In Response To Michael Cohen, ‘The Onion’ Pledges To Remove All Negative Trump Coverage In Exchange For A Direct Line To The President

Illustration for article titled In Response To Michael Cohen, ‘The Onion’ Pledges To Remove All Negative Trump Coverage In Exchange For A Direct Line To The President

The Onion, in recent days, has attempted to contend with a serious legal threat issued in 2013 by the president’s personal attorney. In exchange for removing an offending piece written by Mr. Trump, titled “When You’re Feeling Low, Just Remember I’ll Be Dead In About 15 Or 20 Years,” our publication hoped for a speedy resolution to what could otherwise be a prolonged and costly legal battle. Shortly thereafter, however, our editorial board was shaken to its core by Mr. Cohen’s response issued on social media—a shrewd legal riposte, almost Machiavellian in its audacity. We now understand that Mr. Cohen is playing hardball, and our editorial board has correspondingly voted to up the ante, so to speak.


As such, we now formally offer to remove the complete archive of The Onion’s reporting on Donald Trump, spanning hundreds of articles that stretch back to the late ’90s, so long as Mr. Cohen can pledge to provide us with a direct line to the president.

Just say the word, Mr. Cohen, and all of these articles will vanish without delay. All you need to do is provide our editorial staff with the president’s phone number and a promise that he will be available at any time of the day or night to address our concerns. Imagine, for a moment, the benefits you and your client will reap: No longer will Mr. Trump need to contend with the embarrassment of readers learning about his proclivities in articles such as “Donald Trump Forlornly Stares At Tiny Penis In Mirror.” Such accounts—fully sourced though they may be—will disappear from our archives immediately if you hold up your end of the deal. Should curious minds ever inquire about the pieces, we would emphatically deny their very existence.

To be clear, our newsroom stands behind the sterling reportage in each and every one of these stories. Whether it is the insider accounts utilized for the vivid profile in “Crowd Shocked After Unhinged Trump Dangles Baby From Truman Balcony” or the expert witnesses used in 2011 to corroborate the narrative in “Trump Unable To Produce Certificate Proving He’s Not A Festering Pile Of Shit,” these news stories fully complied with the strenuous editorial standard that only America’s Finest News Source can claim to uphold.

Nonetheless, we understand from Mr. Cohen’s tweeted response—a stunning rebuttal worthy of only his imposing legal prowess—that no single bona fide act on The Onion’s part will suffice to end his considerable threat. Even our newspaper’s legal team, consisting of dozens of the nation’s most highly esteemed attorneys, struggled with devising an appropriate response. Yet, after extensive consultation within our editorial board, we believe we have crafted an offer that can meet both of our demands.

Needless to say, The Onion has much to gain by procuring the president’s ear—should these terms prove amenable to Mr. Cohen, of course. With personal and financial interests in propping up Syrian president Bashar al-Assad and profiting from our holdings in Iran’s Aghajari oil field, our editors consider removing these stories in exchange for the president’s undivided attention and total loyalty to be a mere pittance. Correspondingly, we hope Mr. Cohen will consider Mr. Trump’s preexisting open-access arrangements with Sean Hannity and Andrew Napolitano as testaments to the significant advantages that could be gained by such arrangements between the media and White House.

No doubt, some of our nation’s nattering types will cry self-censorship to see the removal of such essential coverage as “Aides Wrestle Drill From Trump’s Hands As He Tries To Remove Obama Listening Device From Skull” or “Trump Claims Waterboarding Doesn’t Come Close To The Excruciating Torment He Experiences At Every Moment.” Yet the grievances of these walleyed halfwits need not concern us, Mr. Cohen. Both parties have significant opportunities in this moment, should we only open our eyes to them and seize them. Indeed, who can say in which direction, glowing or otherwise, our future coverage of Mr. Trump might shift should you only assent to these terms?


For our part, we reverently respect the impressive game of legal cat and mouse you have played with our publication over these past five years. Indeed, even now, we wonder if we are walking into one of your cunning traps.

However, you have given us little recourse, and so we must leave the decision in your capable hands: Open up communications between this publication and the president, and all of your legal demands—and far, far more—will be immediately addressed.


Guide yourself accordingly.