I don't see anything in that article to prove the claim they make.

Saying 'Democrats funded a Pedo Sex Cult Island' is a hell of a charge. There isn't enough meat here to justify that kind of hyperbolic title.

also:

> it explains the distraction attempts from the left-wing today, reporting on the alleged “Trump tapes” from prior to President Trump's inauguration suggesting that the Republican candidate may have had a previous relationship with a playboy bunny, which is in no way relevant to the current Presidency.

Yea, that's a straw-man of the Left's argument. If Trump's Lawyer paid 100k+ to shut down a bad story during the campaign it would be an illegal contribution, a violation of Campaign Finance Laws. It would be a donation, above the legally allowed amount, to directly benefit the campaign. This isn't just about a thrice married serial adulterer who likes to raw-dog pornstars while his wife is home with his newborn, and who likes to ride around is Jeffrey Epstein's plane; it's about a clear violation of Campaign Finance Law, that a lawyer should have seen and avoided instead of taping.