"Catch and Kill" Explained

The term "catch and kill" has gained significant attention in recent years, particularly in the context of the 2016 United States presidential election and the strategies employed by then-candidate Donald Trump and his associates. In this article, we will delve into the meaning of "catch and kill," its origins in the tabloid media industry, and how it allegedly played a role in Trump's campaign and ultimate victory in the 2016 election. At its core, "catch and kill" refers to a practice in which a media outlet acquires exclusive rights to a story, often one that is potentially damaging or embarrassing to a public figure, with the intention of preventing the story from being published. Instead of publishing the story, the media outlet effectively "kills" it, ensuring that it never sees the light of day. This practice is often used as a means of protecting the interests of the media outlet or its allies, while also potentially providing leverage over the individuals involved in the story. The term "catch and kill" is most commonly associated with the tabloid media industry, particularly with the practices of American Media, Inc. (AMI), the parent company of the National Enquirer. Under the leadership of David Pecker, a longtime friend and ally of Donald Trump, AMI allegedly engaged in "catch and kill" practices on multiple occasions to protect Trump from negative publicity during his campaign for the presidency. One of the most notable examples of this alleged practice involves the story of Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model who claimed to have had an affair with Trump in 2006. In August 2016, just months before the presidential election, McDougal signed a $150,000 agreement with AMI for the exclusive rights to her story. However, rather than publishing the story, AMI allegedly "caught and killed" it, preventing McDougal from speaking publicly about the alleged affair. Similar allegations have been made regarding the story of Stormy Daniels, an adult film actress who also claimed to have had an affair with Trump in 2006. In October 2016, just weeks before the election, Trump's personal attorney, Michael Cohen, allegedly arranged a $130,000 payment to Daniels in exchange for her silence about the alleged affair. While this payment was not directly tied to AMI or the "catch and kill" practice, it raises similar questions about the use of financial incentives to suppress potentially damaging stories. The allegations surrounding these "catch and kill" practices have raised significant concerns about the role of the media in the political process and the potential for powerful individuals to use their influence to suppress negative stories. Many have argued that by engaging in these practices, AMI and other media outlets have effectively provided a form of "protection racket" for Trump, shielding him from negative publicity that could have damaged his campaign. The use of "catch and kill" practices in the context of the 2016 election also raises important questions about campaign finance laws and the role of outside entities in influencing the political process. Some have argued that the payments made to McDougal and Daniels could be considered illegal campaign contributions, as they were made with the intention of influencing the election by suppressing negative stories about Trump. In response to these allegations, Trump and his associates have denied any wrongdoing, arguing that the payments made to McDougal and Daniels were personal transactions unrelated to the campaign. Trump has also sought to distance himself from David Pecker and AMI, despite their long history of cooperation and mutual support. The controversy surrounding "catch and kill" practices and their alleged use by Trump and his associates has continued to unfold in the years since the 2016 election. In August 2018, Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to multiple charges, including campaign finance violations related to the payments made to McDougal and Dani