Doorman’s Ex-Wife Claims He’s ‘Pathological Liar,’ Has Seen Bigfoot, Chupacabra and Ghosts

Paging the creators of “Finding Bigfoot”: the mainstream media’s latest darling may have a few tips for you.

The former wife of Dino Sajudin, the Trump World Tower doorman who was paid $30,000 by the National Enquirer back in 2015 for the rights to a story about an alleged Trump love child, told the New York Daily News that Sajudin was a “pathological liar” who claimed to have seen mythical creatures like Bigfoot and the chupacabra, inter alia.

“He’s infamous for making up stories,” Nikki Benfatto said in a piece published Thursday.

“He’s seen the chupacabra. He’s seen bigfoot. One of our friends who passed away, he saw him too, walking down the street.”

Sajudin’s reputation as a “pathological liar” wouldn’t be of any consequence if he wasn’t behind a narrative that his story was killed by the National Enquirer not for lack of evidence but to protect President Trump.

Sajudin, a former doorman, had told the paper that he had heard Trump had a love child with a housekeeper at Trump World Tower back in the 1980s.

“Today I awoke to learn that a confidential agreement that I had with AMI (The National Enquirer) with regard to a story about President Trump was leaked to the press,” he said in a statement, according to CNN.

“I can confirm that while working at Trump World Tower I was instructed not to criticize President Trump’s former housekeeper due to a prior relationship she had with President Trump which produced a child.”

Dylan Howard, an editor at the tabloid and an executive with its parent company, American Media Inc., told The Associated Press that the piece wasn’t published because Sajudin’s story “lacked any credibility.”

However, much like Stormy Daniels before him, Sajudin has become the latest locus of the media’s Trump coverage, convinced that the Enquirer’s failure to run the story was based on the fact that Trump attorney Michael Cohen had tried to stop salacious information about Trump from leaking during the campaign and that the Enquirer, by buying the exclusive rights to stories about Trump and then not publishing them, was trying to quash stories unfavorable to the candidate.

Ads by Revcontent

While it’s too early in the investigative process to say anything definitive about whether or not Cohen tried to silence salacious information through the Enquirer, what Sajudin’s ex-wife had to say about him certainly does not augur well for this avenue of inquiry.

After all, you don’t have to pay off someone who isn’t terribly credible, and one imagines that Sajudin’s credibility had been checked out by the Trump campaign. In fact, Sajudin made more news by being paid by the Enquirer than if he had gone to the wider press.

Even a New Yorker piece by Ronan Farrow that heavily implied Cohen was involved in the decision to quash the Sajudin story acknowledges that Sajudin isn’t exactly the most believable sort of individual; when Farrow reached out to the doorman for comment, he got an email response that read “My time is valuable. What’s your offer??”

Farrow also noted that he found no evidence to back up Sajudin’s claim.

The idea that Michael Cohen was especially concerned that a 30-year-old story from an individual too profoundly venal to be believed — and which probably wouldn’t change the public’s perception of his client’s personal life, anyhow — seems a bit of a stretch, and nothing in the reportage from the AP or The New Yorker can establish anything more serious than coincidence.

It’s been a fast-moving week in this latest Trump outrage, from the Cohen raid on Monday to the Sajudin rumor. Whether it all means anything, or whether federal investigators were justified in raiding Cohen and taking privileged documents seems pretty inscrutable for the average observer, at least at the moment.

It’s not a good look when the media and federal investigators are probing the Enquirer quashing stories at the request of the president’s lawyer when one of those stories hinges on an individual described as a “pathological liar.”

What do you think? Scroll down to comment below!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *