|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35 |
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.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,878 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
OP
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,878 Likes: 52 |
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.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,878 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
OP
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,878 Likes: 52 |
FBI just raided Trump's lawyer/fixer, lol
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35 |
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.
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,878 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
OP
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,878 Likes: 52 |
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.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
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.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35 |
ALAN DERSHOWITZ RIPS ACLU's SILENCE ON THE RAID OF TRUMP LAWYER MICHAEL COHEN'S OFFICEBusiness
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.
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35 |
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.
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35 |
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.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,878 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
OP
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,878 Likes: 52 |
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
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35 |
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?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35 |
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?
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,878 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
OP
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,878 Likes: 52 |
Did they have fixers like Trump still has? It's pretty incredible that Cohen is the one Trump still calls "a good man".
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,878 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
OP
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,878 Likes: 52 |
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?
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35 |
Why nobody should care about Trump's alleged affair with Stormy Daniels 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.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35 |
TIME magazine expresses a similar opinion: WHAT AMERICANS THINK ABOUT PRESIDENTAL SEX SCANDALS 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.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,878 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
OP
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,878 Likes: 52 |
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.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35 |
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.
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,878 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
OP
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,878 Likes: 52 |
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.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35 |
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.
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35 |
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.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,878 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
OP
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,878 Likes: 52 |
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35 |
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.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35 |
THE MEDIA ARE KILLING THEMSELVES WITH BOTCHED ANTI-TRUMP REPORTING 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.
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35 |
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.
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,878 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
OP
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,878 Likes: 52 |
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.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,878 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
OP
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,878 Likes: 52 |
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
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35 |
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.
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,878 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
OP
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,878 Likes: 52 |
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?
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35 |
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. 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.
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,878 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
OP
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,878 Likes: 52 |
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?
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35 |
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.
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35 |
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.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35 |
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?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,878 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
OP
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,878 Likes: 52 |
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?
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35 |
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.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 HEREI'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!
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,878 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
OP
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,878 Likes: 52 |
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35 |
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.
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|