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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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 think it was Tammy Bruce earlier today who pointed out the 100 or so Senators and House members who used a slush fund of taxpayer money to pay off the women blackmailing them for their sexual liasons with them, but these same Senate and House members are the ones leaping on Trump for doing exactly what they did, only Trump did it with his own money.
Aside from actually being worse, their situation is different... how?
Again, John Edwards' case is way beyond what Trump is alleged to have done. Edwards was using campaign money to pay for his trips around the country to have an extended affair with a female documentary filmmaker, who initially was filming Edwards' campaign. While his wife was dying of cancer.
The fact that a trial couldn't prove the far more blatant case of Edwards' criminality, speaks of how much less likely it is that any case can be made against Trump.
In the case of Trump, he used his own money, not campaign funds. And again, many of the Democrats in the House are guilty of the same and worse of what they are trying to allege against Trump. The hypocrisy of Democrats just piles on high. As does their audacity.
A federal judge on Tuesday ordered adult-film star Stormy Daniels to pay President Trump more than $293,000 in legal fees amid their ongoing legal battles. U.S. District Judge James Otero ordered Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, to pay the fees in her defamation case against Trump, which Otero dismissed in October.
Daniels alleged that Trump defamed her in an April tweet that mocked her claims that a man threatened her in 2011 to keep quiet about her alleged affair with Trump. Shortly after Daniels and her attorney, Michael Avenatti, released a forensic sketch of the man who allegedly threatened her, Trump posted a side-by-side photo suggesting that the man was Daniels’s ex-husband.
After the defamation case failed, Trump’s attorneys had requested that Daniels pay them $340,000 in legal fees. Otero, writing that Trump’s attorneys spent “excessive” time on the case, ordered Daniels to pay about 75 percent of Trump’s legal fees, plus an additional $1,000 in sanctions.
Trump’s attorney, Charles Harder, praised Tuesday’s decision as “a total victory for the President, and a total defeat for Stormy Daniels in this case.”
Again, John Edwards' case is way beyond what Trump is alleged to have done. Edwards was ussing campaign money to pay for his trips around the country to have an extended affair with a female documentary filmmaker, who initially was filming Edwards' campaign. While his wife was dying of cancer.
The fact that a trial couldn't prove the far more blatant case of Edwards' criminality, speaks of howw much less likely it is that any case can be made aagainst Trump.
In the case of Trump, he used his own money, not campaign funds. And again, many of the Democrats in the House are guilty of the same and worse of what they are trying to allege against Trump. The hypocrisy of Democrats just piles on high. As does their audacity.
I remember Cohen complaining he had to pay Stormy out of his own pocket and the National Enquirer just fessed up about paying another woman hush money for Trump. And who really thinks Trump wouldn't leave a wife that was dying of cancer? He certainly has no problem fucking other women while he has a wife recuperating from giving birth.
Hey, you can't talk about God's Chosen President™ that way! Save that slanderous nonsense for the COMMUNIST MUSLIM CULTURAL MARXIST MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE GLOBALIST AND WORST OF ALL NONWHITE BARACK OBAMA!!!
Hey, you can't talk about God's Chosen President™ that way! Save that slanderous nonsense for the COMMUNIST MUSLIM CULTURAL MARXIST MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE GLOBALIST AND WORST OF ALL NONWHITE BARACK OBAMA!!!
That's too mean and slanderous to be funny. I never made an issue of Obama's race. And if I and other Republicans did have a problem with Obama's race, we wouldn't be so enthusiastic about black Republicans like Herman Cain, Dr Ben Carson, former Rep. Allen West (who I voted for twice in my local district), and South Carolina Senator Tim Scott (who is, by the way the only black Senator, there are no Democrat black senators).
The problem with Barack Obama is not his skin color, it is his Cultural Marxism, anti-colonialism, Liberation Theology and insurrectionist hatred of the United States, and the same poisonous ideology in those who surround him, that is very well documented in his own writings, speeches, and actions, as well as those of his inner circle and administration. Likewise Bill and Hillary Clinton, and the inner circle surrounding them, and in their own self-incriminating words. Any one of whom you can easily look up. http://archive.discoverthenetworks.org/summary.asp?object=Persons&category= That is just a fact.
I (and other Republicans you slander) don't have more disdain for the Obamas than for the Clintons or other Marxist radicals. It is the same contempt for all of them.
It is their ideology and goals, not their skin color, that is offensive.
Again, John Edwards' case is way beyond what Trump is alleged to have done. Edwards was ussing campaign money to pay for his trips around the country to have an extended affair with a female documentary filmmaker, who initially was filming Edwards' campaign. While his wife was dying of cancer.
The fact that a trial couldn't prove the far more blatant case of Edwards' criminality, speaks of howw much less likely it is that any case can be made aagainst Trump.
In the case of Trump, he used his own money, not campaign funds. And again, many of the Democrats in the House are guilty of the same and worse of what they are trying to allege against Trump. The hypocrisy of Democrats just piles on high. As does their audacity.
I remember Cohen complaining he had to pay Stormy out of his own pocket and the National Enquirer just fessed up about paying another woman hush money for Trump. And who really thinks Trump wouldn't leave a wife that was dying of cancer? He certainly has no problem fucking other women while he has a wife recuperating from giving birth.
It's called a non-disclosure agreement and is not illegal. Especially since it was reimbursed with Trump's own money and not with campaign funds (as John Edwards was guilty of.) Stormy Daniels entered the agreement willingly, and then broke her agreement. It is also not proven that Trump ever actually had an affair with Stormy Daniels, or if she was just shaking him down for money.
It's also a huge (and vicious) leap to assume that Trump would abandon his wife if she was dying of cancer. There is nothing to support that assumption. This is the mother of his son. Even his first wife Ivanka he remains close friends with, despite their divorce.
Even in the case of John McCain, who I'm not the biggest fan of, when he divorced his first wife, he continued to provide for her financially for decades after. I give him that much credit. Not all men abandon their dying wives. And there's certainly no proof Trump would. Quite the contrary, Trump is loyal to a fault, and remains loyal even to staffers who have embarassed him politically. He was loyal to Cohen right up to the point Cohen betrayed him.
When sexual harassers agree on confidential settlements with victims, at least the payments come out of the harassers' own pockets or from companies that choose to employ them.
But not, as the nation has learned this month, when the harasser serves in Congress. Then, taxpayers foot the bill. And the entire episode remains hidden.
This outrageous system grows out of a 1995 law, known as the Congressional Accountability Act, that was intended to make lawmakers subject to the same workplace laws against harassment and discrimination as the rest of American employers. The law was a well-intentioned and much needed effort to end Congress' status as the "last plantation." But some of the fine-print provisions — such as mandating that settlements be secret and having taxpayers pick up the tab for lawmakers violating the law — represent the opposite of accountability.
For complainants, the act set up an arrangement so cumbersome that it seems designed less to protect wronged workers than to insulate lawmakers from public embarrassment.
To file a complaint, employees must go through a 90-day “mandatory dispute resolution process,” the first step of which is counseling — for the accuser. Yes, you read that correctly. The alleged harasser isn’t forced to get counseling. The victim is.
Outside Congress, workers with claims can file a lawsuit in federal court whenever they want. But if they work for Congress, “failure to follow these procedures … may jeopardize any claims raised under” the law.
Because of public furor over sexual harassment and the decision by some female lawmakers to reveal their own experiences, the 1995 law is under a much deserved spotlight. In recent weeks, current and former congresswomen have revealed enduring everything from unwanted advances to being groped on the House floor. One told of a staffer who quit after a lawmaker told her to bring materials to his house, answered the door in a towel, and exposed himself.
Add to that accusations against two of Congress' most liberal members, and you have the makings of a watershed moment. Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., apologized Monday for disrespecting women. Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., stepped aside Sunday as the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee after being accused of making unwanted advances toward female staffers and firing one after she resisted. (Conyers allegedly settled that claim with $27,000 of taxpayers’ money from his office account, disguising it as “severance pay.” He acknowledged settling but denied the allegations.)
Even so, all the public knows is that since 1997, Congress has paid more than $17 million to settle scores of workplace claims from a special Treasury Department fund created by the 1995 law.
Whether the claims involved sexual harassment, or discrimination against protected groups, is unknown. So is the identity of lawmakers and aides involved in alleged misbehavior.
Such secrecy is a betrayal of the public trust and the whole notion that government works in public. Nor should Capitol Hill be a place that tolerates crude and ugly mistreatment of women.
A bipartisan group of lawmakers, led by Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif., and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., is pushing a measure to make the complaint process less cumbersome for workers, get rid of required secrecy, and mandate that any lawmaker who settles a claim as a harasser repay the U.S. Treasury out of his or her own pocket.
Nothing in the Speier-Gillibrand proposal should be particularly controversial, but passage is far from assured. Congress has never been particularly good at policing itself.
These are the folks sitting in judgement of Trump.
Again: What is the difference between them and Trump, other than their behavior is even worse, because they had taxpayers pick up the tab for their sexual indiscretions?
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.
Hey, you can't talk about God's Chosen President™ that way! Save that slanderous nonsense for the COMMUNIST MUSLIM CULTURAL MARXIST MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE GLOBALIST AND WORST OF ALL NONWHITE BARACK OBAMA!!!
That's too mean and slanderous to be funny. I never made an issue of Obama's race. And if I and other Republicans did have a problem with Obama's race, we wouldn't be so enthusiastic about black Republicans like Herman Cain, Dr Ben Carson, former Rep. Allen West (who I voted for twice in my local district), and South Carolina Senator Tim Scott (who is, by the way the only black Senator, there are no Democrat black senators).
The problem with Barack Obama is not his skin color, it is his Cultural Marxism, anti-colonialism, Liberation Theology and insurrectionist hatred of the United States, and the same poisonous ideology in those who surround him, that is very well documented in his own writings, speeches, and actions, as well as those of his inner circle and administration. Likewise Bill and Hillary Clinton, and the inner circle surrounding them, and in their own self-incriminating words. Any one of whom you can easily look up. http://archive.discoverthenetworks.org/summary.asp?object=Persons&category= That is just a fact.
I (and other Republicans you slander) don't have more disdain for the Obamas than for the Clintons or other Marxist radicals. It is the same contempt for all of them.
It is their ideology and goals, not their skin color, that is offensive.
I actually thought you had me on ignore a few months ago. You made a big show of it, but as is usually the case, with The Doctor and others, it was just empty posturing and you continued to read my posts and troll me.
What the fuck happened to you, Phil? 10 or 15 years ago, you used to contribute worthwhile conversation, then your posts turned to inane crap. And now you just show up once or twice a year, contributing nothing, just to troll me.
In any case, problem solved. I should have done this a long time ago. Dipshit.
