  Hardly. 

Would I approve of it?  No, but let's not kid ourselves.  This isn't a problem for most of America, assuming it's true.  Not every National Enquirer story is the Pulitzer Prize effort that exposed John Edwards.  This is ProudModerate2 giving his jab at Evangelicals.  He's justified in that to the extent that Evangelicals pretend that, in his personal life, Trump is something that he's not.

[Beet]

Once there was a man with very little political experience suddenly catapaulted to the presidency, despite a sex scandal, because of a last-minute gaffe involving the other side insulting his supporters, and a faction of that majority-party other side breaking off, narrowly giving him crucial swing states.

His name was Grover Cleveland. His opponents tried to hit him with "Ma, ma, where's my pa?" His supporters shot back by accusing his opponent of corruption and dishonesty: "Blaine, Blaine, James Blaine, continental liar from the state of Maine!" His supporters' charge stung the most. Why? Because as much as people personally dislike an illegitimate child, they are more worried about having a president who won't stand for their interests. The latter more directly affects them.

What happened to Maria Halpin was as black as they come, but James Blaine never became president. As long as Trump talks to voters about the things that matter to them, his personal life ain't gonna sink him.

[ProudModerate2]

If someone were spreading the news that Obama had a "love child", they'd be branded a racist by the red avatars, and the narratives on how this was his "private life" etc, that Grover Cleveland had a "love child", and all sorts of stuff and nonsense as that.

Would it shock me to find out that this is true?  Hardly. 

Would I approve of it?  No, but let's not kid ourselves.  This isn't a problem for most of America, assuming it's true.  Not every National Enquirer story is the Pulitzer Prize effort that exposed John Edwards.  This is ProudModerate2 giving his jab at Evangelicals.  He's justified in that to the extent that Evangelicals pretend that, in his personal life, Trump is something that he's not.

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

If someone were spreading the news that Obama had a "love child", they'd be branded a racist by the red avatars, and the narratives on how this was his "private life" etc, that Grover Cleveland had a "love child", and all sorts of stuff and nonsense as that.

Would it shock me to find out that this is true?  Hardly. 

Would I approve of it?  No, but let's not kid ourselves.  This isn't a problem for most of America, assuming it's true.  Not every National Enquirer story is the Pulitzer Prize effort that exposed John Edwards.  This is ProudModerate2 giving his jab at Evangelicals.  He's justified in that to the extent that Evangelicals pretend that, in his personal life, Trump is something that he's not.

I can agree that truth is sometimes boring, yes.

[136or142]

If someone were spreading the news that Obama had a "love child", they'd be branded a racist by the red avatars, and the narratives on how this was his "private life" etc, that Grover Cleveland had a "love child", and all sorts of stuff and nonsense as that.

Would it shock me to find out that this is true?  Hardly. 

Would I approve of it?  No, but let's not kid ourselves.  This isn't a problem for most of America, assuming it's true.  Not every National Enquirer story is the Pulitzer Prize effort that exposed John Edwards.  This is ProudModerate2 giving his jab at Evangelicals.  He's justified in that to the extent that Evangelicals pretend that, in his personal life, Trump is something that he's not.

If you oppose gay marriage because 'think of the children?' shouldn't you also be of the view that adultery should be illegal?

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

If someone were spreading the news that Obama had a "love child", they'd be branded a racist by the red avatars, and the narratives on how this was his "private life" etc, that Grover Cleveland had a "love child", and all sorts of stuff and nonsense as that.

Would it shock me to find out that this is true?  Hardly. 

Would I approve of it?  No, but let's not kid ourselves.  This isn't a problem for most of America, assuming it's true.  Not every National Enquirer story is the Pulitzer Prize effort that exposed John Edwards.  This is ProudModerate2 giving his jab at Evangelicals.  He's justified in that to the extent that Evangelicals pretend that, in his personal life, Trump is something that he's not.

If you oppose gay marriage because 'think of the children?' shouldn't you also be of the view that adultery should be illegal?

I think adultery should be grounds for divorce, and for a punitive divorce on the part of the cheating party, yes.

This, too, is another long road we've traveled down, and not for the betterment of children.  It was once far too hard for a couple to divorce, even when the marriage was fraught with abuse.  Now, it's far too easy, with "no-fault" divorce the standard in just about every state.

[136or142]

If someone were spreading the news that Obama had a "love child", they'd be branded a racist by the red avatars, and the narratives on how this was his "private life" etc, that Grover Cleveland had a "love child", and all sorts of stuff and nonsense as that.

Would it shock me to find out that this is true?  Hardly. 

Would I approve of it?  No, but let's not kid ourselves.  This isn't a problem for most of America, assuming it's true.  Not every National Enquirer story is the Pulitzer Prize effort that exposed John Edwards.  This is ProudModerate2 giving his jab at Evangelicals.  He's justified in that to the extent that Evangelicals pretend that, in his personal life, Trump is something that he's not.

If you oppose gay marriage because 'think of the children?' shouldn't you also be of the view that adultery should be illegal?

I think adultery should be grounds for divorce, and for a punitive divorce on the part of the cheating party, yes.

This, too, is another long road we've traveled down, and not for the betterment of children.  It was once far too hard for a couple to divorce, even when the marriage was fraught with abuse.  Now, it's far too easy, with "no-fault" divorce the standard in just about every state.

How would divorce with leaving the child with one parent be better for the child?

[Brittain33]

Once there was a man with very little political experience suddenly catapaulted to the presidency, despite a sex scandal, because of a last-minute gaffe involving the other side insulting his supporters, and a faction of that majority-party other side breaking off, narrowly giving him crucial swing states.

His name was Grover Cleveland. His opponents tried to hit him with "Ma, ma, where's my pa?" His supporters shot back by accusing his opponent of corruption and dishonesty: "Blaine, Blaine, James Blaine, continental liar from the state of Maine!" His supporters' charge stung the most. Why? Because as much as people personally dislike an illegitimate child, they are more worried about having a president who won't stand for their interests. The latter more directly affects them.

What happened to Maria Halpin was as black as they come, but James Blaine never became president. As long as Trump talks to voters about the things that matter to them, his personal life ain't gonna sink him.

Obama having an illegitimate child is as likely as Trump winning a Nobel Prize. Some Republicans could believe it, but they’re lonely.

[Torie]

I was unaware that the circumstances of Cleveland's "love child," (actually more apropos, rape child), were so horrific, and what he did to the poor woman was incredibly cruel. It was pure evil in fact. I will never think of Cleveland the way I did before.

[KingSweden]

If someone were spreading the news that Obama had a "love child", they'd be branded a racist by the red avatars, and the narratives on how this was his "private life" etc, that Grover Cleveland had a "love child", and all sorts of stuff and nonsense as that.

Would it shock me to find out that this is true?  Hardly. 

Would I approve of it?  No, but let's not kid ourselves.  This isn't a problem for most of America, assuming it's true.  Not every National Enquirer story is the Pulitzer Prize effort that exposed John Edwards.  This is ProudModerate2 giving his jab at Evangelicals.  He's justified in that to the extent that Evangelicals pretend that, in his personal life, Trump is something that he's not.

If you oppose gay marriage because 'think of the children?' shouldn't you also be of the view that adultery should be illegal?

I think adultery should be grounds for divorce, and for a punitive divorce on the part of the cheating party, yes.

This, too, is another long road we've traveled down, and not for the betterment of children.  It was once far too hard for a couple to divorce, even when the marriage was fraught with abuse.  Now, it's far too easy, with "no-fault" divorce the standard in just about every state.

while there’s no formal “adultery penalty” (I’d be open to one, though) in divorce cases, it’s fefinitely a substantial obstacle for the cheating party to overcome when putting together the settlement

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

The OP is dumb enough to believe this, but the rest of you? C'mon.

[KingSweden]

The OP is dumb enough to believe this, but the rest of you? C'mon.

I’m actually pretty skeptical of this and am hardly a Trump fan.

[The Mikado]

Once there was a man with very little political experience suddenly catapaulted to the presidency, despite a sex scandal, because of a last-minute gaffe involving the other side insulting his supporters, and a faction of that majority-party other side breaking off, narrowly giving him crucial swing states.

His name was Grover Cleveland. His opponents tried to hit him with "Ma, ma, where's my pa?" His supporters shot back by accusing his opponent of corruption and dishonesty: "Blaine, Blaine, James Blaine, continental liar from the state of Maine!" His supporters' charge stung the most. Why? Because as much as people personally dislike an illegitimate child, they are more worried about having a president who won't stand for their interests. The latter more directly affects them.

What happened to Maria Halpin was as black as they come, but James Blaine never became president. As long as Trump talks to voters about the things that matter to them, his personal life ain't gonna sink him.

...And Cleveland lost his reelection bid to Ben Harrison four years later.

[twenty42]

It's a shame you folks on the left made a big stink 20 years ago about how private sexual peccadilloes of the president shouldn't be held against them. Now you all come across as blatant, hollow hypocrites for criticizing a Republican president for the very things you defended against Clinton.

[Tartarus Sauce]

The OP is dumb enough to believe this, but the rest of you? C'mon.

I’m actually pretty skeptical of this and am hardly a Trump fan.

I’m indifferent to this specific claim, but let’s be honest, this is exactly the type of thing that would happen with Trump.

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

If someone were spreading the news that Obama had a "love child", they'd be branded a racist by the red avatars, and the narratives on how this was his "private life" etc, that Grover Cleveland had a "love child", and all sorts of stuff and nonsense as that.

Would it shock me to find out that this is true?  Hardly. 

Would I approve of it?  No, but let's not kid ourselves.  This isn't a problem for most of America, assuming it's true.  Not every National Enquirer story is the Pulitzer Prize effort that exposed John Edwards.  This is ProudModerate2 giving his jab at Evangelicals.  He's justified in that to the extent that Evangelicals pretend that, in his personal life, Trump is something that he's not.

If you oppose gay marriage because 'think of the children?' shouldn't you also be of the view that adultery should be illegal?

I think adultery should be grounds for divorce, and for a punitive divorce on the part of the cheating party, yes.

This, too, is another long road we've traveled down, and not for the betterment of children.  It was once far too hard for a couple to divorce, even when the marriage was fraught with abuse.  Now, it's far too easy, with "no-fault" divorce the standard in just about every state.

How would divorce with leaving the child with one parent be better for the child?

Are you talking about divorce severing parental rights and the resultant child support?  That's an interesting question, if it's what you're raising.

I do think that when there is violence, active addiction, criminality in the home on the part of one of the partners, and there is no willingness or ability to eliminate this, then a child is certainly better off with the out-of-control adult out of the household.  

As for adultery, that's a ground for divorce that's unquestionably Biblical.  That doesn't mean it's mandated.  

Obviously, I think parents shouldn't cheat.  If they're cheaters, and, especially if both are cheating, I tend to believe that children are both better off if the parents stay married and have their outside arrangements.  I'm not saying God signs off on this, but I do think this is better all around if it can be done.  That, of course, would require the adults in the situation to stoically bear some of their frustration for the sake of their kids' stability and well-being, and the current paradigm and national narrative distracts this.

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

Once there was a man with very little political experience suddenly catapaulted to the presidency, despite a sex scandal, because of a last-minute gaffe involving the other side insulting his supporters, and a faction of that majority-party other side breaking off, narrowly giving him crucial swing states.

His name was Grover Cleveland. His opponents tried to hit him with "Ma, ma, where's my pa?" His supporters shot back by accusing his opponent of corruption and dishonesty: "Blaine, Blaine, James Blaine, continental liar from the state of Maine!" His supporters' charge stung the most. Why? Because as much as people personally dislike an illegitimate child, they are more worried about having a president who won't stand for their interests. The latter more directly affects them.

What happened to Maria Halpin was as black as they come, but James Blaine never became president. As long as Trump talks to voters about the things that matter to them, his personal life ain't gonna sink him.

...And Cleveland lost his reelection bid to Ben Harrison four years later.

. . . but won the popular vote in losing in 1888.

Daily newspapers in those days were all partisan rags, and pretty vicious, but Cleveland didn't have to deal with instant media. 

Still, it's kind of amazing that Cleveland came to be known as "Grover, the Good".

[President Johnson]

I wonder how the evangelicals including Mike Pence would react if the God Emperor paid for an abortion? Probably they still wouldn't care as long as he appoints one of their own to the Supreme Court. Total hypocrisy anyway, Barack Obama would have been impeached for just a fraction of scandals.