Guys, this is BAD. Don't worry, it's great for America and Wonkette is over here fixing a snack so we can gleefully watch the next stage of Donald Trump's life being ruined while eating a snack, but this is REALLY BAD for Trump, his family, and also his company.

The Wall Street Journal is breaking news (they are ALL OVER this Trump Organization shit!) that Allan Weisselberg, the chief financial officer of the Trump Organization, has been granted immunity from prosecutors in the Michael Cohen probe. WHOA, RIGHT? Who has all the receipts? Allan Weisselberg has them, because he is the CFO!

The decision by prosecutors in the Manhattan U.S. attorney's office to grant immunity to Mr. Weisselberg escalates the pressure on Mr. Trump, whom Mr. Weisselberg has served for decades as executive vice president and chief financial officer of the Trump Organization. After Mr. Trump was elected, he handed control of his financial assets and business interests to his two adult sons and Mr. Weisselberg.

Weisselberg was subpoenaed to appear before the Southern District of New York (SDNY) grand jury a while back, which makes sense, because he's been at the Trump Organization since the beginning. Hell, he worked for FRED Trump, AKA Donald's white supremacist daddy.

In the tape Michael Cohen released of himself talking to Trump about porn peener payoffs before the election, Cohen specifically said he had talked to Weisselberg about how to handle payments to David Pecker's American Media Inc. (AMI), for the purposes of buying the rights to Karen McDougal's porn peener story about Trump's pecker. The criminal Information document on Michael Cohen also curiously alludes to two high ranking executives in the Trump Organization who handled the fraudulent reimbursement to Michael Cohen for his porn peener payoff to Stormy Daniels. Wonkette was just guessing, but is at least 75% sure those two executives are Allan Weisselberg and Donald Trump Jr.

So what does all this mean? Renato Mariotti points out in a handy Twitter thread that the mere fact Weisselberg got immunity means he was in BIG TROUBLE MISTER. And for what? Oh just maybe falsifying financial records and bank fraud and all kinds of other stuff.

And now that Weisselberg has been granted immunity, he gets to keep answering the government's questions until the government decides it is bored of asking questions and more in the mood to just put Donald Trump Jr. in jail, assuming that's something the government wants to do. (Solid PROBABLY.) He probably also knows exactly how looped in Daddy Donald was on all this criminality. This is likely one of the big reasons Trump has been screaming "SNITCHES GET STITCHES!" at the top of his lungs and saying cooperating with criminal investigations should be illegal. (Another reason is that David Pecker flipped.) It's also maybe probably part of the reason why the entire Trump Organization has retained the services of Alan Futerfas, the mob lawyer who used to just rep Junior. Businesses that are allegedly just fronts for crime families tend to need mob lawyers.

Now, to be clear, Weisselberg has only been granted immunity in the Cohen case, so it doesn't necessarily mean he's just going to blurt out where every single body is sleeping with fishes. But assuming the Cohen investigation leads to another investigation which leads to one million more investigations, Weisselberg knows about every single bit of tax evasion, money laundering, and all kinds of other shit, even if he doesn't know about Russia stuff. (He probably does. Did we mention he's the CFO with all the receipts? That probably includes receipts WRITTEN IN CYRILLIC, we are just saying.)

Regardless, Weisselberg's testimony could mean the Trump children might end up catching enough federal and state charges to put them in jail forever. (Because LOL state charges can't be pardoned by Daddy LOLOLOLOL GO TO JAIL.)

Speaking of state charges! Did you hear the very funny news that the Manhattan DA is looking into criminal state charges against the Trump Organization and two of its top executives? It's about all the same shit! Isn't that very funny news?

Smile, everybody! It's Friday, and Donald Trump is having a HORRIBLE DAY.

Follow Evan Hurst on Twitter RIGHT NOW, DO IT RIGHT NOW!

Help Wonkette LIVE FOREVER! Seriously, if you can, please hit the tip jar below and make a donation of MONEY. Or click this link to become a monthly subscriber!

[Wall Street Journal]

Evan Hurst

Evan Hurst is the senior editor of Wonkette, which means he is the boss of you, unless you are Rebecca, who is boss of him. His dog Lula is judging you right now.

Follow him on Twitter RIGHT HERE.

Donate with CC

OOH BOY HOWDY, The Federalist is on fire this week! Just this morning we told you about the hilarious Federalist column where one neo-Nazi's mom and dad are Democrats, ipso facto QED NEO-NAZIS ARE THE REAL LIBERALS, FUCKERS! Is America's dumbest woman whose name doesn't rhyme with Cara Snailin' over there being a total fuckin' Mollie Hemingway right now? Sadly, she blocked us on Twitter, so how could we possibly know? The answer is WE DON'T CARE.

But now we have a gem of the Federalist genre, an article written by a whiny-ass gay quisling conservative, who would like to chew on his blankie and whine about how much harder it is out there for a conservative than it is for a gay person. This is a subject we happen to have some knowledge about, because we are super gay! And we know a lot about conservatives, both firsthand -- being subjected to them every single one of our almost four decades of life -- and also from covering extremist right-wing Christians for a very long time. Particularly the kind that tell young, impressionable, vulnerable gay kids that they need to pray away the gay if they want Jesus to exercise some self control and refrain from sending them to a fiery hell for all eternity.

We clicked on the article with high hopes. See if you can spot why:

Keep reading... Show less
Donate with CC
pic via Glamour Shots, we mean this dude's old website

The House Education and Workforce Committee was all set to have a hearing today all about the horrors that a higher minimum wage would wreak on the economy. Horrors like rich people being slightly less rich. Horrors like business owners claiming they will have to fire people and charge $15 for a McChicken if forced to pay workers a living wage, which they won't actually do because no one will buy a $15 McChicken and they would go out of business if they tried that, and they already don't hire more people than the bare minimum they can get away with. Horrors like poor people not being "motivated" to work harder and get better jobs that do not pay them an amount no human being could possibly live on.

Alas, as Politico reports, it was not to be, as committee members discovered their big witness for the hearing, San Diego State University economist Joseph Sabia (pictured above in a Glamour Shot from his archived website), was kind of a wacko.

Sabia, as it turns out, once had a blog called "No Shades Of Gray," in which he wrote many columns of an extremely homophobic and sexist persuasion. In one of these columns, in 2002, Sabia was very mad about one man's lawsuit against several fast food giants for contributing to his health and obesity problems by failing to disclose the nutritional information of the food they sold. In retrospect, I think most people are now on board with these chains being required to post calorie counts and other nutritional information, but in 2002, Sabia was convinced that requiring them to do this would be an assault on freedom for all Americans everywhere. His response to this was to try and attempt a Jonathan Swift posture and suggest taxing gay sex, which he claimed leads to "disastrous health consequences."

Because sure, that's the same thing, basically.

In gay sex, we have an activity that is clearly leading to disastrous health consequences. What rational person would engage in this sort of activity? There is only one solution - let's tax it.

"Come on, Sabia," you say, "how are you going to enforce these taxes? Are you going to send government officials to peep into everyone's bedroom?"

Eventually. But first we have to mount the assault on Big Gay (no, I am not talking about Rosie O'Donnell). We can tax gay nightclubs, websites, personal ads, sexual paraphernalia, and so forth. Talk about a sin tax!!! We can cripple gay-related industries and get them right where we want them. All gay clubs will have to feature huge, flashing warning signs like "CAUTION: Entering this nightclub may increase your chance of contracting STDs and dying."

Big Gay clearly lures people into trying their "product" without discussing the risks to mind, body, and soul. The average Joe on the street does not understand all of the possible bad outcomes. I can almost hear him now:

"They said '100 percent hotties.' I thought that meant it was fun. I thought gay sex was OK…Now I have all these diseases. Big Gay has wrecked my life."

In the immoral words of Warren G, "Regulators!! Mount up!"


In another 2002 article, classily titled "College Girls: Unpaid Whores," Sabia laments that feminists have led college girls to stop trying to be like the Holy Virgin Mary and instead to aspire to be more like that hussy Ally McBeal.

No, really.

As women have strayed from the church, they have replaced what is holy with what is temporally pleasing. For Catholics, the model woman is Mary, the virgin Mother of God. She is beloved by the faithful for her unflappable devotion to and trust in God, her nurturing of the Son of Man, and her deep love for all humanity.

Today's college girl looks to Ally McBeal, the trollops of Sex in the City, and the floozies on Friends to set their moral compasses.

The sad truth is that college girls are so desperate to find love that they are willing to degrade themselves to get it. But true love can only be understood in the context of the Word of God. Any other notion of "love" is secular and, by definition, limited and finite.

Not only that, but instead of going to college to find a husband, they have boyfriends. Boyfriends they have S-E-X with. And sometimes, not even that. Sometimes they have sex with people just because they want to have sex with people, and not even in exchange for Valentine's Day cards or money!

Additionally, other sex-based relationships have become commonplace. In recent years, a new and disturbing arrangement known as "friends with benefits" has emerged. In this arrangement, men are not even forced to perform the normal duties of boyfriends, i.e. flowers, Valentine's Day cards, rides to the abortion clinic, etc. Instead, girls consider these guys "just friends" whom they happen to screw every now and again. No strings, no attachments, no dinners. Just sex when they feel like it.

This type of arrangement is the next logical step in the direction that young women have drifted in the last few decades. These women have become unpaid whores. At least prostitutes made a buck off of their trade. These women just give it away.

How cute! He was like the ur-incel, basically.

Anyway, following the discovery of the posts, the House Education and Workforce Committee's GOP communications director Kelley McNabb told Politico that "members were uncomfortable moving forward on the hearing." A more optimistic person might think this was a step forward, that maybe those committee members actually thought it was bad to suggest that being gay means being a disease-ridden monster or that college girls are whores, but it's probably more to avoid embarrassment than anything else. Guess they'll have to start from scratch and find a crappy economist who will tell them what they want to hear about the minimum wage but who doesn't have an embarrassing Geocities blog in their past. Good luck with that!


Wonkette is independent and fully funded by readers like you. Click below to tip us!

How often would you like to donate?

Select an amount (USD)

Donate with CC

How often would you like to donate?

Select an amount (USD)


©2018 by Commie Girl Industries, Inc