Fox knew of Trump's hush payoffs before election. Then Rupert Murdoch spoke with his reporter.

One of the biggest stories of the investigation into President Trump are the hush-money payments to Stormy Daniels that he and his ex-lawyer Michael Cohen tried to cover up, not only to win an election but to save a presidency.

Now, we're learning out new information concerning this. According to Jane Mayer at The New Yorker, a reporter at Fox News got wind of this and was told to squash it just before the election, directly from Murdoch himself.

Here's how it reportedly went down:

"Good reporting Kiddo, but Rupert Murdoch wants Donald Trump to win. So set it aside."

Diana Falzone, the reporter in question, had also worked on the story since March, putting all the pieces to the puzzle together. She had confirmed it not only with Daniels, but with her manager at the time, Gina Rodriguez, and Daniel's former husband, Mike Moz, who knew of the multiple calls from Trump.

And, get this, Falzone had seen the emails from Daniels' attorney and Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen talking about a proposed cash settlement. This story from Fox would have been huge, but since Clinton and Trump were neck and neck before the election, Murdoch decided he had to step in and help Trump win an election.

Eventually, after Falzone's story went no where, the National Enquirer bought the rights to Daniels story to "catch and kill" the deal. Not until a year later, would people learn about it at all.

Now - Falzone is demoted at Fox and she can't speak because she has a non-disclosure agreement. If she breaks it, she can be sued.

Ken LaCorte, the guy who told Falzone to axe the story, denies that a superior told him to do it, but Nik Richie, a blogger who first broke the Daniels story, is calling him a liar.

“This is complete bullshit. Ken you are such a LIAR. This story got killed by @FoxNews at the highest level. I know, because I was one of your sources.”

Richie told Jane Mayer, “Fox News was culpable. I voted for Trump, and I like Fox, but they did their own ‘catch and kill’ on the story to protect him.” He said that he’d worked closely with Falzone on the article, and that “she did her homework—she had it.” He says he warned her that Fox would never run it, but “when they killed it she was devastated.” Richie believes that the story “would have swayed the election.”

Given all this information, if true, how could you not conclude that Fox News is a propaganda machine?