Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Tue Mar 20 2018 10:16 PM
Stormy weather

What does it say when Trump having an affair with a porn actress doesn't rate a thread (till now). It's not shocking because he's always been trash but it's been fun watching all that hush money not work for him.

Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Wed Mar 21 2018 01:24 AM
Re: Stormy weather

I think it says there are more important things to discuss. Such as situations with North Korea, Iran, China and Russia, and domestic issues such as tax reform, securing our borders, DACA immigrant status, and stopping the endless waves of illegal immigrants, rebuilding our military.

Trump has been under constant attack since election night, much of it speculative and manufactured by the Left and their conspiracy partners in the rat-fuck liberal media.
If you watch Fox News, the Stormy Daniels story is mentioned.
If you watch CNN, MSNBC, or the other liberal media, it's an obsession. Even as they IGNORE Trump's accomplishments in almost instantly improving annual growth, and the fruit of Trump's stronger foreign and economic policy, including Kim Jong Un surprisingly offering peace talks. For about half a day, liberal anchors acknowledged what an achievement that was, before they jumped back into anti-Trump attack mode. My impression is, if any liberal-media anchor even TRIED to be objective and not anti-Trump fanatical, they would be fired from their respective networks. If they weren't partisan liberal nutjobs already, and had any interest in objectively covering Trump in the first place.

But yeah, Stormy Daniels. It's a minor story about Trump that's out there. That the liberal media who have failed in every previous attempt, would like this to be a major scandal that could bring down Trump.
Trump, through his lawyers, apparently gave Stormy Daniels $120,000 or so, where she was very well paid for a non-disclosure agreement. Now, for whatever reason, she would like to break the agreement to extort more money. Looking at her previous overtures for political office, also possibly for Democrat-partisan reasons she is trying to hurt Trump. Just as Roy Moore's accusers were women active in the DNC and several past campaigns.

Did Trump have sex with Stormy Daniels? Not proven, still speculative, but yeah, probably. But it allegedly happened in 2006, now 12 years ago. Long before Trump ever campaigned or became president. (He married Melania in 2005. So there is an infidelity issue.) But it's not like he, say, had sex with a 22 year old White House intern in the Oval Office, and then lied in testimony under oath about it, and obstructed a 40 million dollar Independent Counsel investigation.
When Bill Clinton did all that other stuff, you didn't think it was such a big deal. And that's far more than what Trump did, in the worst case scenario.

I think it's a much bigger issue that there has been abuse of power by Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, Sally Yates, James Comey, Andrew McCabe (and his wife), Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Flynn case judge and FISA warrant judge Rudolf Contreras, Bruce Ohr (and wife employed by FusionGPS, Robert Meuller and his "independent investigation" made up of DNC campaign donors, former DNI director James Clapper, and former CIA director John Brennan, along with Bill and Hillary Clinton, and others that I don't presently recall. All abused their power at the highest levels of the DOJ, FBI, CIA and other federal agencies to weaponize law enforcement and do illegal surveillance, to attempt to rig the 2016 presidential election, and then to create a false case in a political coup to depose an elected president, Donald Trump. That political leadership, career bureaucrats, and the liberal media are all collaborating together to make a false case against Trump for collaborating with Russia during the 2016 campaign. When in truth, ALL of the evidence leads to Hillary Clinton and the DNC, >>>NOT<<< to Trump. (The Clinton Foundation donations, FusionGPS, Christopher Steele's collaboration with Russians in compiling the Russia Dossier, UraniumOne and the payoffs to the Clinton in exchange for pimping the Uraniam sale to the Russians through a Canadian front company, Hillary's illegal unsecured private server, the 33,000 missing e-mails, deleting e-mails and smashing the hard-drives and memory chips in Hillary's computers and phones, on and on).

I would argue that the Stormy Daniels story is just the latest feeble attempt to keep alive the endless barrage of allegations unleashed on Trump. I got a chuckle watching Anderson Cooper on CNN just about ejaculate on himself with excitement "reporting" this story. It was a liberal wankfest.


Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Wed Mar 21 2018 07:28 AM
Re: Stormy weather

I would point out Stormy has said she's been threatened. Plus you not only have Trump lying about it but all the shady legal maneuvers. Trump's lawyer paying his porn star hush money without allegedly being compensated for it. Nobody is shocked that Trump had an affair but the shadowy way he's used his wealth and the legal system to cover it up and silence people might be.

the G-man
(15000+ posts)
Wed Mar 21 2018 07:40 AM
Re: Stormy weather

Wait. 20 years after Clinton, MEM suddenly cares about adultery by a president and that president lying about it?

Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Wed Mar 21 2018 09:24 PM
Re: Stormy weather

Lol, cue g the partisan judge. Especially hilarious after WB's post.

Lothar of The Hill People
(15000+ posts)
Wed Mar 21 2018 11:15 PM
Re: Stormy weather

I didn't care when Clinton was fooling around with Monica and who knows how many other women.

I don't care about Trump fooling around with that nasty porn actress. I never thought she was attractive. He really should have gone for Asa or Katie Morgan.

A man's adultery is between him and his wife even if he is the President.


Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Thu Mar 22 2018 07:29 AM
Re: Stormy weather

Do you think his efforts to silence Stormy fall into something else though? The hush money and not even having to sign the legal agreement that he's trying to use doesn't seem like it should be legal.

the G-man
(15000+ posts)
Thu Mar 22 2018 08:03 PM
Re: Stormy weather

It's entirely possible, though not conclusive, that Trump did something illegal, ala John Edwards to buy her off.

If that's the case, and it comes out, he's got real problems.

But let's face it: Even if Trump did nothing illegal, the left is going to act like adultery is suddenly a disqualifier again....at least until the Democrat cheats on his or her spouse.


Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Thu Mar 22 2018 09:34 PM
Re: Stormy weather

I don't see Dems being any worse than your party g. Actually Trump would have been unelectable as a dem after his "legal" rape of his first wife without not even getting into the growing crowd of women coming forward with various allegations. And I suspect your party will be raising the bar at some point. (Maybe after 2018?).

the G-man
(15000+ posts)
Fri Mar 23 2018 07:19 AM
Re: Stormy weather

"Actually Trump would have been unelectable as a dem..."

The blue state voters who put him over the top to beat Crooked Hillary might disagree.


Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Fri Mar 23 2018 07:30 AM
Re: Stormy weather

She beat him in the popular vote so no I don't think so. And at some point your party will be running from being the party of Trump

the G-man
(15000+ posts)
Fri Mar 23 2018 08:11 AM
Re: Stormy weather

So what you're saying is the GOP will learn from its mistakes while the DNC will continue to be the party of Crooked Hillary. Okay.

Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Fri Mar 23 2018 08:46 AM
Re: Stormy weather

 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
I don't see Dems being any worse than your party g. Actually Trump would have been unelectable as a dem after his "legal" rape of his first wife without not even getting into the growing crowd of women coming forward with various allegations. And I suspect your party will be raising the bar at some point. (Maybe after 2018?).


In previous topics, we've already established that Trump's "19 accusers" is just so much horseshit, and very padded and sensationalized with comments by women, most of whom are clearly politically active Democrat women, or otherwise have an axe to grind because Trump owes them money in a business deal or something. And that it distills down to maybe 4 or 5 allegations that remain unproven.

Most of those "19" are "he looked at me creepy" or "he looked at us like we were meat", as Miss America contestants, not any actual sexual allegation. Well hello, you're presenting yourself as meat, in a beauty contest!
Also particularly vile is adding Ivanka Trump as a listed accuser, who said things vindictively in a bitter divorce, and has fully retracted those remarks, and even written the introduction to one of Trump's books since. That she wasn't raped, that she "Felt raped, emotionally" by husband Donald's betrayal and rejection. But that is portrayed deceitfully out of context.
Because that is what the Left always does to Republican opponents. Or really, to anyone who gets in their way. Bernie Sanders in 2016 being as good an example as any, as revealed in the comments of DNC leadership in their anti-Semitic schemes to bring him down to clear the path for Hillary's nomination, as exposed in the e-mails revealed by WikiLeaks.


Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Fri Mar 23 2018 08:08 PM
Re: Stormy weather

Ivana did the deposition where she details the "legal" rape. Even with the insert Trump had his lawyers put in there doesn't actually deny what she alleged (pulling out her hair and than forcing himself on her, she woke up with her pulled out hair next to her). Yes like other woman he paid her lots of money for her silence and they're just the best of friends now. I don't think it's vile bringing it up at all but than again I think it's vile for the pile of shit having an affair or two after his wife just had his kid.

Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Fri Mar 23 2018 09:08 PM
Re: Stormy weather

 Originally Posted By: the G-man
So what you're saying is the GOP will learn from its mistakes .... Okay.
I think saner minds will prevail in your party eventually. For now though you are the party of Trump


Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Sun Mar 25 2018 05:49 PM
Re: Stormy weather

60 Minutes interview tonight.

Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Sun Mar 25 2018 07:18 PM
Re: Stormy weather

 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Ivana did the deposition where she details the "legal" rape. Even with the insert Trump had his lawyers put in there doesn't actually deny what she alleged (pulling out her hair and than forcing himself on her, she woke up with her pulled out hair next to her). Yes like other woman he paid her lots of money for her silence and they're just the best of friends now. I don't think it's vile bringing it up at all but than again I think it's vile for the pile of shit having an affair or two after his wife just had his kid.


AGAIN: Allegations against Donald Trump, unproven or at best retracted and questionable.

VS....

PROVEN rape and sexual assault by Democrats that you and other Democrats give a total free pass too. And Hillary Clinton led the charge to destroy these women, to advance her own political career, calling them whores and trailer trash and so forth.

When you can fully own and acknowledge the Clintons' abuse of women, and the Kennedys', and sexual involvement with minors by Gerry Studds, and running a brothel out of his home by Barney Frank, all of whom DEMOCRATS GAVE A TOTAL FREE PASS TO AND ELECTED AGAIN AND AGAIN AND NEVER CONDEMNED, I might take what you have to say about Trump the slightest bit seriously.


Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Sun Mar 25 2018 07:30 PM
Re: Stormy weather

 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
 Originally Posted By: the G-man
So what you're saying is the GOP will learn from its mistakes .... Okay.
I think saner minds will prevail in your party eventually. For now though you are the party of Trump



I think no matter how saintly Republicans could possibly be, you will demagogue them as the greatest evil, despite the clearly far worse corruption and evil the Democrats are unleashing on the country.

Under Obama, destroying our military.
Under Obama, collapsing U.S. military and global influence.
Under Obama, Benghazi, allowing the attack before and during (in real time), and lyingly covering it up after.
Under Obama, doubling our debt from 10 trillion to 20 trillion. That alone could collapse the nation.
Under Obama and Hillary (and Schumer, and Pelosi) splintering the nation along race and class lines.
Under Obama and Hillary, weaponizing the IRS against Tea Party groups, religious conservatives, and large Republican donors.

And ultimately, under Obama and Hillary, and Loretta Lynch, Sally Yates, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr, FISA judge Rudolf Contreras, weaponizing the FISA court, FBI, DOJ, CIA and other intelligence agencies in an effort to slander and depose an elected president, that is nothing short of a political coup, illegally using the law enforcement branches of government to do so.

The hostility toward Trump is because he is an obstruction to the business-as-usual corruption and looting of a sinking ship by both Democrats and the establishment Republicans. Taking Trump down by any illegals means and abuse of power at their disposal.


Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Sun Mar 25 2018 07:38 PM
Re: Stormy weather

The hostility towards Trump is because he's an unfit piece of shit. I pity the democrat that is going to have to clean up the mess after his reign is done.

the G-man
(15000+ posts)
Sun Mar 25 2018 08:45 PM
Re: Stormy weather

 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
The hostility towards Trump is because he's an unfit piece of shit..


That might mean more if you hadn't called every GOP presidential nominee since 2004 more or less the same thing.

You probably called previous nominees that as well but I didn't join the board until 2003.


Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Sun Mar 25 2018 08:53 PM
Re: Stormy weather

I praised McCain and even considered voting for him. And it's not just demaocrats that think he's unfit. I suspect that number will grow in your party once it's safe

Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Sun Mar 25 2018 09:00 PM
Re: Stormy weather

Since you spoke up g perhaps this is a good point for you to talk about how you feel Trump is fit for the office. For the record \:\)

Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Wed Mar 28 2018 09:01 PM
Re: Stormy weather


As I said in the Charlottesville topic:

 Quote:
And your constantly calling Donald Trump a "piece of shit" just underscores how vitriolic, emotional and completely unhinged your logic is.

President Trump has achieved more good for the nation in barely his first 9 months than Obama did in 8 years. And reversed and repealed much of the damage Alinsky/Ayers/cultural Marxist Obama (and Hillary Clinton) had previously done.

In roughly his first 6 months, Trump exceeded 3% annual growth, where Obama stunted economic growth with obstructionist policy to 2% or less in all of his 8 years.
Trump is rebuilding our military, has overseen a 25% increase in the stock market, has vastly reduced welfare and disability by creating jobs, has currently reduced illegal border crossings by an incredible 78% (!!!!) and has restored our international prestige by standing up to the Iranians and North Koreans. Unemployment is the lowest since 2001. Manufacturing is the highest since 2004.

And all you have is slander, in the attempt to tear down a president who is in opposition to the globalist/corporate elites in both parties, and for the first time since Ronald Reagan, arguably even more so than Reagan, is serving the best interests of the nation, and of its people.

I am daily awed at how this president has achieved so much, particularly in the face of such opposition, both from wealthy elites, from the obstructionist Democrats who will never give him credit for ANYTHING, and from the turncoat RINOS in his own party (McCain, Graham, Flake, McConnell) many of whom promised to repeal Obamacare, and then did the opposite of what they promised after Nov 2016.

Like no other political leader since Reagan and Gingrich, Trump is a political leader who made promises to voters, and has been committed to doing exactly what he promised.


And again, you hold Trump to a standard regarding extramarital affairs, and even SEXUAL ASSAULT and RAPE, that you don't hold to Bill Clinton, enabler wife Hillary Clinton who led the charge to slander these women, kicking them down to advance her own career. And womanizers/ sexual abusers Ted Kennedy, JFK, RFK, Gerry Studds and Barney Frank.
Among many others.


In light of your silence on these DEMOCRATS who did far worse, your outrage rings hollow and hypocritical, M E M.
And ignores that Trump has accomplished more than any other recent president. Certainly more than America-hating Alinsky-trained Cultural Marxist demagogue Barack Obama.


Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Wed Mar 28 2018 10:38 PM
Re: Stormy weather

We had 20 some years of talking about Clinton. Funny how when Trump commits adultery you just double down on Clinton. Actually it's not funny nor sadly that shocking. Trump is the one who committed adultery not me WB. Do you think your judgement doesn't look partisan?

Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Wed Mar 28 2018 11:24 PM
Re: Stormy weather

 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
We had 20 some years of talking about Clinton. Funny how when Trump commits adultery you just double down on Clinton. Actually it's not funny nor sadly that shocking. Trump is the one who committed adultery not me WB. Do you think your judgement doesn't look partisan?


Because nothing is PROVEN about Trump.

Because EVERYTHING was proven true about Bill Clinton.
Bill Clinton was forced by his guilt to pay $850,00 in damages to Paula Jones. And if I recall, another $80,000 fine to the American Bar Association, along with revocation of his law license.

In contrast, Trump's alleged extramarital trysts were CONSENSUAL. Whereas Bill Clinton forced himself on Paula Jones, Kathleen Willie and Juanita Broaddrick. And Broaddrick was a loyal Democrat and fundraiser for the Democrats, why would she ever make up such an incident?

Bill Clinton committed perjury.
Bill Clinton was disbarred for 5 years as a lawyer, for obstruction and contempt of the law that as both a lawyer and an elected official he was sworn to uphold. Bill Clinton obstructed a $40 million special investigation. The entire U.S. Supreme Court, in contempt for Clinton's perjury and obstruction of the law, would not attend his State of the Union for the remainder of his term. Not just the Conservative judges, ALL of them!

What crime is Trump even accused of having committed? NONE.
He (at worst) had a one-night fling with a pornstar 12 years ago, a year into his marriage, and 11 years before he became president. So what.

I could also repeat what Pariah said a year ago, about the "Clinton body count", of the number of witnesses and journalists who were going to expose the Clintons, who mysteriously disappeared or "committed suicide" right before coming forward to expose the Clintons.

You like to call Trump a "piece of shit" and so forth, in your baseless slanders. In point of fact, Trump's accomplishments are quantifiable and undeniable, far surpassing any president in recent decades. Trump is a non-partisan who is saving America from the destructive policies of the far-Left and the globalists, and is cleaning up corruption in Washington, even that of establishment Republicans of hiss own party. Which is precisely why they oppose him so fiercely. Trump is the solution, not the problem.



Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Thu Mar 29 2018 07:20 AM
Re: Stormy weather

He's a piece of shit that has a system set up to pay out hush money without apparently having to sign the legal documents that he's using against Stormy and who knows how many others.

Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Thu Mar 29 2018 04:19 PM
Re: Stormy weather

The $850,000 paid out to Paula Jones in a settlement could be considered hush money, yes?

I also recently watched a 60-minute documentary titled JFK's Women: The Scandals Revealed. Just highlighting the women who were dangerous to national security were
1) Inga Arvad (1941, a Dutch reporter and German spy, the Navy wanted to dishonorably discharge JFK for regularly boasting about Navy secrets in bed with her, but because of his money and family power, despite his treason, he was just assigned to another Navy post that ceased their liason.)
2) Judith Campbell (1960, the call girl/girlfriend of Al Capone successor Sam Giancanna's second in command, and under FBI surveillance, JFK's sharing her favors created a direct link and potential extortion by the Mob of JFK. )
3) Marilyn Monroe (1962, who was sharing a bed with both JFK and RFK, and again under FBI surveillance, and JFK or both boasted national security secrets and mob connections that made Monroe terrified to the point she broke off contact. She could have leaked state secrets if she remained alive, or at least brought down the Kennedy administration. She may have been killed to silence her, there are many irregularities about the way she died, including a missing coroner's report.)
4) Marianna Navotny (1963, a call girl and communist, with family relations to the then-communist Czech president. Again, under FBI surveillance, and potentially destroying JFK's ability to remain president if exposed.)
5) Ellen Rometsch (1963, another call girl and East German spy, who could have been used to blackmail Kennedy or topple his presidency, another under FBI investigation. According to the documentary, the Senate wanted to open a public investigation, and RFK begged FBI director J. Edgar Hoover to recommend the Senate against it. Hoover stopped the investigation, which made the Kennedy administration subservient to Hoover from that point on. But if exposed, JFK's affair would have forced his impeachment or resignation. This last call girl was paid a large sum of cash to buy her silence, and everyone wanted her to talk. Kennedy was saved from exposure by his death.

Lyndon Johnson as president was allegedly worse. Including a sexual affair with his biographer Doris Kearns Goodwin. As we discussed in previous topics, Johnson is known to have had people killed. Potentially including his predecessor JFK, who wanted to dump LBJ as Vice President in his 1964 re-election, and possibly LBJ had him killed to allow him to be president.

Nixon, his crimes are so well known they don't need to be further detailed.

I skipped them, but FDR, Truman and Eisenhower are all known or alleged to have had extramarital affairs as well.

George H.W. Bush was also alleged to have at least one affair during his presidency.

Bill Clinton... again, I don't even need to explain his "piece of shit" insatiable compulsion for extramarital affairs. But again, unlike Trump, Clinton's affairs are PROVEN, and include sexual harassment of employees, sexual assault, and rape, not just consensual sex.

So... in light of all this, what makes Donald Trump uniquely a "piece of shit", as you turn a blind eye toward all these others who have done the same or far worse? Trump's indiscretions don't rise to the level of "piece of shit" actions by FDR, JFK, LBJ, Nixon or Bill Clinton.
Beyond partisan selective outrage, I don't see a case made for your attitude toward Trump. Anything that will smear Trump or bring him down, right?


Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Thu Mar 29 2018 08:33 PM
Re: Stormy weather

All your making clear is that if Clinton had been a republican you and the GOP would have treated it much differently. Instead you literally have decades of talking about it and using it politically. Clinton didn't have lawyers like Trump does nor had everyone including exwives sign non disclosure forms. He didn't send people to parking lots to threaten mothers with babies. Clinton's adultery will follow him and his legacy. The ride is just getting started with mr. grab them by the pussy and his enablers.

Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Thu Mar 29 2018 09:26 PM
Re: Stormy weather

 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
All your making clear is that if Clinton had been a republican you and the GOP would have treated it much differently. Instead you literally have decades of talking about it and using it politically. Clinton didn't have lawyers like Trump does nor had everyone including exwives sign non disclosure forms. He didn't send people to parking lots to threaten mothers with babies. Clinton's adultery will follow him and his legacy. The ride is just getting started with mr. grab them by the pussy and his enablers.


I haven't seen that Trump's legal team is that exemplary.

I pointed out that Clinton committed crimes, WAY beyond just consensual sex or an extramarital affair. He was collectively fined in the neighborhood of a million dollars, he was disbarred. He was impeached, censured, fined. HOW IS THERE >>>ANY<< equivalency in that to the relatively minor actions of Trump?

Likewise, the Kennedys had money equivalent to that of Trump. And the Kennedys used bribes and influence to hide their sexual affairs and crimes. I'd further point out that both JFK and RFK won elections due to Mafia assistance (Joseph Kennedy's mob connections, dating back to his bootlegging and insider trading days.)

You take wild speculation and half-baked manufactured stories by blatantly anti-Trump sources as absolute fact, from two porn stars, no less, pornstars who were perfectly willing to take a $130,000 nondisclosure payment, and then 11 years later come out of the blue with wild sexual stories. Scout's honor!

Give me a break.

And for clearly documented events involving the Clintons and the Kennedys, you give a complete free pass.
For allegations that are ABSOLUTELY UNPROVEN about Trump, you accept unquestionably every word. This is a batant and desperate attempt for the Left to convict or at least smear Trump out of office, with any vile trick they can pull off. Most of the public sees that. Except for the far-Left/MediaMatters crowd, who have a long history of these kind of smear tactics.



Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Thu Mar 29 2018 11:25 PM
Re: Stormy weather

I noticed Stormy made the fat pile of shit shut up. Somebody who has no problem calling women accusers liars is treating this one differently.

Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Thu Apr 05 2018 07:25 PM
Re: Stormy weather

So Trump now says he was not informed about his lawyer paying out hush money. Time for Stormy and all the other women to get the fat fuck under oath.

Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Thu Apr 05 2018 10:17 PM
Re: Stormy weather



CNN and MSNBC: ALL DAY ALL NIGHT, ALL STORMY WEATHERS ALL THE TIME!! 24/7 !!!

Meanwhile, all the treasonous stuff Hillary and Obama did, rigging elections, Hillary and Donna Brazile rigging televised CNN presidential debates, selling State Department influence through hundreds of millions in donations to the Clinton Foundation, selling 20% of the U.S. uranium supply to the Russians in exchange for more donations to the Clintons and other officials. Compromising U.S. national security through Hillary Clinton's illegal use of a private server ripe for the hacking by the Russians and Chinese. And Hillary and her staffers bleach-bitting computer hardrives, smashing cel-phones with a hammer, and deleting 33,000 e-mails AFTER THER WERE SUBPOENAED by Congress and FBI investigators.

Or if just sticking to sex scandals, how about the liberal media give some airtime and balanced coverage to Paula Jones, Kathleen Willie, Juanita Broaddrick, and Monica Lewinsky, who were all victimized by Bill Clinton. And further victimized by Hillary Clinton, who led the charge to discredit and intimidate these women into silence. >>>THESE<<<< victimized and intimidated women the mainstream media has been ignoring for over 20 years.

And as Mark Levin said on Sean Hannity tonight, "Under oath for WHAT? What is the charge Trump is accused of?"
There is absolutely no evidence of anything, because it doesn't exist. All the testimony would be is a fishing expedition, a perjury trap, that has nothing to do with alleged Russia "collusion" (which also isn't a crime, any more than any incoming administration establishing relations with foreign governments they will be dealing with.)

It frankly pisses me off that 100% of the evidence of illegal dealings with Russia, illegal FISA surveillance, manipulating the election through abuses by public officials (Loretta Lynch, James Comey, Sally Yates, Rod Rosenstein and wife, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr and wife, Rudolfo Contreras, Andrew Weissman, and Robert Meuller, and not even a complete list of high-level officials) ALL lead to Hillary Clinton and the Democrats, and yet it is not even being investigated.
For the clear purpose of 1) rig the election for Hillary, and 2) cripple or depose Trump's presidency.

But what one pornstar of questionable integrity alleges about Trump is so much more important than the Democrat/Left weaponizing government against its citizens and staging a political coup through public officials against an elected president. Oh yeah, that makes perfect sense.


Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Thu Apr 05 2018 10:31 PM
Re: Stormy weather

Actually it's more than just one woman WB and Trump has far more problems than just them. If it's any consolation I don't think even Trump would deserve being impeached for lying under oath about having consensual sex. I say that knowing the hypocrisy on your side would never hold Trump to the same standard as Clinton.

Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Fri Apr 06 2018 06:54 PM
Re: Stormy weather



From the No Moore GOP Roy Moore topic about 2 months ago:

 Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man


1 Kristen Anderson ("early 1980's")
2 Mariah Billado (1997)
3 Lisa Boyne (1996)
4 Rachel Crooks (2005)
5 Tasha Dixon (2001)
6 Jessica Drake (2006) - Adult film star!
7 Jill Harth (1992-1993) -Vendetta and lawsuit with Trump in other business
8 Cathy Heller (1997)
9 Samantha Holvey (2006)
10 Ninni Laaksonen (2006)
11 Jessica Leeds (1980's)
12 Melinda McGillivray (2003)
13 Cassandra Searles (2013)
14 Natasha Stonyoff (2005) -PEOPLE magazine reporter!
15 Bridget Sullivan (2000)
16 Temple Taggart (1997)
17 Ivana Trump (1989 - The point reading I >>>KNEW<<< I was being hustled!)
18 Karena Virginia (1998)
19 Summer Zerves (2007)


Okay, some of the allegations are more recent than I recalled previously. But most go back 20 years or more. There are only 5 that don't pre-date the Access Hollywood bus video. All are years before the period Trump became a presidential candidate.

But
1) Many of these women clearly have a political agenda, and clearly state their opposition to Donald Trump as president, and therefore have a clear agenda to make allegations to undermine him as president. I would want to see a background for each of these women's political affiliations, and who they voted for, and if they supported/openly advocated Hillary Clinton and other Democrats. That is the case of many of Roy Moore's accusers as well.

2) While I don't dismiss the more serious accusations of Trump groping and allegedly forcing himself on a few of these women, by their accounts, many of these seem straining to allege anything sexually illicit. Some of the Miss USA contestants say he walked through the dressing room while they were changing. Even if true, that is hardly sexual assault.
Including IVANA TRUMP as an "accuser" is outrageous. She said what she did during a bitter divorce where he'd left her for Marla Maples, and she briefly made some accusations she retracted almost 30 years ago. Saying "I >>>FELT<<< raped" emotionally is much different than saying she was physically raped by Trump. There is clearly a vindictive agenda on the part of the Atlantic in their including this in the article. It is billed as "19 accusers" which sounds persuasive until you read through and see how silly some of the alleged "sexual accusations" are. Trump walked through a dressing room, WOW!
One is a pornstar/porn director who probably is aligned with the Hollywood liberal elite, and has no credibility from the outset. Likewise, the PEOPLE magazine reporter, who apparently from her remarks has accused many others of sexually inappropriate behavior and/or assault.
Another sued Trump over a real estate business deal and likewise has every motive to slime him.
Some of the others just say Trump leaned in for a kiss, and that is open to interpretation. I have French and Brazilian female friends who do the kiss-on-the-cheek thing at parties, and beautiful as they are, I'm frankly not comfortable kissing a girl like that who's not my girlfriend. And 20 years later, they could spin it as something it was not. It's laughable to me that Miss America contestants complain about Trump "looking at us like we were just meat". Do these girls understand what a beauty contest is?!? You walk out on stage and spin around for the judges in a dress or a bikini. I fail to see from their own account what Trump did wrong.

Of Trump's 19 "accusers" (18 actually because Ivana never accused him in 2016) maybe 15 if you eliminate the "he walked through the dressing room" accounts, maybe down to 10 or less if you eliminate the "he looked at me like I was meat" or "he kissed me at a crowded social event" type accusations. And then you're left with a few that look on the surface like actual accusations of something truly inappropriate if Trump actually did it.

But then you get into Democrat political affiliations of the accusers, other assorted personal/professional vendettas against Trump as possible motivation, and actual witnesses to what objectively happened.


Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Fri Apr 06 2018 07:01 PM
Re: Stormy weather


As compared to...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_sexual_misconduct_allegations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Jones

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juanita_Broaddrick

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troopergate_(Bill_Clinton)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton%E2%80%93Lewinsky_scandal

 Quote:
Two months after the Senate failed to convict him, President Clinton was held in civil contempt of court by Judge Susan Webber Wright for giving misleading testimony regarding his sexual relationship with Lewinsky, and was also fined $90,000 by Wright.[2][3] Clinton declined to appeal the civil contempt of court ruling, citing financial problems,[2] but still maintained that his testimony complied with Wright's earlier definition of sexual relations.[2] In 2001, his license to practice law was suspended in Arkansas for five years and later by the United States Supreme Court.[4]



...the documented, proven, fined, impeached, censured, disbarred facts in comparable allegations regarding Bill Clinton.



Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Fri Apr 06 2018 08:54 PM
Re: Stormy weather

Do you like that Trump has this built in deal where his lawyer just pays out hush money to people he fucked and claims it's done without his knowledge WB?

Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Fri Apr 06 2018 09:15 PM
Re: Stormy weather



I believe the exact term was non-disclosure agreement, and they are not unheard of in the business world.

Particularly among high-profile wealthy people, who are targets for all kinds of allegations and shakedowns.


Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Fri Apr 06 2018 09:33 PM
Re: Stormy weather

Committing adultery and trying to cover it up isn't really applicable in that way. And imagine that Trump isn't lying. He's keeping a lawyer that has made him look like a lying cheating shit bag. Seems like he likes the job Cohen did for him.

Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Fri Apr 06 2018 09:50 PM
Re: Stormy weather

\:lol\: \:lol\: \:lol\:
\:lol\: \:lol\: \:lol\:
\:lol\: \:lol\: \:lol\:

Your hypocrisy is on full display, M E M.

Again, you NEVER held Democrats to the same standard you hold Donald Trump to.
And again, there is far more evidence against Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, JFK, RFK, LBJ and many other Democrats than there is against Trump, in a still unproven allegation.

Why don't you just admit that the true purpose of the Democrat/MediaMatters/Left's sexual allegations against Trump is to depose a Republican president by whatever contrivance you can toss out there?


Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Fri Apr 06 2018 10:13 PM
Re: Stormy weather

We've discussed Clinton for over 2 decades. You've made it clear that you're the hypocrite. Note not one negative comment for Trump from you. You only have them for the other side.

Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Fri Apr 06 2018 10:21 PM
Re: Stormy weather

You misrepresent me, M E M.

I've certainly criticized Trump for his bombast, and acknowledged that he's had sexual affairs in the past, many of them very publicly. I've even acknowledged that he likely had sex with Stormy Daniels, with the stipulation that it remains unproven, UNLIKE the transgressions of Democrat figures like Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy and JFK whose indiscretions, corruption and hush-money payoffs equal or surpass the very worst alleged about Trump.

But Clinton's assaults and rapes, PROVEN, you ignore, and hypocritically voice contempt for Trump on far lesser UNPROVEN allegations.


Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Fri Apr 06 2018 10:40 PM
Re: Stormy weather

Seems that proven and unproven for you depends on party. If Clinton's accusers are all credible as you have put forward than maybe you shouldn't be calling Trump's growing group of women accusers as not.

Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Mon Apr 09 2018 05:55 PM
Re: Stormy weather

FBI just raided Trump's lawyer/fixer, lol

Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Tue Apr 10 2018 02:06 AM
Re: Stormy weather


 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
FBI just raided Trump's lawyer/fixer, lol


So you celebrate an unprecedented unconstitutional violation of a lawyer's home to violate attorney-client privilege? The client being Trump. I watched a former federal investigator with Laura Ingraham say this is a "highly aggressive" and unprecedented federal investigation.

Meanwhile, a different standard exists for Hillary Clinton, Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin, Jennifer Palmieri, Loretta Lynch, Sally Yates, James Comey, Rod Rosenstein (and wife), Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr (and wife), James Rybacki, Andrew Weissman, James Clapper, John Brennan, Susan Rice, Rudolf Contreras.
>>>>ALL<<< of these people have either committed perjury, filed fraudulent information to get a FISA warrant, leaked confidential federal information to the press, and or participated in malicious prosecution.

And all have simultaneously done similar criminal deception to give a free pass to Hillary Clinton and her subordinates, elements at the highest level of DOJ and FBI obstructing prosecution, allowing destruction of evidence.
ALL the evidence leads to Hillary's guilt on the Clinton Foundation, FusionGPS, the deleted 33,000 e-mails, her illegal private server, and yet they absolutely refuse to prosecute it. Even as they maliciously strain to prosecute Trump for any contrived reason they can.

So much for law enforcement ethics, and equal protection under the law.



Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Tue Apr 10 2018 07:26 AM
Re: Stormy weather

Partisan accusations are not evidence and this isn't like when republicans had a zillion Benghazi investigations. Cohen isn't above the law either. His actions with Stormy reveal he was either paying out large sums of money during an election either with or without Trump knowing.

the G-man
(15000+ posts)
Tue Apr 10 2018 08:18 AM
Re: Stormy weather

 Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
FBI just raided Trump's lawyer/fixer, lol


So you celebrate an unprecedented unconstitutional violation of a lawyer's home to violate attorney-client privilege? The client being Trump. I watched a former federal investigator with Laura Ingraham say this is a "highly aggressive" and unprecedented federal investigation.

Meanwhile, a different standard exists for Hillary Clinton, Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin, Jennifer Palmieri, Loretta Lynch, Sally Yates, James Comey, Rod Rosenstein (and wife), Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr (and wife), James Rybacki, Andrew Weissman, James Clapper, John Brennan, Susan Rice, Rodolf Contreras.
>>>>ALL<<< of these people have either committed perjury, filed fraudulent information to get a FISA warrant, leaked confidential federal information to the press, and or participated in malicious prosecution.

And all have done the exact opposite to give a free pass to Hillary Clinton and her seems, obstructing prosecution, allowing destruction of evidence. ALL the evidence leads to Hillary's guilt on the Clinton Foundation, FusionGPS, the deleted 33,000 e-mails, her illegal private server, and yet they absolutely refuse to prosecute it. Even as they maliciously strain to prosecute Trump for any contrived reason they can.

So much for law enforcement ethics, and equal protection under the law.


Privilege only covers past, not prospective, conduct. If-hypothetically-Cohen and Trump agreed to commit a criminal act, that's not protected. Similarly, if Cohen acted on his own (as I think he claimed), its difficult to see how "privilege" would apply.

Andrew McCarthy from National Review set forth a pretty good argument on various ways that Cohen's alleged payoff to Daniels could violate campaign finance laws:

  • the point here is not about the lurid details. The point is that the concealment effort may involve criminal violations of campaign-finance laws. That is, a prosecutor could rationally commence an investigation based on suspicion that the $130,000 payment to Clifford was (a) potentially an in-kind campaign contribution that was astronomically above the legal donation limit for individuals, (b) from a potentially illegal source (depending on how Cohen’s LLC, Essential Consultants, was structured), and (c) not disclosed as required by federal election law.

    On this score, it does not matter that one may not be a fan of the campaign-finance laws — they are the law, and as we’ve seen, they can be enforced by criminal prosecution. It does not matter that one may not be a fan of the special-counsel appointment of Robert Mueller — he is the prosecutor, and it is a commonplace for prosecutors, and especially quasi-independent prosecutors, to investigate crimes that are disconnected from the original rationale for the investigation (compare, e.g., Kenneth Starr’s shift from Whitewater to the Lewinsky scandal in the investigation of President Clinton). And it does not matter that one may be skeptical about Mueller’s legal theory that any frustration of government functions by two or more people may be prosecuted as a conspiracy to defraud the United States under Section 371 of the penal code — such cases are prosecuted, the U.S. Attorney’s Manual supports them (as I pointed out in a recent column, notwithstanding my disagreement), and actions that undermine the Federal Election Commission’s oversight and record-keeping would align comfortably with the fraud conspiracy charges Mueller has brought in other cases.

    As a factual matter, a shoddy cover-up of an extramarital tryst with a porn star a decade before Donald Trump became president would be a trifle compared to the oft-repeated but never established claim of Trump collusion with Russia. As a legal matter, though, when highly aggressive prosecutors are circling, any kind of something is always more perilous than nothing.


Yeah, it sucks that the media and the Obama DoJ covered up for the Clinton Crime Syndicate but someone else getting away with a crime isn't a defense to criminal charges if there is credible evidence against Cohen and/or Trump.


Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Tue Apr 10 2018 08:18 AM
Re: Stormy weather


ALAN DERSHOWITZ RIPS ACLU's SILENCE ON THE RAID OF TRUMP LAWYER MICHAEL COHEN'S OFFICE


 Quote:
Business


Alan Dershowitz reacted to a federal raid on the office of President Donald Trump's personal attorney, Michael Cohen.

Dershowitz said it is a "dangerous day today for lawyer-client relations."

He said that federal agents confiscated many items from the office, and predicted that they included confidential documents and files pertaining to attorney-client privilege discussions with Trump.

Dershowitz said that Trump's team, as well as Cohen, have thus far cooperated with the Robert Mueller-led probe into alleged Russian collusion.


"If this were Hillary Clinton [having her lawyer's office raided], the ACLU would be on every TV station in America jumping up and down," he said. "The deafening silence of the ACLU and civil libertarians about the intrusion into the lawyer-client confidentiality is really appalling."

Dershowitz said it is apparent that Mueller is staying within the confines of the Russian collusion case parameters and instead farming out extraneous developments like Stormy Daniels and alleged campaign finance violations to the U.S. Attorney's Office of the Southern District of New York.
Mueller likely obtained penultimate approval for the raid from Acting Southern District U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman in Manhattan - who sent the warrant to a judge for the final say, according to reports.

Berman was appointed by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, replacing Acting U.S. Attorney Joon Kim, who himself replaced U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara who was fired by Trump.


That's not a "partisan" evaluation, M E M. That's a liberal attorney and professor, one of the most acclaimed legal scholars in the legal profession.

And all this is related to the Russia investigation that the Meuller special investigation (14 of the 17 investigation lawyers are Democrat, 8 of the 17 are donors to the Obama and Hillary campaigns, 3 of the 17 were directly employed in the service of Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation).... HOW?

It's a witch hunt. It's an abuse and twisting of the law to grasp at ANY rationalization to impeach and depose Trump. A greater abuse of power than Watergate. Nothing short of an unconstitutional political coup.



Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Tue Apr 10 2018 08:41 AM
Re: Stormy weather

Legal scholar Jonathan Turley was just on Fox's morning show. He was the most quoted scholar on the Patriot Act and the unconstitutionality of Bush's war on Islamic terrorism. Democrats LOVED him in that period.
Turley likewise said this raid on Cohen's legal records is a trap set for Trump, an attempt to piss him off to the point that he fires Meuller, Rosenstein and Sessions. But said that if Trump does so, he will put himself in even more danger.



Remember what caused the Meuller investigation to be formed:

1) Rod Rosenstein was tasked with making a written evaluation of the FBI and what needed to be done to restore internal and external public confidence in the FBI. Rosenstein said that it was necessary to fire James Comey and replace him with a new head of the FBI. He submitted the written report to Trump.
2) Trump followed Rosenstein's recommendation and fired Comey.
3) Rosenstein then appointed Meuller to head a special investigation, to investigate why Trump fired Comey. What's wrong with this picture?
4) Rosenstein is also the person who determined the "Russia Dossier" was unreliable and salacious, but in collaboration with Comey used it as evidence to request a FISA warrant to do FBI/CIA surveillance of Trump officials. Rosenstein is both leading the investigation, and also a defendant who participated in the conspiracy to do surveillance of Trump campaign/Trump administration communications! Investigators who are all Democrats, many of them large Democrat campaign donors! WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?!?

It's a Soviet-style Democrat kangaroo court.

And judge Rudolf Contreras is a personal friend of Peter Strzok who is mentioned in texts as part of a conspiracy to meet Strzok and Page ex parte at a secret conference disguised inside a dinner party. He is the judge 1) who oversaw the prosecution of Michael Flynn on manufactured perjury (the same trap they are attempting to set for Trump), and 2) oversaw at least 1 of the 4 falsified FISA surveillance warrants, based on the perjured false evidence of the Russia Dossier.

Add to that the secret meeting between Bill Clinton and then-attorney general Loretta Lynch in late 2016 while the potential indictment of Hillary Clinton was being decided, when lo and behold, just a few days later A.G. Lynch coincidentally decides not to prosecute Hillary Clinton despite overwhelming evidence.

There is NO WAY that all just randomly happened. The bias of this investigation is beyond question. As Rep Trey Gowdy said a few days ago, "It is beyond bias, it is animus," the level of hatred FBI and DOJ investigators have expressed in texts and public statements about Trump.
As is abundantly evident in the text messages and public comments of Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr, Andrew Weissman, and others I can't recall offhand.

I shit on the authority of this investigation. It was born and lives in deceit, perjury, slander and falsified evidence.


Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Tue Apr 10 2018 09:02 AM
Re: Stormy weather



 Originally Posted By: G-man

Yeah, it sucks that the media and the Obama DoJ covered up for the Clinton Crime Syndicate but someone else getting away with a crime isn't a defense to criminal charges if there is credible evidence against Cohen and/or Trump.


You were posting at the same time I was.

I agree that technically that is true. But the selective prosecution of Trump on the most strained of charges, while simultaneously ignoring the Himalayan mountains of evidence against Hillary Clinton, and ignoring the criminal actions of Rosenstein, Comey, Strzok and the rest I mentioned, and giving them a free pass while going after Trump and his officials.

It is TECHNICALLY right and lawful, but it is clearly selective and vindictive enforcement that undermines the rule of law, to the point of undermining all credibility that law and justice in the U.S. still exists. It is obscene abuse of power.


the G-man
(15000+ posts)
Tue Apr 10 2018 09:41 AM
Re: Stormy weather

The Search of Trump Lawyer Michael Cohen's Office: What We Can Infer Immediately

Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Tue Apr 10 2018 07:46 PM
Re: Stormy weather

I would agree that attorney client privilege is important but according to both Trump and Cohen both made it clear that didn't apply with the hush money. I suspect Trump was careful to cover his fat ass and Cohen may be willing to go to his prison for his man. It might be time to hide Pence for a little while

Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Wed Apr 11 2018 04:19 AM
Re: Stormy weather

 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
I would agree that attorney client privilege is important but according to both Trump and Cohen both made it clear that didn't apply with the hush money. I suspect Trump was careful to cover his fat ass and Cohen may be willing to go to his prison for his man. It might be time to hide Pence for a little while


HOW did it not apply? Specifically?


Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Wed Apr 11 2018 04:37 AM
Re: Stormy weather




What everyone knows is that there was more than enough evidence to do a similar raid of Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, and DOJ/FBI did NOT.

Further the FBI and DOJ just sat on their hands while Hillary Clinton and her subordinates deleted 33,000 self-incriminating e-mails, and bleachbitted the hard-drives of their computers, and smashed all Frau Hitlery's cel phones to eliminate the incriminating messages and email on those. All >>>>AFTER<<<< they were subpoenaed as evidence. The FBI even gave them permission to destroy much of the remaining evidence. Some cel phones were turned over with the SIM cards (i.e., the memory cards) removed, rendered useless as evidence. These people destroyed evidence, and yet no aggressive raids by DOJ and FBI.

The FBI and DOJ also gave Mills and Abedin immunity, in exchange for exactly no information.
Contrast that destruction of overwhelming evidence and clear crimes (selling State Department influence in exchange for hundreds of millions in foreign donations to the Clinton foundation, for openers), to the piddly offenses DOJ and FBI are raiding Trump on with what legal scholar Alan Deshowitz describes as "extreme aggression". Was there really any evidence that Cohen would have destroyed evidence he never had a clue DOJ and FBI would aggressively raid?




Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Wed Apr 11 2018 07:06 AM
Re: Stormy weather

Did they have fixers like Trump still has? It's pretty incredible that Cohen is the one Trump still calls "a good man".

Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Wed Apr 11 2018 07:31 AM
Re: Stormy weather

And i believe it didn't apply because the law doesn't allow you to use attorney client privilege to blatantly commit crime. Trump said he didn't know about the hush money and his lawyer says Trump didn't know. It's pretty obvious that they're lying but because they said it than attorney client privilege shouldn't apply to the hush money Cohen paid out to women. After all how can Trump claim to be a party to those?

Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Wed Apr 11 2018 09:20 AM
Re: Stormy weather



Why nobody should care about Trump's alleged affair with Stormy Daniels

 Quote:

By Dahleen Glanton, Chicago Tribune
March 8, 2018


We’re allowing a former porn star to distract us from the greatest task facing the American people — limiting Donald Trump to a one-term presidency.

Stormy Daniels isn’t going to get the job done for us. We’ve got to come at Trump with something much stronger than allegations that he slept with an adult film star a decade before he got to the White House.

Without a doubt, the alleged details that have seeped out thus far are pretty juicy. From the interview Daniels gave InTouch magazine in 2011, we learned that Trump allegedly was reckless enough to have sex without a condom. And that he was rather unspectacular in bed, “textbook generic,” as she called it.

We also found out that Trump was allegedly a textbook cheater as well, calling his mistress from a blocked number and assuring her that she need not worry about his wife. Melania Trump, by the way, had recently given birth to their son.

The only tidbit that has a chance of doing any harm to Trump is the allegation that he was involved in paying Daniels $130,000 in hush money days before the presidential election. But even that’s a long shot.

Daniels is suing Trump now, claiming that the agreement to keep quiet is invalid because he never signed it. She is champing at the bit to tell her version of the whole sordid affair.

As for myself, I couldn’t care less what she has to say.



I’d rather use my energy in a more productive way — keeping the heat turned up on Trump for his backsliding policies that do nothing to lift the middle class, raise families out of poverty, keep our children safe from mass shootings, protect the environment, provide health coverage for all or offer a pathway for law-abiding immigrants to become legal citizens.

There is still much work ahead to convince voters in every corner of the country that America cannot afford another two years, much less another four years, of Trump and his enablers at the helm.

While we might get a kick out of watching Trump sweat a little over the details of his sexual prowess, it doesn’t get us anywhere.

We should have learned by now that sexual misconduct does not have the firepower to knock a sitting president out of office. Presidents faced accusations of infidelity long before Trump, and after the buzz died down, most Americans moved on. We can be pretty certain that Stormy Daniels, or any other woman who claims to have had an affair with Trump, isn’t going to be the thing that brings him down.

According to Robert Watson, a historian at Lynn University who has written a book about the sexual indiscretions of U.S. presidents, several are known to have had sexual trysts either before they made it to the White House or while they were there.

We all know about John F. Kennedy’s alleged affair with Marilyn Monroe while he was president. Thomas Jefferson’s relationship with Sally Hemings, the slave with whom he fathered six children, is legendary. And Bill Clinton’s illicit behavior with White House intern Monica Lewinsky still makes our stomachs turn.

In his book, “Affairs of State: The Untold History of Presidential Love, Sex, and Scandal,” Watson reveals juicy tidbits about some of our most beloved heads of state. Some of the stories, at the time, made interesting headlines in the newspapers and juicy gossip behind closed doors. But in the end, the presidents were unscathed.

Take Grover Cleveland, for instance, the 22nd and 24th president. A scandal ensued during his first presidential campaign when it was revealed that the bachelor politician had fathered a child out of wedlock, quite possibly with a prostitute or at the very least, a woman with loose morals.

Right-wing Christian preachers ran with it, portraying Cleveland as a sexual predator who carouses at night and warning that no woman was safe. At campaign events, Republicans would stand in the audience and scream, “Ma, Ma, where's my pa?” After he won, Democrats are said to have added the line, “Gone to the White House, ha ha ha!”

While in office, the nearly 50-year-old president married his 21-year-old goddaughter in a relatively secret ceremony. Cleveland had helped raise the girl after her father, his best friend, died years before. If it hurt him, it was short-lived. Cleveland won the popular vote in his bid for re-election but lost the Electoral College. Four years later, he was elected again, the only president to hold two nonconsecutive terms in office.

According to Watson, Woodrow Wilson’s affair with Clara Peck during his marriage was so well-known that critics called him “Mrs. Peck’s bad boy.” The two often traveled together and stayed at her place in Bermuda, but that didn’t derail his first presidential bid. When his wife died, Wilson began having a very public affair with Edith Galt, whom he ended up marrying more quickly than many thought was appropriate for a man in mourning.

While married to Mamie, Dwight Eisenhower allegedly had an affair with Kay Summersby, his British driver during World War II. It did nothing to tarnish the conservative politician’s image as an ideal family man and father figure, according to Watson. Franklin D. Roosevelt is known to have had multiple mistresses while married to Eleanor, Watson said. Yet he was elected and re-elected four times. And like Kennedy, his successor, Lyndon B. Johnson, also was known for excessive womanizing.

No one would be shocked if Daniels’ allegations about Trump turned out to be true, either. What’s shameful, though, is how easily we allow ourselves to be distracted by chatter that doesn’t really matter.




Despite this columnist's clear partisan desire to remove Trump by any means from office as president (and undermining any pretense of her being a detached objective journalist) she does acknowledge that many presidents of both parties have had public or barely hidden extramarital affairs while in the White House. That Trump is far from the worst transgressor.

And that even if Trump had an affair with Stormy Daniels, it's not an unprecedented or impeachable offense.


Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Wed Apr 11 2018 09:49 AM
Re: Stormy weather


TIME magazine expresses a similar opinion:

WHAT AMERICANS THINK ABOUT PRESIDENTAL SEX SCANDALS


 Quote:

By Olivia B. Waxman
Updated: March 23, 2018 5:55 PM ET



When Stephanie Clifford appears on CBS’ 60 Minutes on Sunday, the woman known in her porn career as Stormy Daniels, will be adding a chapter to a very long history of the American public’s fascination with Presidents’ private lives.

Clifford is not the only woman who says she had an affair with President Donald Trump before he took the office — Anderson Cooper recently interviewed former Playboy model Karen McDougal about something similar — but this story is much older than just a decade or so. In some ways, it goes back more than 200 years.

For about as long as the country has existed, the public and the press have imposed few consequences on Presidents for what they do behind closed doors, even when those actions become public, as long as those actions don’t affect the rest of the government. What has changed is the perception of when that line gets crossed.


EARLY SCANDALS

In the nation’s earliest years, newspapers were associated with political parties, so accusations of infidelity were often brought up to slam political opponents but dismissed by loyalists. “The golden age of America’s founding was also the gutter age of American reporting,” as pundit Eric Burns put it in his book Infamous Scribblers: The Founding Fathers and the Rowdy Beginnings of American Journalism.

The most notorious scandalmonger of that period was James Callender, a Federalist newspaper editor, who, for example, spread stories of Thomas Jefferson’s fathering children with Sally Hemings, a woman enslaved at his estate, and also making a move on the wife of his good friend from college.
Of the latter accusation, Jefferson wrote in a July 1, 1805, letter to his Secretary of the Navy Robert Smith, “I plead guilty to one of their charges, that when young & single I offered love to a handsome lady. I acknowlege its incorrectness; it is the only one, founded in truth among all their allegations against me.” (However, Monticello, the museum at the site of his former home, now acknowledges that the charge about Hemings is true too.)

But such claims about Jefferson didn’t seriously damage his career. The times when personal stories like those did make a difference was when there was concern over whether public figures’ personal lives affected their jobs.

The most famous political sex scandal Callender revealed was the extramarital affair that Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton — who wasn’t president, but proves the point — had with Maria Reynolds between 1791 and 1792, details of which Callender published in his anthology The History of the United States for 1796.
In that case, it wasn’t the affair that was controversial so much as the concern that Hamilton may have used federal funds to pay hush money to her husband. In a 1797 pamphlet, he attempted to set the record straight, clarifying that while the affair was shady, he didn’t do anything illegal.

Historian David Eisenbach, an author of One Nation Under Sex: How the Private Lives of Presidents, First Ladies and Their Lovers Changed the Course of American History, argues that examining presidents’ personal lives was also a way to judge “how someone would behave in office,” in the absence of other information about their character: “In European countries, politicians came from distinguished families, but in America, you didn’t have the old families to rely upon.”

This was particularly true for candidates who came from humble backgrounds, such as Andrew Jackson. During his rise to power, the media drew conclusions about his fitness for office from speculation on the legality of his marriage. During the 1828 election, John Quincy Adams’ campaign is said to have helped spread speculation about whether he and his wife eloped while she was still married to her first husband, in an attempt to prove that Jackson lacked a moral compass. First-Lady-elect Rachel Jackson died shortly before Jackson’s inauguration, and it’s believed that her stress over the public dissection of their marriage had exacerbated her ailments.

But, again, the charges against Jackson’s marriage didn’t actually keep him from office — and in some cases such uproar could actually help.

For example, Grover Cleveland is believed to have won the 1884 presidential election in part because of the grace under pressure he exhibited after a Buffalo newspaper revealed that he had fathered a child out of wedlock. The story was made famous by a Sep. 27, 1884, editorial cartoon published about a month before Election Day, which gave rise to the “Ma, Ma, Where’s My Pa?” chant at rallies for his opponent James Blaine. But he was above-board about the issue, and ordered party leaders to tell the truth, including about the child support that he paid. The decision reflected well on him, and he became President.


TURNING A BLIND EYE

The period around the turn of the 20th century marked a major change in journalism, as it became professionalized — with trade organizations and professional schools — and, in many cases, divorced from outright association with a political party. As part of that reform, journalists backed off their scrutiny of presidents’ personal lives.

In fact, one of Warren Harding’s mistresses couldn’t even find anyone to publish her tell-all about her sexual relationship. It was after his death that Nan Britton published The President’s Daughter, which is considered one of the first graphic tell-all political memoirs. As the title suggests, she claimed she gave birth to a child that was his in 1919 — a claim that DNA testing appeared to confirm in 2015. Evidence of the affair was in a trove of explicit letters that a historian found in the early ’60s. His family, however, successfully sued to keep them sealed until 2014.

The press likewise stayed away from President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s relationship with Lucy Mercer, Eleanor Roosevelt’s social secretary.
And President John F. Kennedy was spared scrutiny of his trysts, too — or rather his “extracurricular screwing around” as Ben Bradlee, the Washington Post editor of Pentagon Papers fame, once put it.

The reasons for keeping a lid on presidents’ personal lives were many. For one thing, some of the predominantly male political journalists could be seen as hypocrites if they made a big deal out of presidents’ affairs.

“Many of the men in the White House press corps were carrying on dalliances of their own, so if they went public with the President, there would be blowback, and their wives would find out,” says Barbara Perry, the Director of Presidential Studies at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center of Public Affairs, who spoke to TIME as part of a new presidential-history partnership between TIME History and the Miller Center.


But it’s significant to note that — perhaps not coincidentally, given the lives of those shaping the media narrative — those dalliances weren’t generally seen as affecting the public at all. They were secret, but also trivial.

The writer Marvin Kalb once recalled a night in 1963 when he was covering one of President Kennedy’s New York visits for CBS, and was tackled by a Secret Service agent right outside an entrance to Kennedy’s private elevator at the Carlyle Hotel. While on the floor, he looked up and caught a glimpse of a woman going into the private elevator. He did not even consider pursuing the story. “In those days, the possibility of a presidential affair, while titillating, was not considered ‘news’ by the mainstream press — not when the Cuban missile crisis was still a fresh and frightening memory of the nuclear dangers of the Cold War, not when racial tensions were again clawing at the soul of the nation,” he wrote.

The moral panic of the 19th century had faded, and concerns about the possibility of harassment had not yet come up on a major scale. So the affairs stayed secret — even when, in some cases, they did have implications for government or security.
For example, though one of Harding’s mistresses couldn’t find a publisher, it was later revealed that the Republican National Committee had to pay hush money to another mistress of his.


THE PUBLIC SHOULD KNOW

In the late 20th century, things changed again. In 1969, after Teddy Kennedy drove a car into the water off Chappaquiddick, leading to the death of his passenger Mary Jo Kopechne, a TIME essay posited that the public was asking about what public figures did in their private lives because those figures had gotten more powerful, so it mattered more. In general, that was true — the office of the President became more powerful in the 20th century than it had previously been — but perhaps the bigger change was in the perception of what truly qualified as private. The things that were secret were no longer seen as quite so meaningless to politics.

That difference was thrown into relief in 1987, when Colorado Senator Gary Hart was the frontrunner for the 1988 Democratic presidential nomination. He told New York Times reporter E.J. Dionne that he didn’t care if people followed him around, and that anyone who did so would be very bored. So the Miami Herald staked out his Washington townhouse until they got a photo of Hart with Donna Rice, a 29-year-old Miami model who was not his wife. Two days after refusing to answer a Washington Post reporter’s question, “Have you ever committed adultery?” at a televised press conference, he suspended his campaign.

TIME’s cover story on Hart’s fall from grace cited the Herald’s stakeout as “a watershed moment in political journalism.” It wasn’t just a matter of public willingness to talk about sex or the fact that Hart had been caught in hypocrisy, the story pointed out: “[With] the changing status of women, society has grown less tolerant of the macho dalliances of married men.” (It’s worth remembering, as TIME pointed out in that 1969 essay, that when scandal helped bolster Cleveland, women couldn’t even vote.)

That shifting line — the shared feeling that it doesn’t necessarily matter what the President does in private, but that some things that seem private really aren’t — is also illustrated by what is probably the 20th century’s most famous White House sex scandal: President Bill Clinton’s affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

With Clinton, it wasn’t the affair itself but rather the attempt to cover it up that would lead to his impeachment, points out political scientist Alison Dagnes, co-editor of Sex Scandals in American Politics. Clinton’s job approval ratings remained consistently high during the scandal, suggesting that the public didn’t think it was affecting the way he did his job. “People felt good about where they were and where America was in the world and gave Clinton credit for that,” Perry explains.

It has been more recently, as public conversations about sex in the workplace have evolved, that some have come to rethink the implication of a relationship between a President and an intern, and the power dynamics entailed.

Throughout, from Jefferson to Clinton, the takeaway is the same: when the public thinks that the President’s private life will get in the way of governing — whether as a matter of 19th-century morals or 20th-century gender dynamics — such a scandal can truly damage a presidency. If there’s no perception that an affair or similar scandal will impact the government, historically the political fallout has been minor. The real change has been that what people do in private has once again, over the last few decades, come to be seen as relevant to a person’s fitness to lead.


SO WHAT DOES THAT MEAN FOR TRUMP?

He may actually benefit from the fact that — given that a range of sexual misconduct allegations already surfaced during his campaign, and just this past week a judge ruled that Apprentice contestant Summer Zervos, who claims that Trump groped her, can move forward with her defamation suit — claims of consensual affairs may not change public opinion in any significant way, though that could change if campaign-funding laws get drawn in.

“There is a genius in Trump’s run for the presidency in that he starts with the premise that all politicians are crooked, and I’m not one, so you don’t need to judge me the way you judge politicians,” Perry points out.

Historian Thomas A. Foster, author of Sex and The Founding Fathers, suggests looking not at what the President does but how his actions compare to his reputation. Shock and hypocrisy, he argues, are more damaging than adultery. Trump — who has owned beauty pageants and has been married three times — built his brand partially on his virility and what Foster calls an emphasis on “conquests.” Now it remains to be seen how he will conquer these most recent allegations.




Which again, if you've read TIME lately, is the opinion of a rabidly liberal Hillary Clinton voting journalist. But still says, no big deal.





Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Wed Apr 11 2018 10:29 PM
Re: Stormy weather

I think it was pretty much established that adultery isn't an impeachable offense. The crimes committed to cover it up however might be a different matter. Better than impeachment is this dragging on and the Trump people having to get further in the gutter with their guy.

Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Thu Apr 12 2018 08:25 AM
Re: Stormy weather

 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
I think it was pretty much established that adultery isn't an impeachable offense. The crimes committed to cover it up however might be a different matter. Better than impeachment is this dragging on and the Trump people having to get further in the gutter with their guy.



There is still only the slightest whiff of a potential scandal with Trump over Stormy Daniels. At this point, it's still just a guy who (if all is believed) stepped out on his wife once to sleep with a porn star. And after the fact, his lawyer paid her $130,000 for a non-disclosure agreement to not publicly discuss it.

As I pointed out previously JFK slept with women who compromised national security. The one in 1941 was a German spy he discussed/bragged about top secret U.S. Navy information in bed with. Officers wanted to throw him out of the Navy and put him up on charges. But because of his family influence (his father Joseph Kennedy at roughly the time was U.S. ambassador to Britain, and later turned out to be a Nazi sympathizer, which ended his political career.)
There were (as I cited above) two other women involved with JFK, call girls, who were connected to high level German and Czech communist officials, the exposure of JFK liasons would have instantly ended his candidacy and his presidency.
In at least one case (as I cited above) the girl was paid cash for her silence.

What is alleged about Trump, if all were true, still doesn't come anywhere near that level of payoff, scandal, and national endangermant.

And Wilson. And Harding. And FDR, Eisenhower, LBJ, and Bush Sr., at the very least.
And of course, Clinton.

But --of course!-- you give a free pass to all these and hold Trump to a standard you would never hold any of these Democrats to. Because it isn't about right or wrong for you, or justice, it's just about whatever contrivance would allow your party to drive Trump out of office.

Meanwhile, there is a heap of evidence against Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and the wider DNC that no one in DOJ or FBI will even investigate. Even though there is clearly infinitely more there about Hillary and the DNC, than there is about Trump's one night dalliance with a porn star.
Not only do I think Hillary Clinton should be prosecuted (and Bill Clinton for his illicit meeting on the tarmac with Loretta Lynch to secure wife Hillary's dismissal of charges to let her run for president), but all the players I mentioned like James Comey, Rod Rosenstein, and Peter Strzok who falsified evidence and obstructed investigation of the REAL criminals, should also be prosecuted, for weaponizing law enforcement against the rival Republican party.



Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Thu Apr 12 2018 07:22 PM
Re: Stormy weather

There's more than a whiff WB. You left a lot out and focused on other people. That is you giving your guy a pass. Your basic pattern these days that also includes attacking any entity besides the usual dem party.

Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Fri Apr 13 2018 08:56 PM
Re: Stormy weather



No, it's not "giving [my] guy a pass."

It's a stretch by the DNC and Meuller investigation to tie this to Trump's campaign. It was 11 years before his campaign even began. And there are no ties to the Trump campaign beyond the ones you (and the Demeocrats and their allies in the media) are trying to imply.

If you've got facts, please state them. All I see is deceitful innuendo.


Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Fri Apr 13 2018 08:59 PM
Re: Stormy weather



 Quote:
you give a free pass to all these and hold Trump to a standard you would never hold any of these Democrats to. Because it isn't about right or wrong for you, or justice, it's just about whatever contrivance would allow your party to drive Trump out of office.


Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Fri Apr 13 2018 09:10 PM
Re: Stormy weather

Trump's fixer has been under investigation for months

Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Sat Apr 14 2018 07:00 AM
Re: Stormy weather

Washington Post = liberal media = "destroy Trump" media


The liberal media (New York Times, Washington Post, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, MSNBC, CNN... ) have reported countless stories to hurt Trump's ability to govern, and to tear down his popular support.

And on further examination, have proven to be false.

But in their eagerness to tear down Trump, they continue to report them, with inadequate sources, or "anonymous sources", that I and many others believe don't actually exist, just made up by a media that is eager to publish any narrative that will hurt Trump.







Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Sat Apr 14 2018 07:14 AM
Re: Stormy weather



And Trump's own top 10 list for 2017 of false reports by the media regarding President Trump:

https://www.vox.com/2018/1/17/16871430/trumps-fake-news-awards-annotated


Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Sat Apr 14 2018 07:30 AM
Re: Stormy weather



THE MEDIA ARE KILLING THEMSELVES WITH BOTCHED ANTI-TRUMP REPORTING


 Quote:

By David Harsanyi
December 15, 2017

Our record as journalists in covering this Trump story and the Russian story is pretty good,” legendary reporter Carl Bernstein recently claimed. Pretty good? If there’s a major news story over the past 70 years that the American media have botched more often because of bias and wishful thinking, I’d love to hear about it.

Four big scoops recently run by major news organizations, written by top reporters and, presumably, churned through layers of scrupulous editing, turned out to be completely wrong.

Reuters, Bloomberg and others reported that special counsel Robert Mueller’s office had subpoenaed President Trump’s records from Deutsche Bank. Trump’s attorney says it hadn’t.

ABC reported that candidate Trump had directed Michael Flynn to make contact with Russian officials before the election. He didn’t (as far as we know). The New York Times ran a story claiming that K.T. McFarland, a former member of the Trump transition team, had acknowledged collusion. She hadn’t.

Then, CNN topped off the week by falsely reporting that the Trump campaign had been offered access to hacked Democratic National Committee e-mails before they were published. It had not.

Forget your routine bias. These were four bombshells disseminated to millions of Americans by breathless anchors, pundits and analysts, all of whom are feeding frenzied expectations about Trump-Russia collusion that have now been internalized by many as indisputable truths. All four pieces, incidentally, are useless without their central faulty claims. Yet there they sit. And these are only four of dozens of other stories that have fizzled over the year.

If we are to accept the special pleadings of journalists, we have to believe these were all honest mistakes. They may be. But a person might then ask: Why is it that every one of the dozens of honest mistakes is prejudiced in the very same way? Why hasn’t there been a single major honest mistake that diminishes the Trump-Russia collusion story? Why is there never an honest mistake that indicts Democrats?

Maybe the problem is that too many people are working backward from a preconception. Maybe newsrooms have too many people who view the world through an identical prism — which is to say they believe he stole the election with the help of Russians.

For instance, the CNN reporters who wrote the DNC story contend they had two sources who told them Donald Trump Jr. was offered encryption codes to look at hacked DNC emails. They both must have lied to them about the same date on the same e-mail. CNN says that the duo followed “editorial process” in reporting the piece. This brings three lines of questioning to mind.

First: Do news organizations typically run stories about documents they’ve never authenticated? Can they point to a single story about the Obama administration CNN has written using a similar process?

Second: Why would two independent sources lie about a date on the e-mail to Trump Jr. if they didn’t want to mislead the public? And how independent could they really be? How many stories regarding the Russian-collusion investigation has CNN run from these same sources?

Three: If sources lie to you, why not burn them? There may be good reasons to avoid exposing a dishonest source. Perhaps it will scare away legitimate whistleblowers. Perhaps reporters want to preserve relationships with those in power — because they may help on other stories in the future. At the end of the day, you’re in contest for information.

But these people have put the reporters’ reputation, even their jobs, in danger. Moreover, they have engaged in a serious abuse of the public trust and an abuse of power.

Who knows how many of these mistakes, spread over numerous outlets, came from the same sources? This seems newsworthy.

When honest mistakes are found, the reflex of many journalists has been portraying themselves as sentinels of free speech and democracy. Often they will attempt to do this by contrasting their track record on truth with that of Donald Trump. Yes, Trump is a fabulist. And maybe one day Robert Mueller will inform us that the administration colluded with Russia.

What it has not done up to this point, however, is undermine the ability of the press to report stories accurately. Trump didn’t make your activist source lie.

The fact that many political journalists (not all) have a political agenda is not new, but if they become a proxy of operatives who peddle falsehoods, they will soon lose credibility with an even bigger swath of the country. They will have themselves to blame.


I've included in the above articles and links many other liberal media outlets than the Washington Post. But that's precisely the point. While WP is biased, they are part of a brethren that are overwhelmingly liberal (at least 80% in every poll where reporters self-identify as "liberal" or "very liberal" for at least 50 years at a ratio of 80% or more, and only 7% identify as conservative. And that has increased in recent years, so that identifying as conservative in newsrooms could be a career-ender.

Likewise among those working in Hollywood movies and television entertainment, among teachers, and among university professors, that are similarly (and rabidly) 80 to 90% liberal.

As I've cited the statistical numbers for on many occasions.


Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Sat Apr 14 2018 07:37 AM
Re: Stormy weather



In particular:

https://ricochet.com/archives/political-views-of-journalists-my-feud-with-eric-alterman-part-2/


And as Bernard Golberg cited in his 2002 book BIAS on the manipulation of news by liberal reporters, at the time of the 1984 election, there were 10 White House correspondents at the time of the election. When polled TEN OF TEN voted for Mondale!
It was a 49-state electoral landslide for Ronald Reagan, and Reagan got an overwhelming 59% of the vote. But not a single reporter voted for Reagan. A clear manifestation of how out of touch with the mainstream reporters are from the rest of America.

You may also recall that the media didn't like Reagan either.
Any more than they like Donald Trump.
In either case, they bend over backwards not to report his achievements, while slandering him to the hilt.


Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Sat Apr 14 2018 08:14 AM
Re: Stormy weather

You might consider that an adulter who has a fixer just may not be the fountains of truth here. It's not the media's job to be a propaganda farm for your party.

Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Sat Apr 14 2018 08:16 AM
Re: Stormy weather

RNC fundraiser resigns after report of 1.6 million payout
1.6 million is apparently the price these days to cover up an affair and abort the baby in Trumpland


Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Sat Apr 14 2018 08:30 AM
Re: Stormy weather



AGAIN, M E M: You hold Trump to a standard you have never held other political players to, especially Democrats.

The Clintons have used a number of operatives to intimidate, slilence or buy off those who would expose them. Many of Bill Clinton's sexual accusers attest to this, including Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willie, and Paula Jones. Clinton's operatives are even alleged to have gone as far as murder in the zeal to exonerate the Clintons. Many journalists and other witnesses who were imminently to have published or made statements, have oddly committed suicide on the eve of their coming forward.
I've linked the "Clinton body count" at least once before here.

The Kennedy family in the elections of JFK and RFK unquestionably rigged elections with the cooperation of the mafia, as orchestrated by patriarch Joseph Kennedy.

LBJ as well is known to have had people killed, in addition to his extramarital liasons and other corrupt actions.


So you hold Trump up for scorn for far less than that, even if all allegations against Trump were true. But the fact is, it's a witch hunt, at this point only kept alive by slanderous allegations. That's all you, MediaMatters, the DNC and the liberal media really have.


Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Sat Apr 14 2018 08:42 AM
Re: Stormy weather

Wow, what do you think your standard looks like these days? Do you think it's time Trump stopped calling his lawyer/fixer a good man and fire him?

Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Sat Apr 14 2018 08:45 AM
Re: Stormy weather

 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
You might consider that an adulter who has a fixer just may not be the fountains of truth here. It's not the media's job to be a propaganda farm for your party.


 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
RNC fundraiser resigns after report of 1.6 million payout
1.6 million is apparently the price these days to cover up an affair and abort the baby in Trumpland


You're again engaging in vague association and innuendo and not clear statements of what you are implying.

So what? A RNC fundraiser named Broidy resigns because he had a sexual scandal that allegedy got a Playboy model pregnant (unproven). So what?
Broidy is not Trump.
Any more than Manafort or Flynn or Steve Bannon are Trump. Their stated views, personal lives, and questionable acts are not Trump's. But in the zeal of the special investigation to smear Trump with anything they can, these men have been attacked and in some cases charged for things that preceded their relationship with Trump, and have absolutely nothing to do with Trump, beyond slander by association.

And as I pointed out, you selectively call Trump an "adulterer", while you turn a blind eye to far greater PROVEN adulterers, AND SEXUAL HARASSERS, ASSAULTERS, AND RAPISTS in your own party. As I've cited aabundantly above. In some cases ACTUALLY paying hush money to Communist and Nazi spy mistresses who endangered national security, as opposed to Trump where, if true, at worst he had a one-night fling with a porn star.


Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Sat Apr 14 2018 08:52 AM
Re: Stormy weather

Trump's lawyer was the one who brokered the deal for Trump's appointee. Is it acceptable for you for a President to have a fixer like Cohen?

Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Sat Apr 14 2018 08:56 AM
Re: Stormy weather

 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Wow, what do you think your standard looks like these days? Do you think it's time Trump stopped calling his lawyer/fixer a good man and fire him?


The standard remains the same, despite your evasive and vague slanders:

The charges against Trump remain UNPROVEN. You make the mere allegations against Trump (Russia collusion narrative gone, now desperately clawing for a Stormy Daniels allegation) sound worse than the sexual liasons, and payoffs and thuggery to hide it of prominent Democrat presidents across the entire last century have ACUALLY DONE. And far WORSE than the worst allegations against Trump. These illicit actions by Democrat leaders you give a free pass to, even as you convict Trump without a trial, or even a lucid charge.

Do we condemn every innocent man without even a formal charge?
Or only Republicans who stand in the way of Cultural Marxist revolutionary Democrats?
Your slanders are not about the rule of law, they are about deceit and circumnavigation, to overturn a 2016 election where your candidate lost.


Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Sat Apr 14 2018 09:04 AM
Re: Stormy weather





The political coup against Trump is "Plan B" for the globalist/Marxist elites that failed despite every attempt by Frau Hitlery and her backers to rig the Nov 2016 election.


Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Sat Apr 14 2018 09:13 AM
Re: Stormy weather

 Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy



What everyone knows is that there was more than enough evidence to do a similar raid of Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, and DOJ/FBI did NOT.

Further the FBI and DOJ just sat on their hands while Hillary Clinton and her subordinates deleted 33,000 self-incriminating e-mails, and bleachbitted the hard-drives of their computers, and smashed all Frau Hitlery's cel phones to eliminate the incriminating messages and email on those. All >>>>AFTER<<<< they were subpoenaed as evidence. The FBI even gave them permission to destroy much of the remaining evidence. Some cel phones were turned over with the SIM cards (i.e., the memory cards) removed, rendered useless as evidence. These people destroyed evidence, and yet no aggressive raids by DOJ and FBI.

The FBI and DOJ also gave Mills and Abedin immunity, in exchange for exactly no information.
Contrast that destruction of overwhelming evidence and clear crimes (selling State Department influence in exchange for hundreds of millions in foreign donations to the Clinton foundation, for openers), to the piddly offenses DOJ and FBI are raiding Trump on with what legal scholar Alan Deshowitz describes as "extreme aggression". Was there really any evidence that Cohen would have destroyed evidence he never had a clue DOJ and FBI would aggressively raid?




Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Sat Apr 14 2018 09:19 AM
Re: Stormy weather

Making hysterical partisan accusations isn't going to help your guy WB. I think it's pretty obvious Trump had his lawyer pay out hush money fearing that it might have cost him the election. If the evidence bares that out than no free pass for any crimes that he committed. Sounds fair correct?

Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Sat Apr 14 2018 09:26 AM
Re: Stormy weather

An examination of the voter registration records of the 16 publicly confirmed lawyers on Mueller's team found that 13 of them are registered Democrats. Not a single one is a registered Republican.


 Quote:
From the first days Special Counsel Robert Mueller began to assemble his investigative team to try to get to the bottom of that ever-elusive, Democrat-driven Trump-Russia "collusion" narrative, reports about political bias among his staff began to emerge. When details about former team member Peter Strzok's overt antipathy for Trump hit the headlines, allegations of bias among the intelligence community ratcheted up.

A new study by The Daily Caller throws more fuel on the fire of the anti-Trump bias allegations. TheDC looked into the political affiliations among those tasked with supposedly giving us a fair investigation about the Russia allegations — and found nothing close to bipartisan balance.

An examination of the voter registration records of the 16 publicly confirmed lawyers on Mueller's team found that 13 of them are registered Democrats. Not a single one is a registered Republican. Three have no party affiliation.

TheDC notes that one of the currently unaffiliated attorneys, Zainab Ahmad, was once registered as a Republican, but that was back at age 18. As for the political affiliation of the still unidentified 17th attorney on the team, who knows, but the percentages aren't stacked in the GOP's favor.

While previous reports revealed that 9 of the known 16 had donated over $60,000 to Democrats, TheDC's study found that in fact 11 have made donations, some of which were not in FEC records. Previous reports found that one of the nine who donated to Democrats also donated a few thousand to Republicans.

While his team is overwhelmingly Democratic, Mueller himself is a registered Republican.

Read the full report HERE



I'm sure that Democrat-heavy ratio, including lawyers who worked for the Clinton Foundation suppressing FOIA requests, has absolutely nothing to do with their extreme reluctance and destruction of evidence that would result in charges against Clinton operatives, and the extreme eagerness to prosecute Trump officials, on whatever unconstitutional raid or perjury trap can be manufactured.

Total coincidence!



Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Sat Apr 14 2018 09:30 AM
Re: Stormy weather

So?

Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Sat Apr 14 2018 09:36 AM
Re: Stormy weather

You're joking. The evidence of Democrat corruption is overwhelming, of both the investigation, and of the process itself.

A complete double standard, corrupt to the core. A Soviet-style investigation, where the innocence or guilt is predetermined,, before any piece of evidence is even looked at. An investigation conducted by the Party, for the Party, without the slightest consideration of facts or actual justice.


Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Sat Apr 14 2018 09:44 AM
Re: Stormy weather

Lol, it's funny after your previous posts. Clearly your the one with the double standard. The guy in charge as noted is a republican btw. One that republicans liked till he was put in charge of the investigation.

Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Sat Apr 14 2018 10:19 AM
Re: Stormy weather



Meuller is a Republican in name only.
Of 16 people on his legal Special Investigation team 13 are registered Democrats, 11 are donors to Democrat campaigns, several to the limit of what they can legally donate. Jeannie Rhee, as I said worked for the Clinton Foundation, and her job was to suppress FOIA requests for foundation records. The exact opposite side of the SAME ORGANIZATION she was/is investigating now. Hiring the fox to guard the henhouse.
I suspect Meuller is registered as a Republican to give the appearance of neutrality, to hide his true politics. No true Republican would overwhelmingly fill his investigative team with such blatantly Democrat operatives. But he is a Deep State/Democrat/Globalist operative. Hand-picked by Rosenstein for the job (ANOTHER Deep State/Democrat/globalist operative).

In the general population, what percentage of people ever donate to a political campaign? I would guess less than 10 percent.
And how many donate $100 or more? A tiny fraction of that 10 percent.
To donate $100 or more, or THOUSANDS in many cases, manifests a strong Democrat partisan bias.

And yet... on Meuller's special investigation, they are the overwhelming majority of his legal team.
Maybe Meuller didn't know in advance about their donations. He knows now. Did he force them to recuse, replace them with more visibly neutral attorneys?
NO!
Not a single one.
The Meuller investigation team is corrupted just on that basis. No matter what the final report, it will never be trusted as honest and neutral by 50% of the American public.


Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Sat Apr 14 2018 10:24 AM
Re: Stormy weather

 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Lol, it's funny after your previous posts. Clearly your the one with the double standard. The guy in charge as noted is a republican btw. One that republicans liked till he was put in charge of the investigation.



You cite no specifics, more vague innuendo, with nothing to back it up. I cited my evidence of Democrat bias and corruption.

And Sean Hannity has multiple times gone through the "impeccable" record of Meuller that "Republicans liked". Let's start with "It'll be a slam dunk", the opinion Meuller gave President Bush on the evidence and ease for invading Iraq in 2003. Do you really believe most Republicans respect that as a professional decision by Meuller that they like and respect? Far from it, Meuller has a record of corruption incompetence.
As does Weissman.
As does Rosenstein.


Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Sat Apr 14 2018 10:36 AM
Re: Stormy weather

You allege corruption based on party affiliations and when it's a republican it doesn't count because you say it's in name only. Seems very partisan of you. Thank goodness that type of partisan rationalizing doesn't excuse Trump from any crimes he may have committed. It doesn't matter if the evidence is there if it's presented by law abiding democrats lead by a republican who you call a rhino because he's doing his job.

Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Sat Apr 14 2018 11:31 AM
Re: Stormy weather

 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
You allege corruption based on party affiliations and when it's a republican it doesn't count because you say it's in name only. Seems very partisan of you. Thank goodness that type of partisan rationalizing doesn't excuse Trump from any crimes he may have committed. It doesn't matter if the evidence is there if it's presented by law abiding democrats lead by a republican who you call a rhino because he's doing his job.


You haven't proven ONE situation with a Republican to back up your allegations. Not one.

I've demonstrated multiple examples of Democrats who have had extramarital sexual affairs (FDR, LBJ, JFK, Bill Clinton...) where they have unquestionably covered it up, made bribes, rigged elections, used thug intimidation.

If you are going to take a holier-than-thou stance that "your guy" Donald Trump is a "piece of shit" for ALLEGEDLY doing what YOUR guys the Democrats ACTUALLY DID, you might want to acknowledge that what Trump did (if he did it) is not a unique circumstance, and that your side has done it, and far worse MANY, MANY TIMES!

Rigging elections.
Having people killed.
Sexual affairs.
Financial payoffs to hide the affairs.
Sexual harassment, sexual assault and rape, not consensual.
Endangering national security with those affairs.

If it ever penetrates your thick head, those collective offenses that Democrats did, are FAR WORSE than what is alleged about Trump. Even if everything alleged about Trump is actually true, it still pales beside the far worse things done by Democrat presidents. And the allegations against Trump are far from proven.
I'm not nominating Donald Trump for sainthood. But your singular animus toward Trump is illogical and selectively ignores the known facts. And the suppression of prosecution of Bill and Hillary Clinton and their inner circle manifests that they are the absolute worst of the bunch. These (the Clintons, and their Deep State operatives across the FBI, DOJ, State Dept, CIA and NSA) are people who weaponized the IRS and intelligence organizations to monitor, and now destroy, their political opposition.

That is not just banging a pornstar for one night, or even paying her off, in the worst scenario.
These Deep State/Democrat players endanger the nation, and would weaponize government not only against Trump, but clearly against anyone who get in their way. I'm daily grateful the Saul Alinsky disciple and cultural marxist revolutionary Hillary Rodham Clinton is not president. We dodged a bullet on election day, whether you realize it or not.


Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Sat Apr 14 2018 01:41 PM
Re: Stormy weather

I actually think people like yourself are the threat. I believe Trump should be held to the same standard of law that other Presidents are. If republicans are acting within the law ethically it doesn't absolve a dem that is being investigated. You quite clearly have a partisan standard where the bar is different depending on the party. If Trump's lawyer/fixer just decided to start paying money for Trump's whoring around years after they happen without Trump asking him to do it you have nothing to worry about.

LOL


Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Sat Apr 14 2018 01:59 PM
Re: Stormy weather

But YOU don't hold Democrats to the same standard you hold Trump!

I've said over and over that while not proven, I think Trump had sex with Stormy Daniels, and have no problem accepting that if it turns out to be proven. I'll accept evidence that's proven in the hypothetical that Trump is proven to have violated campaign laws to have paid Stormy Daniels.
(Although I have a hard time accepting that as fact, given the overwhelming bias, as I previously quoted Rep Trey Gowdy: "More than bias, ANIMUS!" of those at DOJ and FBI whose own self-incriminating words and texts reveal that animus. )

But it enrages me when there is so much more evidence against Hillary Clinton, and no one at DOJ or FBI even wants to investigate it.
Selective pursuit of justice. Fanatical pursuit of Trump, a free pass for Hillary Clinton.

I have no problem with equal justice under the law, M E M.
It is you and other Democrats who endorse what is likely the most blatant case of selective justice this country has ever seen.

If you endorsed investigating Hillary as zealously as they pursue investigating Trump, I could respect your POV. The fact that you dementedly condone the suppression of a Clinton investigation by Hillary Deep State operatives in the DOJ, FBI and CIA, and the abuses Obama and Dems got away doing the same with the IRS 6 years ago, makes me want to vomit.

Again:

The Clinton Foundation taking hundreds of millions in bribes from foreign companies and governments in exchange for access to State Department officials.
Fusion GPS, selling 20% of the U.S. uranium supply to Russia through a Canadian front company.
33,000 deleted e-mails, deleted AFTER they were subpoenaed.
Peter Strzok and Lisa Page in multiple text conversations, revealing their plans to rig the investigation, hide evidence, plot an "insurance policy" against Trump being president, and openly plotting a secret meeting with FISA judge Rudolf Contreras to be hidden inside an informal dinner party to meet ex parte to rig the warrant request.

Plus many more blatant crimes warranting investigation. Overwhelming evidence that DOJ and FBI astonishingly won't even look at. Just coincidentally, revealed e-mails, texts, and public comments reveal them to be Democrat loyalists openly plotting that suppression of Clinton investigation.
But as a Democrat, you endorse any twisting of the law and selective prosecution that serves Democrats and hurts Republicans. Yet you lyingly accuse ME of holding that view in reverse, despite that I have only criticized selective prosecutorial bias. Unlike you, I advocate equal protection under the law, not weaponizing DOJ and FBI in service of one party, and giving a free pass to Hillary Clinton and her Deep State agents.


Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Sat Apr 14 2018 02:17 PM
Re: Stormy weather

More free passes for your guy, lol. You can certainly accuse Clinton/Dems/republicans that don't do Trump's talking points, of everything you want but that really is only a distraction for you. The FBI didn't raid her lawyer's office.

Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Sat Apr 14 2018 02:25 PM
Re: Stormy weather

There is also a part of this story where the media actually played an active part paying another woman besides Stormy money for her story and not reporting it. I know how you feel about the media WB and I'm sure this type of media acting as an active accomplice for a politician must be upsetting for you. Or is it okay for the Enquirer to make hush payments for Trump?

Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Sat Apr 14 2018 02:36 PM
Re: Stormy weather

 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
More free passes for your guy, lol. You can certainly accuse Clinton/Dems/republicans that don't do Trump's talking points, of everything you want but that really is only a distraction for you. The FBI didn't raid her lawyer's office.


God, M E M, you are SUCH a liar!

The evidence is ALL on my side, of Comey, Strzok, Page, Weissman, and McCabe all suppressing investigation, while simultaneously in revealed e-mails, text messages and in Weissman's case, publicly attending Hillary's election party, and publicly on Facebook praising Sally Yates' defiance of Trump's order against sanctuary cities while she was briefly acting Attorney General.

Sorry these FACTS interfere with your lying narrative.
There IS Democrat bias. There IS Democrat/Deep State suppression of investigating Hillary Clinton. I've certainly linked and otherwise cited abundant examples.
And I've made clear I believe in equal justice under the law. Whereas you openly endorse Democrats manipulating the FBI and DOJ investigations to favor Democrats, and the officials within the FBI and DOJ to do so with impunity.




Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Sat Apr 14 2018 02:45 PM
Re: Stormy weather

Poor WB, you would be having a field day if Clinton had the lawyer/fixer paying out cash and being raided. I here it's a very high bar to raid a lawyer so I'm just waiting to see what comes out of that. And no comments about the Enquirer participation?

Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Sat Apr 14 2018 05:51 PM
Re: Stormy weather

 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Poor WB, you would be having a field day if Clinton had the lawyer/fixer paying out cash and being raided. I here it's a very high bar to raid a lawyer so I'm just waiting to see what comes out of that. And no comments about the Enquirer participation?


Okay, now I know you're just trolling me. No serious case on your part, just partisan taunts.

It's not a high bar when it's Republicans they are raiding. The only rationalization for such a raid would be an urgency to stop Cohen from destroying evidence.

Did Cohen destroy evidence?
No !

Did Hillary Clinton, Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin and Jennifer Palmieri destroy evidence, delete 33,000 e-mails, bleachbit hard-drives, smash cel phones, remove and destroy SIM cards from cel phones?
YES !
All the above.

And all >>>>AFTER<<< already subpoenaaed by FBI, DOJ, and Congress investigators.
The FBI and DOJ had all the evidence they needed to prosecute. But just like the IRS/Koskonin/Lois Lerner investigation several years ago, just like with Hillary right before the 2016 election, they magically made a decision to not prosecute despite all the evidence. I saw one report that when Comey made his 2016 speech of "no reasonable person would prosecute Hillary Clinton" recommending to not indict, FBI agents were angry and disgusted and started walking out on the job that day.

Citing the above, it is clear who warranted a search to prevent destruction of evidence, and who didn't. And it's not Cohen who destroyed evidence.
And the FBI's Inspector General two days ago released a report that he agrees with the FBI internal affairs dept (Office of Professional Responsibility) that McCabe was corrupt and needed to be fired. (If McAuliffe's $500,000 donation to his wife's campaign didn't make clear his allegiance to Hillary Clinton already.)
Democrats like Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and Dick Durbin all were calling for Comey's firing a year ago. Now suddenly after Trump did it (on Rosenstein's WRITTEN recommendation!) it's evil, unjust, and a criminal conspiracy.

Those are the facts, much as you'd like to pretend they don't exist. Facts that prove the corruption of Deep State pro Hillary operatives in the DOJ and FBI.

Raiding Cohen's office is, AGAIN, just a desperate attempt by the Deep State pro-Hillary crowd to manufacture a crime, since there clearly was no Trump collusion with the Russians.
But PLENTY of Hillary/DNC collusion with the Russians, that outrageously ISN'T being investigated, for partisan reasons and selective prosecution.



Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Sat Apr 14 2018 07:38 PM
Re: Stormy weather

There is a very high legal bar to do the raid they did WB.

Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Sun Apr 15 2018 08:58 AM
Re: Stormy weather

 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
There is a very high legal bar to do the raid they did WB.



That's a deception, hiding illegality under the face of legal authority. .
There certainly wasn't a "high legal bar" for the actions of Loretta Lynch cutting a deal on the airport tarmac with Bill Clinton to not indict Hillary.
Likewise, there wasn't a "high bar" when James Comey and Andrew McCabe used the Russia dossier they knew to be (in their own words) "salacious" and "unreliable" to falsify evidence to get a FISA warrant to do surveillance on Carter Page. FOUR TIMES.
There wasn't a "high bar" on display when Peter Strzok and Lisa page openly plotted to set up an "insurance policy" against a Trump presidency through their actions at the highest level of the FBI.
There wasn't a "high bar" in Strzok and Page text messages planning an ex parte meeting with FISA judge Rudolf Contreras, hidden within a casual dinner party.
And although the FISA surveillance was obtained on falsified evidence, none of the FISA judges have come forward to object or throw out the evidence, that is fruit of the poisoned tree.

At every step of the process, there has been corruption and partisan malice on display, on the part of the Democrat/Deep State operatives, in the service of their bitch queen Hillary Clinton.


Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Sun Apr 15 2018 11:02 AM
Re: Stormy weather

Despite what you say it is a very high legal bar. I would point out that you go way beyond the facts. For example assuming Bill cut some deal with Loretta. She recused herself to avoid the appearance of anything fishy. The raid on Trump's fixer required several high hurdles being met and not just within the FBI. What I take from the fact that they were able to do the raid I suspect Cohen is screwed. And given that he was running around during the election paying off women hush money for Trump it's not looking good for Spanky either.

Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Sun Apr 15 2018 11:56 AM
Re: Stormy weather

Stormy will be attending court hearing

Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Mon Apr 16 2018 08:31 AM
Re: Stormy weather

 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Despite what you say it is a very high legal bar. I would point out that you go way beyond the facts. For example assuming Bill cut some deal with Loretta. She recused herself to avoid the appearance of anything fishy. The raid on Trump's fixer required several high hurdles being met and not just within the FBI. What I take from the fact that they were able to do the raid I suspect Cohen is screwed. And given that he was running around during the election paying off women hush money for Trump it's not looking good for Spanky either.


My point in my last post is that all along, we have trusted that there was a high legal bar at every stage. And at every stage, Comey, Rosenstein, Meuller, Strzok, Page, Ohr, Yates, Lynch and the rest have AT EVERY STAGE demonstrated their ability to abuse the law to fit their own politics and self-interest.
Which further makes me highly skeptical that a "high bar" was held at this stage. It would be the first time in over a year of this witch-hunt that a high bar was actually held!

Involving the Southern District of New York, utilizing state attorney's office in a dominantly liberal state makes me wonder whether the federal Deep State operatives simply enlisted like-minded NY state Deep State Hillary-voter operatives.

I've read multiple articles, most recently in The Hill, quoting legal sources saying "Oh, for the Southern District of New York to raid Michael Cohen's office, they would have met a very high bar of evidence."
Really?
So where is it?
Why is it not publicly stated what the evidence was to make the raid? We're not talking about top secret national security issues that would endanger anyone. If there is evidence that warranted the raid, the raid has been done, so SHOW US THE EVIDENCE!

I think it entirely possible that the "high bar" was no higher than when Comey and Rosenstein submitted the false Russia Dossier as evidence to a judge, FOUR TIMES, to do FISA surveillance on Carter Page.

The same "high bar" that allowed Meuller to fill his special investigation with 13 Democrats, 11 of whom donated to the Hillary and Obama campaigns, and 9 of whom donated $100 or more, some of them thousands, in blatant partisanship for which they should recuse themselves. Some of whom worked directly legally representing the Clinton Foundation or Hillary Clinton.

We are supposed to trust that because they represent federal law enforcement they are above board and neutral and set a "high bar". But at every stage, THEY HAVE NOT.
There is absolutely no reason to trust that this time they finally did.
Show us the evidence, or it's just another deception.





Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Mon Apr 16 2018 07:04 PM
Re: Stormy weather

Well I guess we disagree. You also offer a false choice. I don't know the legalities but they obviously can have the evidence no matter your declaration that it's deception if it's not put out in the public now.

Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Mon Apr 16 2018 07:05 PM
Re: Stormy weather

Oh and I wonder what Hannity needed Cohen for that his regular lawyers couldn't handle, lol.

Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Thu Apr 19 2018 12:40 AM
Re: Stormy weather

 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Oh and I wonder what Hannity needed Cohen for that his regular lawyers couldn't handle, lol.


As Hannity has explained, he never employed Cohen as a lawyer. As Hannity explained, they are friends having lunch and talking, and Hannity would say he has this or that potential legal situation, what do you think I should do. He said he never hired or paid Cohen for anything, and that he's highly amused by the media's pouncing on the mention of his name, showing clips of CNN and MSNBC anchors mentioning him over and over, with orgasmic glee that Hannity might have done something wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMkyWp56m-I


Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Thu Apr 19 2018 12:44 AM
Re: Stormy weather


President Trump is currently at Mar a Lago in Palm Beach (about 30 minutes north of me), hosting the Prime minister of Japan.

I was amused to see that Stormy Daniels is also here in West Palm Beach at a strip club, in what she bills as her "Make America Horny Again Tour".

Amused, but not so curious as to make a trip up there to see her. I've driven up a few times to Palm Beach while Trump was in town. He's there about one weekend a month, sometimes more often.



Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Sat Apr 21 2018 11:51 AM
Re: Stormy weather

 Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Oh and I wonder what Hannity needed Cohen for that his regular lawyers couldn't handle, lol.


As Hannity has explained, he never employed Cohen as a lawyer. As Hannity explained, they are friends having lunch and talking, and Hannity would say he has this or that potential legal situation, what do you think I should do. He said he never hired or paid Cohen for anything, and that he's highly amused by the media's pouncing on the mention of his name, showing clips of CNN and MSNBC anchors mentioning him over and over, with orgasmic glee that Hannity might have done something wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMkyWp56m-I




I don't buy that bs but if it was somehow true than Hannity can't really claim lawyer/client privilege. And no surprise that he's a huge hypocrite by not disclosing his conflict of interest when covering this story.


Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Sat Apr 21 2018 12:10 PM
Re: Stormy weather


I doubt Hannity would be so bold to say that if there were any records or evidence to indicate otherwise.

And Hannity in his April 17th program, starting at 10 minutes in to about 20 minutes, cited a long list of never disclosed relationships between liberal media anchors and network executives with both the Clinton administration, Obama administration, and the Hillary campaign.

Including:

George Stephaanopoulos
Jake Tapper
Virginia Mosely, Senior Vice President for CNN, married to Steve Nides, the former undersecretary of state for Hillary Clinton
Claire Shipman, reporter for ABC, married to Obama's former press secretary Jay Carney
Susan Rice, her husband worked for ABC news

And:

96% of all journalist presidential campaign contributions were to the Hillary campaign.
Journalists from virtually every network (ABC, NBC, CNN, Bloomberg) attended a pre-announcement party at a key Clinton staffer's house right before Hillary officially announced her 2016 candidacy.
30 journalists who left liberal media to work for the Obama administration. (As reported by MRC.org, and also reported by the Washington Post)

Hannity also ccites the Democrat bias of virtually everyone selected (13 of 17 lawyers) for the Mueller investigation, are Democrat donors. And how that is only reported by Fox and conservative media.


Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Sat Apr 21 2018 12:21 PM
Re: Stormy weather

So Trump's fixer was lying when he listed Hannity as an actual client?

Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Sat Apr 21 2018 12:57 PM
Re: Stormy weather

 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
So Trump's fixer was lying when he listed Hannity as an actual client?


I think maybe he was embarrassed that Trump is his only true client, and tried to embellish by including Hannity, who he only gave friendly advice to.
And a third client Cohen would not disclose.

The POINT that you ignored above, is the FAR more extensive undisclosed relationships of the entire liberal media to the Obama and Clinton administrations, and to Frau Hitlery's State Department and campaign. That Hannity cited, and by his account gave only a tiny slice of.


Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Sat Apr 21 2018 01:33 PM
Re: Stormy weather



https://www.mrc.org/media-bias-101

A bigger slice of liberal media bias and incestuous relationships with the Democrats, courtesy of the Media Research Center.

Plus the book BIAS, by Bernard Goldberg.

And LEFT TURN, by Tim Groseclose.


Which I've cited before.



Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Sat Apr 21 2018 01:37 PM
Re: Stormy weather



And of course...

93% of Washington-based Reporters Voted For Obama



Perhaps that warrants disclosure more than Hannity's friendship with a lawyer that he never officially paid or received an invoice from.


Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Sat Apr 21 2018 09:28 PM
Re: Stormy weather

So in your book Hannity didn't do anything wrong by not disclosing his relationship with Cohen? I'm trying to gauge if you actually apply any principle to your side.

Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Sun Apr 22 2018 04:47 PM
Re: Stormy weather

As Hannity tells it, there is no actual business relationship. It sounds to me like he just informally asked Cohen's opinion over cocktails or dinner, and that Hannity entrusted the actual transactions to other lawyers that he actually paid.

Since Cohen said that Hannity is his client, it's legitimate to clarify what Hannity's relationship is with Cohen. But pending any facts to the contrary, Hannity has answered those questions, and he doesn't have business ties to Cohen.

WHAT ABOUT THE LAUNDRY LIST OF REPORTERS HANNITY CITED WITH FAR MORE EXTENSIVE UNDISCLOSED POLITICAL TIES?!?
A long list of undisclosed incestuous relationships by CNN reporters and executives?
Who donated 96% for Hillary Clinton?
With extensive ties to the Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton administrations and staff?

You once again hold Republicans to a >>>>FAR<<<<< higher standard than the thieving Cultural Marxist America-hating bastards you align yourself with.


Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Wed Apr 25 2018 10:22 PM
Re: Stormy weather

Nope, you just gave Hannity a free pass. You can make all the accusations you want but those would be off topic and sad partisan deflection. Hannity is also very biased so if you don't accept fact checks I'm sure as heck not accepting Hannity crap.

Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Wed Apr 25 2018 10:22 PM
Re: Stormy weather

Cohen is reportedly taking the 5th, lol

the G-man
(15000+ posts)
Wed Apr 25 2018 10:56 PM
Re: Stormy weather

 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Cohen is reportedly taking the 5th, lol


How dare he assert his Constitutional Rights!


Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Thu Apr 26 2018 06:56 AM
Re: Stormy weather

Yup even Spanky 's thug has them.

Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Thu Apr 26 2018 06:04 PM
Re: Stormy weather

What about Hillary's thugs, and Comey's thugs?
There is still no evidence against Trump. Or Cohen at this point.

Even as there are mountains against Hillary Clinton and her evil Deep State minions, who are selectively not prosecuted despite the overwhelming evidence. Partly because Deep State agents in the DOJ and FBI are stonewalling disclosure of records and evidence that would convict them.

AGAIN:
1) Surprise midnight raid of Cohen's home, office and hotel room. Allegedly necessary to prevent him from destroying evidence.
2) No raids of homes or offices of Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin, and Cheryl Mills. Despite that they ACTUALLY DID destroy evidence, and were given the time by FBI and DOJ to destroy it. And destroyed mountains of it: 33,000 e-mails, wiped computer hard-drives, and smashed cel phones to bits with a hammer to destroy e-mails and texts.

A clear FBI and DOJ double standard.


Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Thu Apr 26 2018 07:54 PM
Re: Stormy weather

You also snuck this one by me...

 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Nope, you just gave Hannity a free pass. You can make all the accusations you want but those would be off topic and sad partisan deflection. Hannity is also very biased so if you don't accept fact checks I'm sure as heck not accepting Hannity crap.


But...

 Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
As Hannity tells it, there is no actual business relationship. It sounds to me like he just informally asked Cohen's opinion over cocktails or dinner, and that Hannity entrusted the actual transactions to other lawyers that he actually paid.

Since Cohen said that Hannity is his client, it's legitimate to clarify what Hannity's relationship is with Cohen. But pending any facts to the contrary, Hannity has answered those questions, and he doesn't have business ties to Cohen.

WHAT ABOUT THE LAUNDRY LIST OF REPORTERS HANNITY CITED WITH FAR MORE EXTENSIVE UNDISCLOSED POLITICAL TIES?!?
A long list of undisclosed incestuous relationships by CNN reporters and executives?
Who donated 96% for Hillary Clinton?
With extensive ties to the Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton administrations and staff?

You once again hold Republicans to a >>>>FAR<<<<< higher standard than the thieving Cultural Marxist America-hating bastards you align yourself with.


You lyingly allege I gave Hannity a free pass. I clearly didn't. I said that it was legitimate to ask about Cohen's relationship. But Hannity answered and there is no legal relationship. So unless there's some evidence otherwise, Hannity has nothing more to answer for.

As opposed to the mountains of evidence against Hillary Clinton and the evil minions among her staff, and in the DOJ and FBI.


Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Thu Apr 26 2018 08:26 PM
Re: Stormy weather


JUDGE IN COHEN CASE APPOINTS INDEPENDENT 'SPECIAL MASTER' TO REVIEW COHEN'S SEIZED RECORDS. STORMY DANIELS' LAWYER FILES TO OBTAIN RECORDS FROM SEIZURE

Records that never should have been subject to search in the first place.

When DOJ shows equal zeal for obtaining Hillary's deleted 33,000 e-mails, and filing charges against Hillary, Huma, and Mills for destroying evidence, then and only then could this be called a legitimate raid. Or have any resemblance to equal protection and prosecution under the law.


Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Thu Apr 26 2018 09:45 PM
Re: Stormy weather

It takes telling an untruth to lie. I honestly believe you're giving Hannity a free pass. If his relationship was so inconsequential why ask Cohen not to name him as a client? Or why would Cohen lie to a judge by making up a client?

Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Thu Apr 26 2018 09:50 PM
Re: Stormy weather

 Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

JUDGE IN COHEN CASE APPOINTS INDEPENDENT 'SPECIAL MASTER' TO REVIEW COHEN'S SEIZED RECORDS. STORMY DANIELS' LAWYER FILES TO OBTAIN RECORDS FROM SEIZURE

Records that never should have been subject to search in the first place.

When DOJ shows equal zeal for obtaining Hillary's deleted 33,000 e-mails, and filing charges against Hillary, Huma, and Mills for destroying evidence, then and only then could this be called a legitimate raid. Or have any resemblance to equal protection and prosecution under the law.


Lol, it's Trump Justice Department. Even they have some standards. Your partisan accusations actually don't equate to evidence.


Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Thu Apr 26 2018 09:52 PM
Re: Stormy weather

Btw today Trump mentioned Cohen was representing him with the hush money.

Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Mon Apr 30 2018 04:49 AM
Re: Stormy weather



The Stormy Daniels rabbit-hole narrative was especially necessary on Friday, when Congress' special investigation released their findings that there was no evidence of a Trump/Russia collusion (if you recall, the ACTUAL RATIONALIZATION for opening an investigation of Trump, before Democrats and Meuller began desperately flailing for anything they could pin on Trump.

So it's over, the Meuller investigation should be winding down soon. Rudy Giuliani was hired by Trump, presumably to negotiate toward that inevitable end.

Courtesy of Lou Dobbs, Thursday April 26th:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4EDmmsekKQ

The Columbia University professor that Comey leaked FBI records to that triggered forming the Meuller special investigation is yet another manufactured false pretense under which the special investigation was triggered. Started under false and deceitful means, the investigation should be ended.

and Sean Hannity:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdp-bVYDcEM


Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Mon Apr 30 2018 10:47 AM
Re: Stormy weather

I don't think you can negotiate an end to this type of investigation. Trump could fire Rosenstein and place somebody else that would fire Mueller but I suspect that would create more investigations as the GOP loses power. And given Trump's calls to investigate political rivals like Clinton the bar will be lower for Dems to investigate. I hope they raise it when they regain power but I suspect the old norms won't be the same. Hannity & Dobbs are definitely biased sources. I understand why you don't like fact checks.

Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Thu May 03 2018 08:24 PM
Re: Stormy weather

So I guess we now know what team Trump figures can be proven after today's revelations.

Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Thu May 03 2018 09:38 PM
Re: Stormy weather



 Originally Posted By: M E M
Hannity & Dobbs are definitely biased sources.


Says the MediaMatters guy.

A reminder:

FOX NEWS MOST BALANCED COVERAGE OF 2008 CAMPAIGN

After inadvertently giving credibility to Fox in 2008, they haven't ventured into similar reports to inadvertently boost Fox's credibility.

While Pew tried to show Fox as more "right-leaning", they were in truth the only network in Pew's analysis that had a truly balanced and equal number of positive and negative stories about both McCain and Obama. Only relative to the EXTREME LIBERAL BIAS of the other networks could Fox be spun as "right-leaning". Fox was balanced, the other networks were overwhelmingly liberal.

And Lou Dobbs was the last respectable journalist left on CNN when he left. CNN's liberal bias is what leveraged Dobbs out and drove him to Fox Business News. And his program is the highest rated on FBN. I miss the days of Bernard Shaw, Sharyl Atkisson, Bella Shaw and Lou Dobbs. CNN's ratings have actually dropped below those of MSNBC. That is a direct reflection of CNN's decline in reliability.

Hannity is a commentator and makes no secret of his conservatism. That's at least honest. But he also has a number of respected journalists on his program citing facts, such as Pulitzer winning Judith Miller, almost nightly Sara Carter, and on occasion Pulitzer-winning Bob Woodward. Who was intimidated into silence after siding with Trump a year ago, much the way celebrities are for voicing support of Trump, such as Shania Twain, and currently

 Originally Posted By: M E M
I understand why you don't like fact checks.


As I cited above, Factcheck (Washington Post) and Politifact (Tampa Tribune) are both sponsored by centerpieces of the partisan- liberal/destroy-Trump media. They are not neutral factcheckers, they are staffed by liberal reporters, who biasedly list Republicans as factually wrong 75% of the time, and only to have some appearance of balance, cite Democrats as lying a mere 25% of the time.


Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Wed May 09 2018 10:37 PM
Re: Stormy weather

Interesting that Spanky's fixer was raking in the cash from some large companies. Potentially another connection to Russia too. Hhhmmmmn

Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Wed May 09 2018 10:52 PM
Re: Stormy weather

Russia-linked company that hired Trump's lawyer registered alt-right websites during election

Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Fri May 11 2018 06:44 PM
Re: Stormy weather

 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
...Spanky...



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_McFarland

 Quote:
George "Spanky" McFarland (October 2, 1928 – June 30, 1993) was an American actor most famous for his appearances as a child in the Our Gang series of short-subject comedies of the 1930s and 1940s. The Our Gang shorts were later syndicated to television as The Little Rascals.


Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Thu May 17 2018 07:20 PM
Re: Stormy weather

Report: Source who leaked Cohen financial info claims key government reports were missing

Also Trump acknowledges payment to his fixer finally and the ethics office forwards it to the Justice Department.


Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Thu May 17 2018 10:31 PM
Re: Stormy weather

 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Report: Source who leaked Cohen financial info claims key government reports were missing

Also Trump acknowledges payment to his fixer finally and the ethics office forwards it to the Justice Department.


Specifically...

 Quote:
Federal law requires banks to file suspicious activity reports to flag anything that could be fraud, money laundering or other financial misconduct.


Always implying, never proving.

Michael Cohen did monthly services for Trump, for which Trump was not even aware. He paid Cohen to deal with things, without bothering Trump with the details, for which Trump reimbursed him later, after billed. Similar, on a smaller scale, with how I pay my VISA bill every month.

Again: If there was ANYTHING to this, the Meuller investigation would not have said yesterday that they will not be indicting Trump on any charges. It was over a month ago that ALL Michael Cohen's records were raided by the U.S. Attorney's office for the Southern District of New York. They've had endless time to sift through all the records, and there is nothing to file charges on.


Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Thu May 17 2018 10:33 PM
Re: Stormy weather





Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Thu May 17 2018 10:46 PM
Re: Stormy weather

 Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Report: Source who leaked Cohen financial info claims key government reports were missing

Also Trump acknowledges payment to his fixer finally and the ethics office forwards it to the Justice Department.


Specifically...

 Quote:
Federal law requires banks to file suspicious activity reports to flag anything that could be fraud, money laundering or other financial misconduct.


Always implying, never proving.

Michael Cohen did monthly services for Trump, for which Trump was not even aware. He paid Cohen to deal with things, without bothering Trump with the details, for which Trump reimbursed him later, after billed. Similar, on a smaller scale, with how I pay my VISA bill every month.

Again: If there was ANYTHING to this, the Meuller investigation would not have said yesterday that they will not be indicting Trump on any charges. It was over a month ago that ALL Michael Cohen's records were raided by the U.S. Attorney's office for the Southern District of New York. They've had endless time to sift through all the records, and there is nothing to file charges on.


Actually I took it that it doesn't matter what the evidence may be. The understanding is that a President cannot be indictied. Mueller may very well have a damning case against Trump


Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Thu May 17 2018 10:56 PM
Re: Stormy weather



Unless it can be proven to be campaign related expenditures, no, it can't.

As Guiliani has said, the non-disclosure agreement is one that Trump would have made to protect his business and privacy of his family, whether were in the private sector or whether he ran for president. It's a far cry from being paid for, in Dems' wildest wet dreams, by funds from the Trump campaign.


Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Thu May 17 2018 11:12 PM
Re: Stormy weather






Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Thu May 17 2018 11:40 PM
Re: Stormy weather

I wouldn't take anything Rudy says as gospel. Enjoy the cartoon, I look forward to this dragging on with perhaps more women coming forward

Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Fri May 18 2018 12:06 AM
Re: Stormy weather



Some of the women coming forward have disputed Stormy Daniels' version of events.

And at this late stage, I'd be surprised if they came forward now. There was an expected wave that didn't break.

Stormy Daniels took the money years ago, and denied that there was an affair between her and Trump. Now, starting in January, she sees a larger check in changing her story. If it ever went to court, I could see the classic courtroom drama scene, where a lawyer asks her on the stand after quoting her earlier statement: "Were you lying then, or are you lying now."
She completely changed her story, she has no credibility at this point.


Wonder Boy
(15000+ posts)
Fri May 18 2018 12:19 AM
Re: Stormy weather

Stormy's lawyer, Michael Avenatti, has a long history of legal/financial problems himself:

https://pjmedia.com/trending/liberal-med...nt-against-him/

 Quote:
In just ten weeks, Michael Avenatti, the lawyer who is representing porn star Stormy Daniels in her lawsuits against President Trump, has racked up an impressive 147 interviews on broadcast and cable news programs, according to Newsbusters. But the tide may be beginning to turn against the "creepy porn lawyer," as Fox News' Tucker Carlson calls him, as lawsuits and complaints stack up against him.

According to Fox News, the State Bar of California is investigating Avenatti after a complaint was filed against him regarding unpaid taxes.
Fox News on Wednesday obtained an April 18-dated letter verifying the existence of the investigation—unrelated to his representation of Daniels.

“The complaint against attorney Michael J. Avenatti has been reviewed and forwarded to the Enforcement Unit for further investigation and prosecution, if warranted,” said the letter from the state bar, written by Supervising Attorney Anand Kumar and reviewed by Fox News.

Also, according to TMZ, Avenatti is being sued by his ex-law partner for $2 million.

According to new legal docs, obtained by TMZ, Avenatti's being sued by Jason Frank, a former partner at Egan Avenatti ... Michael's law firm, because he claims Avenatti stiffed him out of a couple mil.

This comes after The Daily Caller over the weekend posted a blistering expose on Avenatti's past business dealings, which are reportedly "littered with lawsuits, jilted business partners and bankruptcy filings." According to the Caller, people who have worked with Avenatti describe him as "ruthless, greedy and unbothered by ethical questions."

Avenatti allegedly cheated a coffee vendor out of $160,000 and was sued for misrepresentation by actor Patrick Dempsey. The shady lawyer was also sued for engaging in some kind of “pump and dump scheme to deprive federal and state taxing authorities of millions of dollars.”

Like someone with narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), Avenatti has an abnormally developed capacity to "dish it out," but is completely unable to take it. The DCNF's unflattering report prompted the attorney to lash out at the writers, threatening them with a lawsuit.
  • Let me be clear. If you and your colleagues do not stop with the hit pieces that are full of lies and defamatory statements, I will have no choice but to sue each of you and your publication for defamation. During that process, we will expose your publication for what it truly is. We will also recover significant damages against each of you that participated personally. So if I were you, I would tell Mr. Trump to find someone else to fabricate things about me.

    “If you think I’m kidding, you really don’t know anything about me. This is the last warning.”


Avenatti's inflamed, over-the-top reaction provoked journalists from across the ideological spectrum to come to The Daily Caller's defense.

Avenatti has appeared dozens of times on CNN and MSNBC, but has spurned Fox News, likely out of fear that he would be facing something a little more challenging than the puffball interviews he's grown accustomed to on MSNBC and CNN.

According to Newsbusters, 74 of Avenatti's 147 appearances have been on CNN, making him perhaps the most frequent guest in the network's history.

No guest — not Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders in 2016, nor Adam Schiff in 2017 — received anything close to the outpouring of free media coverage that CNN has bequeathed to Avenatti.

The saddest part of the whole sordid affair is that polls show the public really. doesn't. care.

They can see what's going on here, but they don't want to see it.

So I guess we can forgive the MSM for not jumping on this bombshell allegation from Tasha Reign, the star of an adult film directed by Stormy Daniels late last year:

Reign claims that in November of last year she was assaulted by one of Daniels’ crewman and that he admitted to what he did in front of Daniels, who was the film’s director. Reign says that after the crewman’s admission, Daniels did nothing to him but shamed her for making the alleged abuser cry. Worse, according to Reign, Daniels then lied to the production company, Wicked Pictures, with the claim that nothing had happened.

Apparently in the hope of making the matter go away, Avenatti released a statement this week claiming Wicked had done a full investigation and Daniels was cleared of all wrongdoing.

Wicked, however, contradicted Avenatti and says the investigation is ongoing.

Then there's this:

[Twitter post: ]
STORMY DANIELS WILL PERFORM NAKED WITH TRUMP STATUE IN OREGON.






More at the link, but you get the point.




Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Fri Jul 27 2018 07:43 PM
Re: Stormy weather

Stormy' lawyer says he has 3 more women Trump paid hush money to. With the Cohan tape Trump could find himself in John Edwards territory.

Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Tue Aug 21 2018 07:43 PM
Re: Stormy weather

Cohen says he paid off women at Trump's direction to influence election

the G-man
(15000+ posts)
Wed Aug 22 2018 06:01 PM
Re: Stormy weather

I thought Democrats didn't think it was wrong to lie about sex?

Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Wed Aug 22 2018 08:04 PM
Re: Stormy weather

So you see this as just lying about sex? As a lawyer I would think you would see more problems than that. Trump does have dependable base though that just hates the other side so I think he might be protected unlike Edwards or Clinton was.

Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Wed Aug 22 2018 08:37 PM
Re: Stormy weather

NY state investigators subpoena Michael Cohen in Trump foundation probe

the G-man
(15000+ posts)
Wed Aug 22 2018 10:03 PM
Re: Stormy weather

 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
So you see this as just lying about sex? As a lawyer I would think you would see more problems than that. Trump does have dependable base though that just hates the other side so I think he might be protected unlike Edwards or Clinton was.


I have problems with Trump lying about sex while committing perjury or obstruction of justice. I had problems with Bill Clinton lying about sex while committing perjury or obstruction of justice.

I think I’m the one here being consistent


Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Wed Aug 22 2018 10:49 PM
Re: Stormy weather

I would point out your first comment after Cohen's allegations came out were a partisan swipe at democrats. I dont expect you to go after Trump like you probably did on Clinton or Edwards but your not being okay with perjury only makes us equals.

the G-man
(15000+ posts)
Thu Aug 23 2018 12:39 AM
Re: Stormy weather

 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
I would point out your first comment after Cohen's allegations came out were a partisan swipe at democrats.


Only to point out the hypocrisy.

I, for one, am totally stoked for President Mike Pence and his rocking theme song:



Matter-eater Man
(10000+ posts)
Thu Aug 23 2018 07:28 AM
Re: Stormy weather

Pointing out the perceived hypocrisy of the other side and not seeing your own is a staple for you. I think the guy that has been cupping Trump's balls and seems to never know anything that's going on will likely never get there unless it's a case of finishing up whatever was left of Trump's term. I doubt the GOP will impeach Trump so Pence is probably out of luck. Than again I didn't think a President Trump was possible even with all the outside help he got so maybe you'll get your wish.