Mr Trump arranged for a former Trump Tower doorman to be given $30,000 (£24,000) to hush up a story about an illegitimate child

As well as paying off two alleged lovers, including the porn actress Stormy Daniels, Mr Trump arranged for a former Trump Tower doorman to be given $30,000 (£24,000) to hush up a story about an illegitimate child, it is claimed. Three people were allegedly paid a total of $310,000 (£248,000).

Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-n...es/?WT.mc_id=tmgoff_youtube_youtube-community

---

1. Does the red part mean that Trump didn't put the plan into practice?

2. I think that "three people" should be changed to "two people" if he had not put the plan into practice. What do you say?

Mr Trump made payment to the three people - the two alleged lovers and the doorman.

GoldfishLord said:

1. Does the red part mean that Trump didn't put the plan into practice?

Click to expand...

1. No. What part of the words in red makes you think he didn't put the plan into practice?

Did you notice the "it is claimed" part?

The uses of "It is claimed" and "allegedly" are so the publication can cover its back legally. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

That's one way of seeing it.

Do you know another way?

One could assume that they are reporting allegations and not facts.

GoldfishLord, newspapers regularly use "it is claimed" and "allegedly" as a precaution against libel actions. Those words would help them say they're just reporting what they heard and not saying it as a matter of fact.

Trump may or may not have paid the doorman off. Those words just mean that he's accused of having done so.

In effect, it strongly implies that he did have an illegitimate child, and that he tried to cover it up (the story, not the child).

That's one way of seeing it.

5jj said:

Do you know another way?

Click to expand...

Yes, I do. The phrase "it is claimed" means somebody said it. It doesn't mean you should believe it.

I still don't understand why GoldfishLord asked if the words in red mean Trump didn't do it. The words in red state that Trump did it. The words 'allegedly' and the following phrase "it is claimed" allow for the possibility that Trump didn't do

GoldfishLord said:

As well as paying off two alleged lovers, including the porn actress Stormy Daniels, Mr Trump arranged for a former Trump Tower doorman to be given $30,000 (£24,000) to hush up a story about an illegitimate child, it is claimed. Three people were allegedly paid a total of $310,000 (£248,000).

Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-n...es/?WT.mc_id=tmgoff_youtube_youtube-community

---

1. Does the red part mean that Trump didn't put the plan into practice?

2. I think that "three people" should be changed to "two people" if he had not put the plan into practice. What do you say?

Click to expand...

I'm unclear what you're asking. What do you mean by 'put the plan into practice'? Are you asking if Trump actually did it (hushed up the story), or if Trump did it directly himself?

Nothing of the the words in red suggest Trump didn't do it - in fact the words in red state that he did it. It's the following phrase " it is claimed", along with the word "allegedly" which allow for the possibility that Trump did not do it. Whether it happened or not is the question, not who did it.

The word 'arranged' means that Trump didn't pay the people directly himself, if that's what you're asking. Someone else made the payments on his behalf (allegedly).

I still don't understand what you mean by three people vs. two people. Assuming it is true, then three people received payments - two lovers and a doorman.

Skrej said:

I still don't understand what you mean by three people vs. two people.

Click to expand...

I believe the OP means the two alleged lovers and the doorman. Three in all. And the OP probably also means the doorman story isn't true. So three stories and two true.

Note the keyword in the last sentence, "allegedly". At this stage, everything is alleged. Nobody knows for sure what actually happened, expect the parties involved. The allegations will be used by the authority to charge Mr. Trump in court. The charges will have to be proven or disproved in court by both sides - the prosecutor and the defendant.

tedmc said:

- the , and the defendant

Click to expand...

That's the first time I've seen a comma bring a case against an ex-president!

tedmc said:

Note the keyword in the last sentence, "allegedly". At this stage, everything is alleged. Nobody knows for sure what actually happened, except the parties involved. The allegations will be used by the authority to charge Mr. Trump in court. The charges will have to be proven or disproved in court by both sides - the prosecutor and the defendant.

Click to expand...

No. The prosecution has the burden of proof. The defense is not required to disprove anything. At least that's the way it's supposed to work.

Trump didn't give the money himself to the doorman, whether the story is true or not. When facts are disputed, the media have to be very careful when reporting- they are saying that people say he got someone to give the doorman money. If the story it untrue, no money was handed over, but if the story is true then somebody gave the doorman the money at his request.

emsr2d2 said:

1. What part of the words in red makes you think he didn't put the plan into practice?

Click to expand...

Skrej said:

The word 'arranged' means that Trump didn't pay the people directly himself, if that's what you're asking. Someone else made the payments on his behalf (allegedly).

I still don't understand what you mean by three people vs. two people. Assuming it is true, then three people received payments - two lovers and a doorman.

Click to expand...

I think that "arranged" means that it was planned, and I think that there is no mention of whether he actually carried out the plan.
Assuming the story is true, we don't know whether he actually carried out the plan.

I wonder where I am wrong.

GoldfishLord said:

I think that "arranged" means that it was planned.

Click to expand...

No. The phrase is "arranged for" and it means he got it done (probably through someone else).

"Arranged" can mean "planned" but reading it that way in this sentence would be a stretch. This sentence strongly implies that he got it done.

It's also a question of logic. If he'd merely planned to do it but it hadn't happened, it's unlikely it'd have made the news. It made the news because it's claimed to have happened.

The presumption would be that if someone "arranged" something, that it actually got done. Not the other way around.

Tarheel said:

No. The prosecution has the burden of proof. The defense is not required to disprove anything. At least that's the way it's supposed to work.

Click to expand...

I'd like to ask a question.
I wonder if "it's supposed to work" mean "it's intended to work".