Stormy Daniels Lawsuit Opens Door to Further Trouble for Trump

Stormy Daniels Lawsuit Opens Door to Further Trouble for Trump
Via:   jbb
Created:   4 months ago
Comments:   253

Tags

Stormy Daniels Lawsuit Opens Door to Further Trouble for Trump

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/stormy-daniels-lawsuit-opens-door-to-further-trouble-for-trump/ar-BBK2maM?li=BBnb7Kz

The New York Times By JIM RUTENBERG and MIKE McINTIRE

In the blur of news coming out of Washington, the legal maneuvers involving a pornographic film actress who says she had an affair with President Trump and the president’s lawyer who paid her hush money may seem like just another reality-show-ready spectacle at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

But the lawsuit she filed this week, seeking to break a 2016 agreement to keep silent in return for a $130,000 payout, opens what could be a precarious new legal front for a White House already beset by the investigation by the special counsel Robert S. Mueller III.

As any longtime legal hand in the capital remembers well, it was a sexual harassment lawsuit brought by an Arkansas state employee, Paula Jones, against Bill Clinton that led to his impeachment for lying about his affair with Monica S. Lewinsky.

The case of the adult film actress, Stephanie Clifford, who uses the stage-name Stormy Daniels, may not get past even the first considerable obstacles. But if her court case proceeds, Mr. Trump and his longtime personal lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, may have to testify in depositions, several lawyers said in interviews on Thursday. Ms. Clifford’s suit could possibly also provide evidence of campaign spending violations, which would bolster a pending Federal Election Commission complaint against Mr. Trump’s campaign.

The potential outcomes of the lawsuit and legal wrangling took on new urgency this week after reports that Mr. Cohen had won an emergency temporary restraining order from an arbitrator, barring Ms. Clifford from speaking out now, a measure that Ms. Clifford’s lawyer, Michael J. Avenatti, declared invalid.

Ms. Clifford’s agreement with Mr. Cohen stipulated that they would resolve disputes in the confidential arbitration proceedings. Assuming she does not blink — and her lawyer has said she won’t — it will fall to a judge in Los Angeles, where the suit was filed, to decide whether to compel Ms. Clifford to return to arbitration or allow the case to go forward in court, where Mr. Cohen and Mr. Trump could find themselves open to the discovery process, during which both sides share documents and information.

“A lawsuit opens the door, and judges almost always allow for a plaintiff to have a fishing expedition,” said Robert S. Bennett, the Washington lawyer who represented Mr. Clinton in the Paula Jones case. The questions could include, “Have you paid other people money?” he said.

David A. Super, a law professor at Georgetown University, said the lawsuit Ms. Clifford filed on Tuesday centered on a limited contract law matter, but he noted that it also specifically stated that Ms. Clifford would amend her complaint in the future to add the names of people who she said participated in wrongdoing with Mr. Trump and Mr. Cohen.

He suggested that Ms. Clifford and her lawyer might be starting with a narrow argument aimed at getting the contract declared invalid, perhaps intending to broaden it later to include claims that Mr. Trump and Mr. Cohen coerced her into silence. “If that happened,” he said, “they certainly could seek to depose Trump.”

And in that case, he said, “I can certainly imagine how it might get broader. And if it did, the wide array of Trump’s sexual interactions could be addressed, just as the wide array of Clinton’s sexual interactions was addressed in the Paula Jones case deposition.”

Getting into a public court setting, however, is a big hurdle.

“If the parties agreed to binding arbitration, they have waived their right to file a lawsuit,” said H. Christopher Bartolomucci, a law partner at Kirkland & Ellis in Washington who previously worked in the White House as associate counsel to President George W. Bush. Ms. Clifford’s signature on the contract, and acceptance of the money, could count as a clear sign of agreement.

But other legal experts were struck by the sweeping nature of the nondisclosure agreement Ms. Clifford signed, and expressed skepticism that it would hold up in court. Beyond the circumstances of the alleged sexual relationship, the agreement barred her from doing anything, even indirectly, to “publicly disparage” Mr. Trump.

“It actually presents a relatively clean issue for the court,” said Lawrence M. Noble, a former top lawyer at the Federal Election Commission who is now the general counsel for the Campaign Legal Center, a watchdog group. “What she signed amounts to a gag order, and she has rights if this agreement is not found to be valid.”

Mr. Avenatti is building his case on what he calls “sloppy” lawyering by Mr. Cohen, dating to October 2016 when Mr. Cohen negotiated the agreement for Ms. Clifford’s silence. Ms. Clifford has claimed that she met Mr. Trump at a celebrity golf tournament in 2006 and began a relationship that included sex and promises from Mr. Trump to get her on his NBC show “The Apprentice” and to give her a condominium. A close friend of hers, Keith Munyan, confirmed several of those details in an interview this week, saying he heard Mr. Trump offer her the apartment when Ms. Clifford invited him to eavesdrop on the conversation. Mr. Trump has denied the affair.

Mr. Avenatti’s argument hinges on a blank signature line by the alias used for Mr. Trump, David Dennison, on the contract. Ms. Clifford, identified as “Peggy Peterson,” and Mr. Cohen, representing the shell company he used to facilitate the payment, both signed the document. Mr. Avenatti argues that because Mr. Trump did not sign it himself, the agreement is invalid — a point Mr. Super, the Georgetown professor, basically agreed with and Mr. Noble said might have merit.

The initial contract is not confined to the commitments Ms. Clifford makes to Mr. Trump — to never speak of their affair and to relinquish any material she might have relating to him, like emails, photos and video. It also includes commitments Mr. Trump makes to her, such as a promise not to take any legal action against her for her claims.

So, Mr. Avenatti argues, Mr. Cohen is improperly acting as a stand-in for Mr. Trump as he seeks to enforce the deal, including the provision he cited in bringing the temporary restraining order.

The extent to which Mr. Cohen was acting on his own in striking the agreement with Ms. Clifford and paying her is crucial not only to Ms. Clifford’s case but also to the complaint against the Trump campaign and the Trump Organization filed with the Federal Election Commission. That complaint, brought by Common Cause, alleges that Ms. Clifford was bought off because she posed a threat to Mr. Trump’s presidential prospects, and argues that the $130,000 payment was effectively a contribution to Mr. Trump’s campaign that should have been reported to the commission. Common Cause has also filed a complaint with the Justice Department demanding an investigation.

Important factors in the case would include just how closely Mr. Cohen coordinated the payment to Ms. Clifford with Mr. Trump and whether it was intended to help the campaign avoid negative publicity.

Mr. Cohen has said that he “facilitated” the payment with his own money and was not reimbursed by Mr. Trump’s company or campaign, and that the payment was “not a campaign contribution or a campaign expenditure by anyone.” But in her suit, Ms. Clifford tries to implicate Mr. Trump in the transaction, saying the offer of money was intended to buy her silence to help “ensure he won the presidential election.”

Paul S. Ryan, the vice president for litigation and policy at Common Cause, said that assertion makes clear that the payment was connected to the campaign. “That’s a threshold legal issue, establishing that the purpose of the payment was to influence the election,” he said.

Jan Baran, a former general counsel to the Republican National Committee, said the facts so far do not support the notion that the payment to Ms. Clifford was “indisputably directly for the campaign itself.” It could have simply been a personal matter, he said, of Mr. Trump wishing to keep a secret from his wife.

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_profile_id: user_id parameter required
JBB
1  JBB    4 months ago

"Can We Talk?" - Joan Rivers - The Trump scandal dejour is hotter than a two dollar pistol. It is burning hot.

Apparently the President's lawyer Michael Cohen paid Miss Daniels $130,000 hush money in October 2016.

It is no wonder the righties want to talk about guns, cooking, cars, photos of flowers and videos of kittens.

 
 
Rmando
1.1  Rmando  replied to  JBB @1    4 months ago

Actually the right wants to talk about important things like breakthroughs with North Korea and gun legislation in Florida. But keep on focusing on the tabloids.

 
 
Tacos!
1.2  Tacos!  replied to  JBB @1    4 months ago
It is no wonder the righties want to talk about guns, cooking, cars, photos of flowers and videos of kittens.

Example? I thought not.

 
 
JBB
2  JBB    4 months ago

Compared with Trump's Porn Star Scandal Monica Lewinsky's stained blue dress seems kind of quaint...

 
 
Landshark
2.1  Landshark  replied to  JBB @2    4 months ago

Lefties must be ready to erect a statue to honor trump for his escapades.

 
 
Rmando
2.1.2  Rmando  replied to    4 months ago

Making a death wish against the president? Not very smart....

 
 
Hal A. Lujah
2.1.3  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Landshark @2.1    4 months ago

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/07/us/donald-trump-highway-utah.html

A Utah lawmaker has introduced a bill that would rename the state’s most scenic route in honor of the president, placing 62 Donald Trump signs along a 600-mile stretch that rolls through or near five national parks: Arches, Canyonlands, Capitol Reef, Bryce Canyon and Zion.

An opponent of the bill, State Senator Jim Dabakis, has said he would fight it by adding the name of an adult film star who is reported to have had an affair with the president. “If it gets to the Senate,” Mr. Dabakis threatened on Twitter this week, “I will present an amendment that the frontage road be designated as the Stormy Daniels rampway.”

Update: The sponsor of a proposal to name a Utah highway route in honor of the president dropped the bill after this story published. Representative Mike E. Noel said he believed he had enough votes to pass the measure, but had received too many personal attacks after news of the bill spread.

 
 
arkpdx
2.1.5  arkpdx  replied to    4 months ago

you might want to familiarize yourself on what treason is. 

 
 
Trout Giggles
2.1.6  Trout Giggles  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2.1.3    4 months ago

Good. I just can't imagine a state full of Mormons actually wanting a highway with trump's name on it

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.1.7  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  arkpdx @2.1.5    4 months ago
you might want to familiarize yourself on what treason is.

Treason: noun - the crime of betraying one's country

I don't think there's any doubt that Trump and his campaign betrayed America by working with an enemy foreign government in order to throw an election in their favor. The only thing we're waiting for is the tape proving Trump was in on the coordination and collusion that obviously took place. Mueller is being thorough and methodical so I have no doubt he will get to the bottom of the Trump campaigns nefarious activities. People don't lie about meetings if there's nothing to hide, and that seems to be the only constant about the Trump campaign, they all lied and now we have numerous guilty pleas and dozens of indictments against them.

 
 
arkpdx
2.1.8  arkpdx  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.1.7    4 months ago

There are specific things that constitute treason in this country. They are not  the generic definition found in the  dictionary. You can find them in the constitution. 

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.1.9  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  arkpdx @2.1.8    4 months ago
There are specific things that constitute treason in this country

Yes, absolutely, but it's nice to see you accept that Trump and his campaign at least meet the dictionary definition of treason. Trump is an enormous embarrassment to real Americans whether he violated the constitution or not, and unlike Obama, it has nothing to do with the color of his skin.

 
 
livefreeordie
2.1.10  livefreeordie  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.1.7    4 months ago

Comment removed for CoC violation [ph]

1.  Treason only applies to either fighting for or giving aid and comfort to a Formally Declared enemy we are at war with.  Russia is not a Declared enemy

2.  Is it giving “aid and comfort” to increase energy exports that hurt Russia economically

Is it giving “aid and comfort” To revitalize our military which Putin doesn’t want?

Is it giving “aid and comfort” To fight against Russians and the Syrian military?

Is it giving “aid and comfort” To repeatedly condemn Russia at the UN?

this claim that Trump is Putin’s puppet is the most farcical political accusation in our nation’s History

IT IS THE LEFTIST DEMOCRATS AND THEIR PROPAGANDA ARM, THE MSM who make Putin a bigger deal than he is and keep him in the spotlight.  You leftists are wittingly or unwittingly the tools of Putin

Meanwhile President Trump keeps winning for America and the American people.  I thank God that we have him as president instead of Stalinist Hillary.

 
 
Rmando
2.1.11  Rmando  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.1.7    4 months ago

"The only thing we're waiting for is the tape proving Trump was in on the coordination and collusion that obviously took place."

Hope you have a lot of patience on your hands for all that waiting. 

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.1.12  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  livefreeordie @2.1.10    4 months ago
Is it giving “aid and comfort”

It is giving them aid and comfort to coordinate with them to remove sanctions and repeal the Magnitsky act. It is giving aid and comfort to give them code name intelligence and tell them that the "Russia investigation" was taken care of by firing Jim Comey. It is giving aid and comfort to refuse to implement the bi-partisan sanctions passed for Russia's involvement in the 2016 election. It is giving aid and comfort for Trump to never openly accuse Russia of interference in the election and never saying a negative word about Putin. It is giving aid and comfort to warn the Russians about the single air strike on a Syrian air field that didn't do squat to stop Syria from using chemical weapons, it merely closed the air field for less than 48 hours. The claims that Russia is being hurt by our energy exports is ridiculous and just because an ambassador speaks to them sternly at the UN doesn't mean Trump is now adversarial with Russia. 

 
 
arkpdx
2.1.13  arkpdx  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.1.9    4 months ago

No I never said that and my dislike of Obama had absolutely nothing to do with his skin color

 
 
Rmando
2.1.14  Rmando  replied to  arkpdx @2.1.13    4 months ago

The race card is all the left has. That and big govt socialism mixed with blatant anarchy.

 
 
Landshark
2.1.15  Landshark  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.1.7    4 months ago

Need to lock Hillary up then because she most definitely colluded with the Russians.

 
 
Paula Bartholomew
2.1.16  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2.1.3    4 months ago

Utah, where the men are men and the sheep are nervous.

 
 
Krishna
2.1.17  Krishna  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1.6    4 months ago
Good. I just can't imagine a state full of Mormons actually wanting a highway with trump's name on it

Why not?

After all, it's yet another example of "family values".

stormytrump.jpg

(Well, Trump's interpretation of family values that is . . . Sad)

 
 
Landshark
2.1.18  Landshark  replied to    4 months ago

Just admit it, you know you love his sexcapades.

 
 
Tacos!
2.2  Tacos!  replied to  JBB @2    4 months ago
Compared with Trump's Porn Star Scandal Monica Lewinsky's stained blue dress seems kind of quaint...

How do you figure? Trump - a private citizen - has a thing with a professional sex object (what could be more consensual?) 12 years ago compared to President Clinton taking advantage of a young intern right there in the Oval Office . . . and then lying about it under oath. 

 
 
Tacos!
2.2.2  Tacos!  replied to  lib50 @2.2.1    4 months ago
The payoff is the problem

Why is it a problem? Who cares? The whole thing is his personal business. He had something private with this woman and he wants it to remain private. I see no reason why I, or any American should know about it. It happened 10 years before he ran for president and there doesn't seem to have been any harm caused by it. It's not like we have reason to believe he attacked her. She actually speaks well of him. But she undoubtedly figured out she could make a lot of money by talking about it - more than he or his lawyer have paid her - so she wants to go back on the deal she made.

 
 
Hal A. Lujah
2.2.3  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Tacos! @2.2.2    4 months ago

So your idea of a responsible POTUS is one that can be blackmailed for his disgusting behaviors?!  Is it too much to ask for a POTUS to be at least as moral and ethical as a good, godless citizen like myself?

 
 
Tacos!
2.2.4  Tacos!  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2.2.3    4 months ago
So your idea of a responsible POTUS is one that can be blackmailed for his disgusting behaviors?!

And what is the result of that blackmail? He reaches into the couch cushions and pulls out $130,000. It's not even enough to qualify as petty cash for him. The blackmail issue is a red herring. What do you honestly believe will happen? Do you imagine he's going to give the nuclear launch codes to a porn star?

 
 
Landshark
2.2.5  Landshark  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2.2.3    4 months ago

Yes!

 
 
Landshark
2.2.6  Landshark  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2.2.3    4 months ago

Besides isn’t trump like hrc in that regard.

 
 
lib50
2.2.7  lib50  replied to  Tacos! @2.2.2    4 months ago
Why is it a problem? Who cares? The whole thing is his personal business.



One short, newly revealed email from a Manhattan banker just made it much more likely that the $130,000 payment to porn star Stormy Daniels shortly before the 2016 election violated federal law.

NBC News on Friday reported that Michael Cohen, President Trump’s longtime ally and attorney, had used a Trump Organization email address as he worked to secure the payment to Daniels. Daniels alleges the money was paid to keep her from telling the media about a sexual relationship she had with Trump; Cohen and Trump continue to deny that relationship.


 
 
Trout Giggles
2.2.8  Trout Giggles  replied to  Tacos! @2.2    3 months ago

So this is how you're going to spin this justify your continuing support of him?

 
 
Tacos!
2.2.9  Tacos!  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.2.8    3 months ago

My support of his is based on his policies and accomplishments. It is only minimally impacted by who he might have had consensual adult sex with a decade ago.

 
 
Trout Giggles
2.2.10  Trout Giggles  replied to  Tacos! @2.2.9    3 months ago

Someday he's going to throw all his evangelical supporters under the bus. Mark my words. Then let's see where you are on his "accomplishments"

 
 
devangelical
2.2.11  devangelical  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.2.10    3 months ago

Bus my ass, let's hope it's a fucking steamroller.

 
 
Greg Jones
2.2.12  Greg Jones  replied to  devangelical @2.2.11    3 months ago

No one that matters, cares. eek

 
 
Kavika
3  Kavika     4 months ago

But, but, Bill Clinton.../s

 
 
JBB
3.1  JBB  replied to  Kavika @3    4 months ago

Bill Clinton was a rascal but he was a mere amateur compared with The King of Vulgaria...

 
 
Jonathan P
3.1.1  Jonathan P  replied to  JBB @3.1    4 months ago

I find it interesting that you'd bring up one of Clinton's trysts in this seed.

Trump had an affair with a slut more than 10 years prior to being elected President.

Clinton was fellated in the Oval office, and somehow you believe that this pales in comparison to what Trump did.

Ponderous...

 
 
JBB
3.1.2  JBB  replied to  Jonathan P @3.1.1    4 months ago

Trump's lawyer Cohen paid off Trump's porn star lover in October 2016. That is the story here...

 
 
Trout Giggles
3.1.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  Jonathan P @3.1.1    4 months ago

I think you're being unfair to Ms Daniels. She gets paid.

 
 
Jonathan P
3.1.4  Jonathan P  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.3    4 months ago

You're right.

The correct word is "whore".

 
 
Trout Giggles
3.1.5  Trout Giggles  replied to  Jonathan P @3.1.4    4 months ago

What does that make trump? He fucked her and he paid her.

 
 
Jonathan P
3.1.6  Jonathan P  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.5    4 months ago

You need look no further than his middle name...

 
 
Trout Giggles
3.1.8  Trout Giggles  replied to  Jonathan P @3.1.6    4 months ago

trump's middle name is pimp? Or is it man-whore?

 
 
Jonathan P
3.1.9  Jonathan P  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.8    4 months ago
john



jän/



noun
informal



noun: john; plural noun: johns




  1. 1.



    North American

    a toilet.








  2. 2.



    a prostitute's client.






 
 
Trout Giggles
3.1.10  Trout Giggles  replied to  Jonathan P @3.1.9    4 months ago

laughing dude

Joke's on  me! I totally forgot about "john". Thanks, Jonathan.

 
 
Paula Bartholomew
3.1.11  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.5    4 months ago

He also had a wife and child at home.  Hail the adulterer in chief.

 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
3.1.12  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.5    4 months ago
He fucked her and he paid her.

That make HER a hooker.

 
 
Landshark
3.1.13  Landshark  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @3.1.11    4 months ago

That could make him eligible to run as a Democrat now.

 
 
Greg Jones
3.1.14  Greg Jones  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @3.1.11    4 months ago
He also had a wife and child at home.

So did Bubba Billy.

 
 
Krishna
3.1.15  Krishna  replied to  Jonathan P @3.1.1    4 months ago

Clinton was fellated in the Oval office, 

Yes-- but he never did have sex with that women.

 
 
Jasper2529
3.1.16  Jasper2529  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @3.1.11    4 months ago
He also had a wife and child at home.  Hail the adulterer in chief.

Adultery while president isn't a new phenomenon: Jefferson, Jackson, Cleveland, Harding, FDR, Ike, JFK, Johnson, Clinton, Obama, and others. Some presidents and their lapdog media covered their tracks very well. When, while POTUS, has Trump committed adultery?.

 
 
Krishna
3.1.17  Krishna  replied to  Jonathan P @3.1.4    4 months ago
The correct word is "whore".

I heard on the news today that she's not in it for the money-- but merely wants more exposure.

stromy2.jpg

 
 
Split Personality
3.1.18  Split Personality  replied to  Jonathan P @3.1.1    4 months ago

We really have no idea what Trump has done in office.

I have my opinions and misgivings about the relationship between Hicks and Trump, but that is all they are at this point.

Why would he hire an absolute "nobody" for the Trump organization as a personal secretary for 92K per year,

then promote her to Press secretary of the campaign for 123K per year and finally advance her to

Secretary of strategic communications for $170,700.00

The same  salary as her boss Sean Spicer and others like Kelly Ann Conway and the 20 other highest paid staffers in the WH?

Hmmm?

 
 
Split Personality
3.1.19  Split Personality  replied to  Jasper2529 @3.1.16    4 months ago

We don't know yet , do we?

But we do know his character.

And if he thinks he can get away with it

or buy someone off,

he's absolutely down with it.

 
 
sixpick
3.1.20  sixpick  replied to  Split Personality @3.1.18    4 months ago

She was a really good employee.

 
 
Split Personality
3.1.21  Split Personality  replied to  sixpick @3.1.20    4 months ago

Ok 

I'll play for a minute.......

He paid her the same as 

Steve Bannon, chief strategist and senior counselor;
Thomas Bossert, assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism;
Kellyanne Conway, assistant to the president and senior counselor;
Hope Hicks, director of strategic communications who was his spokeswoman on the campaign and now serves as a gatekeeper to the president;
Omarosa Manigault, former Apprentice contestant and director of communications for the Office of Public Liason;
K.T. McFarland, deputy national security adviser and former Fox News contributor who was recently nominated ambassador to Singapore;
Don McGahn, White House counsel;
Stephen Miller, senior adviser for policy;
Dina Powell, deputy national security adviser for strategy;
Reince Priebus, chief of staff;
Daniel Scavino, director of social media; and
Sean Spicer, press secretary

There are no unattractive women on this list and only Kelly Conway and Hope Hicks can claim loyalty

while Dina Powell I the only one can claim actual experience.

a huge fail by Trump.

Just how huge remains to be seen.

Signing off for tonight  -hope to be back soon...

 
 
PJ
3.1.22  PJ  replied to  Split Personality @3.1.19    4 months ago

It's not that unusual for people to promote friends to levels they are unqualified for in order to pay them more.  That's a pretty common practice.  It just seems more blatant in this Administration because in normal situation those unqualified are not the majority.  Sadly, those qualified in this Administration are the minority so it's far more accentuated.  

I worked for a Commissioner who was appointed by the former President and she was HORRIBLE!.  No vision, no plan.  She did nothing to advance the mission and did nothing for moral.   I was happy when she left.  I really like our current Commissioner.  He's top notch, imo - which is rare for this Administration.  You never hear anything about him in the news.  No scandals....yet. lol

 
 
Paula Bartholomew
3.1.23  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1.14    4 months ago

Two wrongs do not make a right.  Bad behavior by a previous POTUS should not be acceptable by a current one.

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
3.1.24  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @3.1.23    4 months ago
Bad behavior by a previous POTUS should not be acceptable by a current one.

It's remarkable that after everything they put WJC through in 1998 that they think we should just ignore their Shitbag's much more rancid, prolonged, blatant and repetitive sexual adventurism. 

 
 
Trout Giggles
3.1.25  Trout Giggles  replied to  Krishna @3.1.17    3 months ago
but merely wants more exposure.

laughing dude

 
 
Greg Jones
3.1.26  Greg Jones  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @3.1.24    3 months ago

Clinton was accused by multiple women of sexual abuse and harassment, and couple of them accused him of rape. Hillary's response was to demonize these women. The voters remembered that during the last election.

 
 
JBB
4  JBB    4 months ago

Is nobody from the right willing to defend Trump's honor? Sorry, that made me laugh, too...

 
 
Greg Jones
4.1  Greg Jones  replied to  JBB @4    4 months ago

Is this all you guys have got. I mean, nothing you try is working. The pussy grabbing tape, the several accusers, the allegedly underage girl, Mueller's sideshow. All that has been run by the voters and they have pretty much rejected it as sore loser politics. The voters are also noticing that the loser leftist loons have apparently forgotten that the midterms are coming up quickly in about 8 months. In the meantime, Teflon Don's  successes continue to pile up as his approval ratings grow.

 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
4.1.2  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Greg Jones @4.1    4 months ago
Teflon Don's  successes continue to pile up as his approval ratings grow.

What planet do you live on? Trumps ratings haven't "grown" since he was elected, in fact they stay at a steady 34%, that means that the only ones who see him as successful are his base, you know, the knuckle draggers.

 
 
Rmando
4.1.3  Rmando  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @4.1.2    4 months ago

Actually his rating are at over 40% and have ranged from the high 30s to the mid 40s. But nice try.

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
4.1.4  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Greg Jones @4.1    4 months ago
Is this all you guys have got. I mean, nothing you try is working. The pussy grabbing tape, the several accusers, the allegedly underage girl, Mueller's sideshow.

Republicans once impeached a President over a BJ yet you list off a taped confession of sexual assault, 19 credible accusers of said sexual assault including an underage girl and the coordination with an enemy foreign government to manipulate our election process as nothing but a "sideshow". The insanity of the right continues to amaze me as I once believed Republicans had more integrity and allegiance to American values instead of an allegiance to an enemy fascist foreign government bent on the destruction of western Democracy.

 
 
Tessylo
4.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @4.1.2    4 months ago
'you know, the knuckle draggers.'

which includes the deplorables

 
 
livefreeordie
4.1.6  livefreeordie  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.1.4    4 months ago

There is a CRITICAL difference between behavior as a private citizen and behavior as President.   

President Trump continues to demonstrate by his actions that he is the best president since Reagan and in the top 3 of the last 100 plus years.  Unlike the globalist leftist Democrats and Establishment Republicans, Trump is achieving results for America and the American people.

The facts back this up.  

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
4.1.7  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  livefreeordie @4.1.6    4 months ago
President Trump continues to demonstrate by his actions that he is the best president since Reagan

"In spite of the wildly speculative and false stories of arms for hostages and alleged ransom payments, we did not—repeat, did not—trade weapons or anything else for hostages, nor will we." Ronald Reagan Nov 1986

""A few months ago, I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and evidence tell me it is not." Ronald Reagan March 1987

Quite the lying shoes to fill...

 
 
Paula Bartholomew
4.1.8  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Rmando @4.1.3    4 months ago

When he totally blows the meeting in NK and he will, they will drop again.

 
 
Tacos!
4.1.9  Tacos!  replied to    4 months ago
some fools will put up with anything.

This is the whole thing, though. We aren't putting up with it at all. This crap happened 12 years ago. It's over. With Clinton, we actually had to put up with it while he was in office.

 
 
Krishna
4.1.11  Krishna  replied to  livefreeordie @4.1.6    4 months ago

The facts back this up.  

True, But let's not forget-- those are the "alternative facts'-- not the true facts!

 
 
Thrawn 31
4.1.12  Thrawn 31  replied to  livefreeordie @4.1.6    4 months ago

OMG, just say you have no moral standards and get it over with. 

 
 
Jasper2529
4.1.13  Jasper2529  replied to    4 months ago
It just means that some fools will put up with anything.

I agree: FDR, Ike, JFK, Johnson, Clinton ... just to name 4.

 
 
Tacos!
4.1.14  Tacos!  replied to    4 months ago
And you're still bitching about it.

I'm bitching about it? I'm not the one who thinks there's a scandal here that should be investigated. That's you. I think it's a stupid story that news media should walk away from, but they won't because there's boobs involved. Covering this story does nothing to serve the public interest. Nothing.

 
 
sixpick
4.1.15  sixpick  replied to    4 months ago

Hey you guys took sexual promiscuity out of the qualifications for being President a long time ago after years of putting Bill Clinton on a pedestal and then selecting his wife to run for President.  I don't even worry about his sexual escapes anymore  See what Liberalism does to a country. You need to get out more.

 
 
Jasper2529
4.1.17  Jasper2529  replied to    4 months ago
You named 5. 

Oh, so sorry. I have a surgical patch on my eye and mis-counted.

Thanks for proving my point.

Your comment didn't have a "point".

 
 
Jasper2529
4.1.19  Jasper2529  replied to    4 months ago
You want to blame your inability to count to five on a lack of depth perception?

When did this seed turn into a discussion about my medical eye problems and surgeries?

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
4.1.22  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Greg Jones @4.1    4 months ago
I mean, nothing you try is working.

You wish. 

 
 
Trout Giggles
4.1.23  Trout Giggles  replied to    3 months ago

nope

 
 
Greg Jones
4.1.24  Greg Jones  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.1.4    3 months ago
allegiance to an enemy fascist foreign government bent on the destruction of western Democracy.

This is left wing wet dream.

 
 
devangelical
5  devangelical    4 months ago

Comment removed no value [ph]

 
 
Greg Jones
5.1  Greg Jones  replied to  devangelical @5    4 months ago

Comment really inappropriate. Childish and vulgar.

 
 
JBB
5.1.1  JBB  replied to  Greg Jones @5.1    4 months ago
Childish and vulgar.

That is an apt discription of Trump's affair with Stormy Daniels...

 
 
Trout Giggles
5.1.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Greg Jones @5.1    4 months ago

I gave him a vote up.

 
 
livefreeordie
5.1.3  livefreeordie  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.1.2    4 months ago

Comment removed for CoC violation [ph]

 
 
Tessylo
5.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  livefreeordie @5.1.3    4 months ago

How deplorable of you Mr. Preacher.  

 
 
Trout Giggles
5.1.5  Trout Giggles  replied to  livefreeordie @5.1.3    4 months ago

I never claimed I was anything different.

 
 
Trout Giggles
5.1.6  Trout Giggles  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.4    4 months ago

I wonder if he kisses his mother with that mouth?

 
 
Trout Giggles
5.1.8  Trout Giggles  replied to    4 months ago

It's ironic that people call themselves Christians but have no problem calling people names

 
 
Raven Wing
5.1.9  Raven Wing  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.1.8    4 months ago

And those who wear their piety like a crown and throw it in the face of everyone else, have no problem using the most foul and vulgar language, even taking the Lord's name in vain, which proves their are truly not Christians at all, they just like to try and make everyone else think so for the sake of their own ego and self aggrandizement. That makes them liars as well. That is one reason why I find it hard to accept those who profess their profound piety as truly being the God fearing Christians they pretend to be. 

 
 
Tessylo
5.1.11  Tessylo  replied to    4 months ago
'I wonder if he kisses his mother with that mouth?'

That family tree only has one branch that goes all the way back to one brother and sister.  

 
 
Randy
5.1.12  Randy  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.1.2    4 months ago
I gave him a vote up.

I didn't even get to see what he posted and I voted it up too! Wink

 
 
Landshark
5.1.13  Landshark  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.1.8    4 months ago

That's not how it works.

 
 
Paula Bartholomew
5.1.14  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Randy @5.1.12    4 months ago

LOL so did I.

 
 
sixpick
5.1.15  sixpick  replied to  JBB @5.1.1    4 months ago

By the way, what was his affair with Stormy?  In the old days we'd call this bribery and she would go to jail.

 
 
devangelical
5.1.16  devangelical  replied to  Randy @5.1.12    4 months ago

Re: 5.2

 
 
Trout Giggles
5.1.17  Trout Giggles  replied to  Landshark @5.1.13    3 months ago

Then tell, me, O Righteous One, how does it work?

And let's see if you can explain it without the use of your usual colorful language.

 
 
Tessylo
5.2  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @5    4 months ago

Ivanka must not like anal sex, so daddy had to seek it elsewhere. Probably wouldn't urinate on him either.

Comment removed no value [ph]

 
 
Trout Giggles
5.2.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Tessylo @5.2    4 months ago
Without a condom also!

vomit

 
 
Krishna
5.2.2  Krishna  replied to  Tessylo @5.2    4 months ago
Ivanka must not like anal sex, so daddy had to seek it elsewhere. Probably wouldn't urinate on him either.

That comment is crude and vulgar! So naturally I voted it up!

(Unfortunately I missed the part that was removed...)

 
 
sixpick
5.2.3  sixpick  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.2.1    4 months ago

I have to tell you that those of you who participated in the original comment have really sunk to a new low.

 
 
devangelical
5.2.4  devangelical  replied to  sixpick @5.2.3    4 months ago

Lower than adultery with a porn star and paying $130K in hush money?

 
 
Landshark
5.2.5  Landshark  replied to  devangelical @5.2.4    4 months ago

 That distinction  goes to the Clintons after all their sexual escapades dabbling in sex slavery.

 
 
lady in black
5.2.6  lady in black  replied to  Landshark @5.2.5    4 months ago

Your tinfoil needs some adjusting.  Also law off listening to Alex Jones.

 
 
Landshark
5.2.7  Landshark  replied to  lady in black @5.2.6    4 months ago

  Never heard of Alex Jones I got that from one of your cohorts. 

 
 
devangelical
5.2.8  devangelical  replied to  Landshark @5.2.5    4 months ago

In the basement of that pizza parlor? Teabags really lap that Russian bullshit up.

 
 
Trout Giggles
5.2.9  Trout Giggles  replied to  sixpick @5.2.3    3 months ago

whatever.....I really don't care what you think of me. <rolls eyes>

 
 
Dean Moriarty
6  Dean Moriarty    4 months ago

It's all good even Melania digs the bunnies. 

5a86ee8dd030721c008b485a750375.jpg

 
 
Trout Giggles
6.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Dean Moriarty @6    4 months ago

So? I appreciate the hard working waitresses at Hooters. Again...so?

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
6.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Dean Moriarty @6    4 months ago
It's all good even Melania digs the bunnies.

I'm sure Melania was very supportive of Trump cheating on her with a porn star while she was at home with his 4 month old child. /s

 
 
Tessylo
6.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.2    4 months ago
'Trump cheating on her with a porn star'

without a condom no less.  

 
 
Landshark
6.2.2  Landshark  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.2    4 months ago

Why not?

 
 
Tacos!
6.2.4  Tacos!  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.2    4 months ago
I'm sure Melania was very supportive of Trump cheating on her with a porn star while she was at home with his 4 month old child.

That's their problem, isn't it? And she appears to be over it. So why do you care?

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
6.2.5  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Tacos! @6.2.4    4 months ago
And she appears to be over it.

Really? Is that why she's almost never seen with him anymore unless she's forced to? I doubt very highly she knew until the news broke, and I'm sure the $130,000 Trump spent to keep the porn star quiet was also news to her. Trump has cheated on every wife he's ever had, I'm rather curious as to why conservatives think he'll be loyal to them. Trump is about as untrustworthy as a human can get, he even keeps reading you skirting the CoC [ph] the story of the snake but you're still not getting it that he's actually the snake in that story. 

 
 
Tacos!
6.2.6  Tacos!  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.2.5    4 months ago
Is that why she's almost never seen with him anymore unless she's forced to?

I think that's a thing media people on the Left are making up. It's a claim with no support. How would you even quantify such a thing? What data sets are you going to compare?

I'm rather curious as to why conservatives think he'll be loyal to them

I'm not worried about it. I think he works to further his own self-interest. That self-interest is to improve the business climate in this country because he, himself, is a businessman. So his policies will help him, but they will also help everyone else. I don't think that's the only thing that motivates him, but it is something I think you can rely on.

Most other politicians are chasing power for its own sake. You can't say that about Trump. 

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
6.2.7  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Tacos! @6.2.6    4 months ago
That self-interest is to improve the business climate in this country because he, himself, is a businessman. So his policies will help him, but they will also help everyone else.

You keep telling yourself that as he enriches himself while stabbing middle America in the back. He's a liar, a consummate con-man, a serially bankrupt betrayer yet the foolish conservatives clutch him to their breast because he's told them he's a magic snake who will grant them three wishes. By the end of this the only thing conservatives will be wishing for is for Trump to have never been born. But go right ahead, keep buying into his lies, it will only make it that much sweeter to say "We told you so".

 
 
Tacos!
6.2.8  Tacos!  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.2.7    4 months ago
while stabbing middle America in the back.

Middle America is doing pretty well and things are improving all the time. Unemployment is at its lowest level in a long time. For those trying to start a business, more and more regulations are being repealed. And we all just got a nice tax cut. How is middle America being stabbed in the back?

He's a liar, a consummate con-man, a serially bankrupt betrayer

We've known that for years. You're still not telling us something that would make us want to go back and vote for Hillary Clinton. That was the choice we had. By they way, many people think she's not much different than he is in those qualities.

he's a magic snake who will grant them three wishes

You mean like "you can keep your doctor and your health plan?" And lest you think that's all there is, here is a list of broken Obama promises. It's pretty long. 

Promise Broken rulings on The Obameter

But go right ahead, keep buying into his lies

Like I said, it's not about believing in promises. It's about having a sense of what the man actually cares about.

 
 
sixpick
6.2.9  sixpick  replied to    4 months ago

Just living by the expectations the Liberals have given us by example.

 
 
Landshark
6.2.10  Landshark  replied to    4 months ago

 So do you want to rip him for acting like a consummate liberal.  That doesn’t make much sense coming from your side. 

 
 
Paula Bartholomew
6.2.11  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Tessylo @6.2.1    4 months ago

They didn't make them in extra small size.

 
 
Trout Giggles
6.2.12  Trout Giggles  replied to  Landshark @6.2.10    3 months ago

The liberals I know have been married to only one spouse, have decent children, have good jobs, and don't act so self-righteous.

 
 
JohnRussell
7  JohnRussell    4 months ago

There is another angle to the Stormy Daniels story which is piquing interest. 

-

How Stormy Daniels Explains Russian Collusion



Posted:Fri, 09 Mar 2018 14:10:01 GMT

There’s a certain prurient attraction to the Stormy Daniels story but also a sense in which relatively view people care because they’ve already internalized all the lessons the affair can teach them. That Trump cheats on his wives is an established fact. That he would do it while his third wife was still recovering from childbirth is somewhat shocking, I guess, but this is a man who said a few years later while answering a question about whether it’s fair to pay mothers less than men who have the same job that Melania was “not giving me 100 percent. She’s giving me 84 percent, and 16 percent is going towards taking care of children.” In his mind, this justified paying women less and also helps explain why he’d seek sex outside of his marriage.

More interesting is the way Trump went about trying to keep this affair secret. His lawyer, Michael Cohen, is of interest for a lot more reasons than how he’s been handling this potential scandal. For one, he’s mentioned in the Steele Dossier as a key contact with the Russians.  So, to the extent that the Stormy Daniels story peels back the shroud around his methods, it’s instructive.  The fact that he acted like Trump’s Mr. Fix-It in his personal life lends weight to the allegations in the dossier that  he “met with Russian officials in the Czech Republic to discuss how to cover up efforts by Trump campaign officials to collude with the Russian government, secretly pay hackers who infiltrated and leaked emails from the campaign of Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee, and [to] keep the hacking campaign going.”

Those allegations have not been proven, but they seem less implausible every day.

We do not have any reporting that implicates Michael Cohen in meetings with Russians as outlined in the dossier. However, recent revelations indicate his long-standing relationships with key Russian and Ukrainian interlocutors, and highlight his role in a previously hidden effort to build a Trump tower in Moscow. During the campaign, those efforts included email exchanges with Trump associate Felix Sater explicitly referring to getting Putin’s circle involved and helping Trump get elected.

It seems far-fetched that Christopher Steele would identify the relatively obscure Michael Cohen as the likely man to clean up after Manafort’s flame-out in August 2016 if it weren’t true, especially because that’s the role Cohen clearly plays for Trump in other areas. Steele got the name “Michael Cohen” from actual sources, not out of his imagination.

It is indeed strange that Trump doesn’t pay much of a price for his lack of family values nor for his obvious dishonesty about his behavior with women. After all, he clearly thought the Stormy Daniels story could hurt him or he wouldn’t have authorized a payment of $130,000 to silence her. Cohen wouldn’t have worked last week to get a temporary restraining order on her speaking out if he and Trump didn’t think her revelations could be damaging. But they’re probably wrong about that.

People know Trump is a cheater and a liar and a bully, and these things form the basis for his appeal with a lot of people. There are enough people who want to fly around in private jets and have sex with porn stars to give Trump some political inoculation. If this story has real legs, it’s more for what it reveals about Trump’s ability to brazenly lie and his strategies from dealing with crisis. If we can’t believe him about Stormy Daniels, and we surely cannot, then we have less reason to believe him about Russia.

 
 
Tacos!
7.1  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @7    4 months ago

We have had a year and a half of phrases like:

His lawyer, Michael Cohen, is of interest . . . to the extent that the Stormy Daniels story peels back the shroud around his methods, it’s instructive . . . lends weight to the allegations . . . Those allegations have not been proven, but they seem less implausible every day . . . It seems far-fetched that . . . It is indeed strange . . . If this story has real legs, it’s more for what it reveals about Trump’s ability to brazenly lie

Now take those phrases and attach them to any real crime that you can think of. Has it ever been so difficult to prove any other kind of wrongdoing? Have you ever seen a conspiracy this diabolical and so hard to prove? How many dozens or hundreds of people have been interviewed and investigated? How many hundreds of thousands of documents reviewed? And somehow we still don't have proof of something illegal related to Trump himself or his campaign other than a couple of nervous people being trapped into lying to investigators.

Think about your opinion of Trump and his competency. Think about you opinion of the competency of the people who work for him.

Do you really believe that those people have managed to pull off the most diabolical conspiracy and cover-up in the history of American politics? Really?

They're incompetent morons in everything but this?

Honestly?

 
 
sixpick
7.1.1  sixpick  replied to  Tacos! @7.1    4 months ago

Yuri Bezmenov said we'd be stuck with them and we are.

 
 
Krishna
7.2  Krishna  replied to  JohnRussell @7    4 months ago

Wow!

At the rate things are going, Mueller's so-called "Witch-hunt will be finding even more "witches" than it already has!

 
 
sixpick
7.2.1  sixpick  replied to  Krishna @7.2    4 months ago

The big problem is he hasn't found any yet.  I guess we'll have to start counting when he finds the first one.

 
 
sixpick
7.3  sixpick  replied to  JohnRussell @7    4 months ago
How Stormy Daniels Explains Russian Collusion

So Stormy is the latest for the Soviet Style Prosecutor to pursue his witch hunt?  Tell me, what have they proven to be true in the Dossier?  I think they've proved that Hillary Clinton who ran her campaign paid for it.  Do you ever wonder why they had Crowdstrike inspect their servers and the FBI has yet to get their hands on them as far as we know?  You know it is illegal to do what they did, collude with the Russians.

 
 
JohnRussell
8  JohnRussell    4 months ago

Chris Hayes was on Colbert last night, and they were discussing this topic. Hayes made the compelling point that Wikileaks revealed the Podesta emails hours after the Access Hollywood pussy grabbing trump audio came out, AND not too long after that Stormy Daniels received the hush money payment from Michael Cohen. Trump was obviously concerned with what Daniels story would do to his campaign. 

What else has Trump bought silence about? 

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
8.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  JohnRussell @8    4 months ago
What else has Trump bought silence about?

I'll bet $100,000 was to not talk about the affair and the extra $30,000 was to not mention how tiny the Presidential "staff" was...

 
 
Rmando
9  Rmando    4 months ago

Where was all the liberal shock and feigned outrage over Gennifer Flowers? Nobody voted for Trump expecting he was a choir boy. Wake me when you all find out if Trump actually did something in the Oval Office like Billy Boy.

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
9.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Rmando @9    4 months ago
Where was all the liberal shock and feigned outrage over Gennifer Flowers?

How is a single sexual encounter back in 1977 that was admitted to by Bill Clinton the same as an ongoing affair with a porn star that you later pay $130,000 to for her silence?

 
 
Rmando
9.1.1  Rmando  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @9.1    4 months ago

It's a lot better than the $850,000 settlement Clinton gave to Paula Jones for exposing himself to her WITHOUT her consent.

 
 
Trout Giggles
9.1.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Rmando @9.1.1    4 months ago

He got sued and he lost his law license. He paid his debt.

 
 
Landshark
9.1.4  Landshark  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @9.1    4 months ago

Clinton was a rapist, philanderer, adulterer, likely pervert and really good at acting like an emote.  But the lefties love that sorta stuff.  Beside he was married to a cold hearted bitch that stopped giving it up ages ago so he was a rather sympathetic character.

 
 
Tacos!
9.1.5  Tacos!  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @9.1    4 months ago
an ongoing affair

Ongoing? This was 12 years ago, right?

 
 
Greg Jones
9.1.6  Greg Jones  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @9.1    4 months ago
How is a single sexual encounter back in 1977

He was accused by multiple women of sexual abuse and harassment  while in office.

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
9.1.7  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Landshark @9.1.4    4 months ago
Clinton was a rapist, philanderer, adulterer, likely pervert

There's more evidence that Trump is a child rapist, has 5 times more accusers of sexual assault, cheated on all three of his wives and is without a doubt a pervert who has said on numerous occasions he wished he could date his daughter. Bill Clinton hasn't been in politics for nearly 20 years, not sure why you hypocritical conservatives continue to bring him up to defend your own candidate. If your defense of sexual assault and rape is "Well some other guy did it too" you've already lost the debate.

 
 
sixpick
9.1.8  sixpick  replied to  Landshark @9.1.4    4 months ago

Lolita Express BC DT BE HW 02.jpg

 
 
Sean Treacy
9.1.9  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @9.1    4 months ago

ow is a single sexual encounter back in 1977 that was admitted to by Bill Clinton the same as an ongoing affair with a porn star 

The Clinton Flowers affair affair lasted 12 years, according the one in the relationship who didn't commit perjury. 

The only difference between Bill Clinton and Donald Trump when it comes to women is that Bill had Hillary to threaten them to keep quiet. That's was her contribution to the Bill and Hillary partnership, threatening the women Bill assaulted, raped and/or had affairs with. 

 
 
Krishna
9.2  Krishna  replied to  Rmando @9    4 months ago
Where was all the liberal shock and feigned outrage over Gennifer Flowers?

And while we're desperately attempting to derail this conversatioon-- let not forget the horrfic scandle involving Grover Cleverland!

(And I'm sure most people here can hardly forget the sordid details of Warren Gamaliel Harding's presidency! Oh-- the horror!)

Lock Him Up . . . 

Yes lock up the evil Warren Gamaliel as well!!!

 
 
Rmando
9.2.1  Rmando  replied to  Krishna @9.2    4 months ago

Well I wouldn't be surprised if the left starts tearing down statues of those two (assuming there are any).

 
 
sixpick
9.2.2  sixpick  replied to  Rmando @9.2.1    4 months ago

Were they Radical Democrats?

 
 
Rmando
9.2.3  Rmando  replied to  sixpick @9.2.2    4 months ago

Cleveland was a Democrat. Oddly enough according to Wikipedia he even carried out a couple of executions himself:

"Cleveland's service as sheriff was unremarkable; biographer Rexford Tugwell described the time in office as a waste for Cleveland politically. Cleveland was aware of graft in the sheriff's office during his tenure and chose not to confront it.[42] A notable incident of his term took place on September 6, 1872, when Patrick Morrissey was executed, who had been convicted of murdering his mother.[43] As sheriff, Cleveland was responsible for either personally carrying out the execution or paying a deputy $10 to perform the task.[43] In spite of reservations about the hanging, Cleveland executed Morrissey himself;[43] he hanged another murderer, John Gaffney, on February 14, 1873."

I guess he really wanted to save taxpayers that 10 bucks.

 
 
Split Personality
9.2.4  Split Personality  replied to  Rmando @9.2.3    4 months ago

$10 in 1872 adjusted for inflation equates to about $1,200.00

http://www.antiquemoney.com/old-ten-dollar-bill-value-price-guide/how-much-is-a-1872-10-bill-worth/

depending on which source you choose -  some estimates are as low as $960 or as high as $2,500.00

Make sure they are not talking about the value of a collectible note vs  value adjusted for inflation.

Either way, 10 bucks was a lot of money in 1872 & 1873.

Good trivia about Cleaveland.

 
 
Rmando
10.1  Rmando  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @10    4 months ago

I'm sure he was merely "extremely careless", just like Hillary.

 
 
Hal A. Lujah
10.1.1  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Rmando @10.1    4 months ago

I'm surprised he didn't cc the whole Trump family.

 
 
Tacos!
10.1.2  Tacos!  replied to  Rmando @10.1    4 months ago

It says "company" email, not "classified government" email.

 
 
arkpdx
10.2  arkpdx  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @10    4 months ago

So? 

 
 
Hal A. Lujah
10.2.1  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  arkpdx @10.2    4 months ago

He really went out of his way to make sure Donald Trump was protected from ever finding out that he paid $130,000 of his own money to silence a lying porn star, huh?  That lying sack of shit should be disbarred.

 
 
arkpdx
10.2.2  arkpdx  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @10.2.1    4 months ago

No value [ph]

 
 
Hal A. Lujah
10.2.3  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  arkpdx @10.2.2    4 months ago

No value [ph]

 
 
arkpdx
10.2.4  arkpdx  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @10.2.3    4 months ago

No value [ph]

 
 
JohnRussell
10.2.6  JohnRussell  replied to    4 months ago

I was given a coc violation for telling someone that they are a waste of time. (Whether that is better , equal, or worse than referring to another member as a two year old is surely an open question).  My remark was surely flagged, I assume. Whether this one will be also remains to be seen. 

The point is that remarks like both of these take place with some regularity on NT and indeed many /most forums like this. 

It appears that whether or not one is then suspended may depend on how many 'enemies' or disapprovers one has in the group. 

Some will say there is no other way to do it. 

When you have a group where nonsense flows so freely there is bound to be harsh 'criticism'.  It comes with the territory. 

 
 
Hal A. Lujah
10.2.7  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  JohnRussell @10.2.6    4 months ago

(Whether that is better , equal, or worse than referring to another member as a two year old is surely an open question)

Hey now, I do my best to follow (skirt) the rules.  I did not refer to anyone as a two year old, I only expressed a feeling.  It’s kinda like how it’s acceptable to say you like the sound someone makes when they shut up, because you can’t just directly tell them to stfu.

 
 
JohnRussell
10.2.8  JohnRussell  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @10.2.7    4 months ago

Similarly, calling someone a waste of time could be a compliment. I may enjoy wasting time occasionally.  

 
 
Randy
10.2.9  Randy  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @10.2.7    4 months ago
Hey now, I do my best to follow (skirt) the rules

See now that's problem IMHO. I voted against keeping "Skirting the CoC" because someone either violates the CoC or they don't. Period. Skirting the CoC is like saying:"Well they sort of came close to a violation, but not really, but it still sounded not good even though it was not a violation, but I don't like it, so I guess I should take it down, even though that person might not know why and might end being gun-shy in how they post so they might end up being afraid to say what they really think sometimes"

So that's why I voted against it in the CoC poll. Very, very, very, unfortunately I lost on that vote plus a couple of other ones that, while they are well intended will end up damaging this site at least a little by making it a little more boring. Then in several months it will happen all over again and then we'll have a "Kinda, sorta, maybe skirting the CoC" violation and we'll vote for even stricter politeness rules and then we'll all end up in a Sunday after church tea party everyday. At least that is MHO.

 
 
Dean Moriarty
10.2.10  Dean Moriarty  replied to  Randy @10.2.9    4 months ago

You're lucky that you got to vote, I never got a ballot. 

 
 
Hal A. Lujah
10.2.11  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Randy @10.2.9    4 months ago

You are spot on, Randy.  The skirting rule only serves to stifle creativity.

 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
10.2.12  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Dean Moriarty @10.2.10    4 months ago

Dean,

Did you participate in the discussion?

 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
10.2.13  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Randy @10.2.9    4 months ago
See now that's problem IMHO. I voted against keeping "Skirting the CoC" because someone either violates the CoC or they don't.

I don't disagree, Randy. But then I there would be a ton of suspensions handed out weekly. When the idea of skirting came out, it was more like getting a ticket, and plea bargaining down. 

 
 
JohnRussell
10.2.14  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @10.2.13    4 months ago

If someone makes a comment that does not rise to a coc violation level, why not just delete it? 

 
 
Hal A. Lujah
10.2.15  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Dean Moriarty @10.2.10    4 months ago

It wouldn’t have mattered, Dean.  We are outnumbered by namby pambies here.

 
 
Split Personality
10.2.16  Split Personality  replied to  Dean Moriarty @10.2.10    4 months ago

Unless you turned off all of your email notifications, or ignored them,

you were invited several times by Perrie to participate in a discussion about the CoC.

Members who participated in the discussion (by commenting) were also asked to participate in a vote.

It was pretty straight forward.

 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
10.2.17  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Split Personality @10.2.16    4 months ago

Is it too early for a drink?

 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
10.2.19  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @10.2.17    4 months ago

Never too early!!!!

And please look at your Private notes. :)

 
 
JohnRussell
10.2.20  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @10.2.19    4 months ago
(deleted)
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
10.2.21  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  JohnRussell @10.2.20    4 months ago

John,

Can you please stop metaring in the articles. Thanks.

 
 
JohnRussell
10.2.22  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @10.2.21    4 months ago

Perrie Halpern R.A.


10.2.13  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Randy @10.2.9    35 minutes ago

See now that's problem IMHO. I voted against keeping "Skirting the CoC" because someone either violates the CoC or they don't.

I don't disagree, Randy. But then I there would be a ton of suspensions handed out weekly. When the idea of skirting came out, it was more like getting a ticket, and plea bargaining down. 


 


   REPLY


 
 
Tacos!
10.2.23  Tacos!  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @10.2.1    4 months ago
That lying sack of shit should be disbarred.

For what? Safeguarding his client's interests?

 
 
Dean Moriarty
10.2.24  Dean Moriarty  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @10.2.12    4 months ago

No I wasn't aware you were required to until your last comment of the discussion when you locked the thread so it was impossible to comment. 

Heres the instructions I saw with no indication making a comment was mandatory to vote. 

"Welcome to the discussion and update of The NewsTalkers Code of Conduct (CoC). For those of you who have never done this before, let me explain how this goes.

I will list what I have seen to be issues on the site. It is just a starting point for the discussion. Members may discuss my points or even present new points and or issues. After the discussion part, I will read over the well presented ideas and draft up the final group of ideas to be presented to the group, with short discussion to follow. After that, there is a vote on the final items that could end up in the CoC. The vote determines what is ultimately put into the CoC.

So with that, let’s get to the list that I have currently. Remember this list can be added to or subtracted from, given the validity of the argument. Also, any suggestions to simplify, clarify or format the CoC is also up for discussion."

This is where I learned of the requirement and the conversation was locked so there was no possible way to comment. 

"OK, it's after 12 so I think this part of the update is over. Let me explain where we go from here:

I look over all the comments and make a list of the items not covered in the original article and change the ones that were discussed to meet the groups requirements. This will be presented to the group. 

Then those of you who participated, will receive a code that will give you a ballot. This can only be used once. On the outcome of the ballot, the CoC will get an update, which will be presented to the group and will replace the old one. 

Thank you to everyone who took the time to be a part of this.  

This article is now closed."

 
 
Dean Moriarty
10.2.25  Dean Moriarty  replied to  Dean Moriarty @10.2.24    4 months ago

Am I missing something that indicated one was required to make a comment to vote?  I was always under the impression the members of the site got to vote on the COC and I fail to see in the instructions where a comment was mandatory to vote. I could be wrong I just can't find it. 

 
 
Krishna
10.2.26  Krishna  replied to  JohnRussell @10.2.6    4 months ago
I was given a coc violation for telling someone that they are a waste of time. (Whether that is better , equal, or worse than referring to another member as a two year old is surely an open question).  My remark was surely flagged, I assume. Whether this one will be also remains to be seen.

IMO that comment is off topic...

Can you please stop wasting our time with that sort of trivia?

 
 
Dean Moriarty
10.2.27  Dean Moriarty  replied to  Split Personality @10.2.16    4 months ago

If it was straight forward please show me where it indicates you must make a comment to vote? I would appreciate the help. 

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
10.2.28  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη @10.2.18    4 months ago

Proof it's always happy hour somewhere...

 
 
Split Personality
10.2.29  Split Personality  replied to  Dean Moriarty @10.2.27    4 months ago

C'mon Dean.....

Good Day NT Member!
As Resident Advisor, I would like to invite you to the updating of the Code of Conduct, starting on February 12, 2018. This is your chance to have a say concerning The NewsTalkers community standards and how it is moderated. Please take the time to read the current CoC, which is found at the bottom of every page on NT, so that you are prepared for the discussion.
I look forward to hearing your input.
Perrie Halpern, RA

Feb 08 at 1:23PM

In order for Perrie to "hear" your input, you would have to make a comment, right?

 
 
PJ
10.2.30  PJ  replied to  Split Personality @10.2.29    4 months ago

As much as I disagree with Dean - On this I completely agree.  I also had to request a ballot because I was overlooked.  Thank goodness I made a comment.

No where did the announcement indicate only those posting a comment would be eligible to vote.  Had the announcement stated the criteria for voting then others may have been more inclined to post a comment.  In addition, the omission didn't account for those who participate by reading or voting up a comment.  Liking a post is also a way in which members express their opinion.

 
 
Dean Moriarty
10.2.31  Dean Moriarty  replied to  Split Personality @10.2.29    4 months ago

It doesn't say you can't vote unless you make a comment does it?  I was there, I read the comments I participated I voted up Hals comments. 

This is a direct quote from the instructions.  "Members may discuss my points or even present new points and or issues." It says may not must may is optional. 

The instructions also say. "short discussion to follow"  It wouldn't be a short discussion if everyone was required to make comments would it? 

 
 
Split Personality
10.2.32  Split Personality  replied to  Dean Moriarty @10.2.31    4 months ago

Ok, this is not not exactly my fight to resolve.

I went back to the CoC discussion and in several places, Perrie makes comments that indicate that voting up comments count,

and that would let her know who participated (1.2.2 and 27 specifically where she said comments were closed for the evening but we could still vote up different ideas)

I have flagged both comments of yourself & PJ just to bring it to Perrie's attention.

My own belief is that since the eventual voting was actually handled by a third party - ( if you weren't somehow overlooked) - that the 3rd party invite to vote is in your spam folder,

or rejected by your email provider.

I deleted mine so I cannot provide a date.

Perhaps Perrie can provide some info.

 
 
PJ
10.2.33  PJ  replied to  Split Personality @10.2.32    4 months ago

I don't need my comment flagged.  I voted.  More importantly the voting is over and the CoC has been finalized.  Maybe in the future the wording can be written so there's no misunderstanding and member's know what is required in order to vote.  The bottom line is this is Perrie's site and she get's to decide who votes and who doesn't.  

I'm just agreeing with Dean that it wasn't clear.

 
 
Landshark
10.2.34  Landshark  replied to  Dean Moriarty @10.2.25    4 months ago

 I would’ve giving you my ballot if I knew you weren’t contacted.

 
 
Dean Moriarty
10.2.35  Dean Moriarty  replied to  Landshark @10.2.34    4 months ago

It's no big deal, I can let it go. I just got caught up replying to the comments trying to defend my position. I regret saying anything. 

 
 
lennylynx
10.2.36  lennylynx  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @10.2.12    4 months ago
"Did you participate in the discussion?"

Perhaps he works for a living which would have made that virtually impossible.  The article was closed most of the time.  I wanted to participate in the discussion from the day it started but it wasn't until the very last day that I managed to be here when it was open for a few minutes.  If I had been a tiny bit busier that last day, I never would have been able to participate.

 
 
sixpick
10.2.37  sixpick  replied to  Dean Moriarty @10.2.10    4 months ago

I voted for you.

 
 
Paula Bartholomew
10.2.38  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Tacos! @10.2.23    4 months ago
Safeguarding his client's interests?

Is that PC talk for covering his ass?

 
 
sixpick
10.3  sixpick  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @10    4 months ago

before she signed a nondisclosure agreement, a source familiar with the discussions told NBC News

Don't you just love how those Soviet Style News outfits always have their sources familiar with whatever they want to tell us about.  Now, let's see who that source is. 

I have a good one for you.  Mueller has two illegitimate children by his girlfriend, a source familiar to the situation told me.  Oh, let's kick him out!!!  Who needs proof anymore?  We'll use sources familiar with the situations to convict people.  That's the new fad made popular by the Soviet Style News Sources.

Who is the source familiar with the situation?  We have a porn star supposedly bribing Trump according to a source familiar with the situation. 

 
 
Hal A. Lujah
10.3.1  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  sixpick @10.3    4 months ago

Cohen has been pressured to admit that he paid a porn star (who he says he believes to be making up a lie out of whole cloth despite her already  being on record discussing the affair in the past) $130,000 out of his own pocket, with no intention to inform Donald Trump or attempt to get his money back, and you are defending him.  Enough said.  That’s a good way to never be taken seriously again.

 
 
Tacos!
11  Tacos!    4 months ago

I just can't shout it loud enough.

I. DON'T. CARE! NO ONE REALLY CARES! yak yaknot listeninganger

For God's sake, can we please talk about actual issues? The news media in this country has gone straight to hell. There is nothing remotely newsworthy about the president's relationship (or not) with some porn star 12 years ago.

Why? you might ask. Here's why: It doesn't impact anything we should care about. Consider some options:

Maybe you think it's an indictment on the way he treats women or his wife. But that ship has sailed, hasn't it? We are well aware of the life Donald Trump has led and we had a referendum on it 16 months ago. It turns out America is more interested in his ability to fix America's problems than it is about how much of a gentleman he is or isn't around beauty pageant contestants and porn stars. It's called "priorities" people!

At least it wasn't something that happened while he was president, like Kennedy or Clinton. And it's not like he killed someone, like Ted Kennedy. At worst, he had a fling with a porn star - 12 years ago, and she doesn't seem to be upset about it. Is that somehow objectively perverted? Admit it men, who among you would say no to that if actually presented with it? 

Other than that, how does this impact economic, domestic, or foreign policy? It doesn't! Is this a blackmail issue? Clearly not! 

It's just not an important story and there are so MANY important stories the media should be covering. The only reason we hear about this garbage is because "porn star" = clicks and ratings.

 
 
Greg Jones
11.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Tacos! @11    4 months ago

Good comment. The general public simply doesn't care. The left is hypocritical for bringing this up at all

 
 
Hal A. Lujah
11.1.1  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Greg Jones @11.1    4 months ago

What would a fringe Comment removed for CoC violation [ph] like yourself know about the general public?

 
 
Greg Jones
11.1.2  Greg Jones  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @11.1.1    3 months ago

You walked right into that one. What low hanging fruit! laughing dude

 
 
Krishna
11.2  Krishna  replied to  Tacos! @11    4 months ago
NO ONE REALLY CARES!  NO ONE REALLY CARES! yak yaknot listeninganger

Here you go again-- posting alternative facts.

If no-one cares-- how come so many people are arguing with you?

P.S: Do you actually think that the use of those emotions, while defitntely cute-- actually lends any credence to your argument?

(Can I offer you a Tequila? Its not too early you know..)

 
 
Tacos!
11.2.1  Tacos!  replied to  Krishna @11.2    4 months ago
P.S: Do you actually think that the use of those emotions, while defitntely cute-- actually lends any credence to your argument?

That's not what emoticons are for. They are there to express my own personal emotions.

If no-one cares-- how come so many people are arguing with you?

You tell me. Why is this story more important than the many other things news media could be covering. e.g., monthly job creation numbers, talks with North Korea, the state of infrastructure (highways, waterways, power lines, water pipes, internet, etc), trade issues, immigration, K-12 education, homelessness, disease, crime, the environment, etc. and so on. Hell, even the ridiculous Russia story is actually more important than this porn star.

You can take every one of those issues I listed (and more) and compare the news coverage of them to the porn star, the Russia story, or both. I guarantee you 90% of coverage on popular news media is about the porn star or Russia. What can possibly be the justification for such a disparity?

 
 
Hal A. Lujah
11.3  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Tacos! @11    4 months ago

I. DON'T. CARE! NO ONE REALLY CARES!

Oh, well then - you don’t care, therefore nobody cares.  JFC, are you for real with this shit?

Donald Trump has probably embodied a thousand reasons why any other normal human being would have resigned this position by now, but not Trump.  He’s a pathological narcissist with the most unsavory of characteristics, who will cling to the false impression that he is worthy of this position until his last dying breath.  Any reason to force this dangerous piece of shit out of office is something for the sane majority of this country to latch on to.

 
 
Tacos!
11.3.1  Tacos!  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @11.3    4 months ago
therefore nobody cares

I'm right on this. Demonstrate to me that people actually care that Trump may have nailed a porn star 10 years ago. Why would they care? Why would they further care that he paid her money to keep it quiet? It's not the people's money and he's not their husband.

The fact of electing Trump as president occurred IN SPITE of everything we already knew about the man. And truthfully, nobody who voted for Hillary did so because they loved Trump's policies but hated the fact that he sleeps around. Nobody.

So, I invite you to prove that anyone actually cares. i.e., they think everything about Trump is just wonderful unless it turns out he slept with a porn star and paid her not to tell anyone.

No, they just love a salacious scandal and if there are big boobs involved, so much the better. That's the only reason this story gets any play in the news media. Because truth be told, covering this story does not advance the public interest one tiny bit.

 
 
Hal A. Lujah
11.3.2  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Tacos! @11.3.1    4 months ago

It’s about his level of risk for blackmail.  If he is as unscrupulous and thoughtless as to fuck a porn star months after his wife gives birth to their son, he has no bottom.  He needs to go, like yesterday.

 
 
PJ
11.3.3  PJ  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @11.3.2    4 months ago

My position is that this isn't about a porn star.  It's about a man's character and the ability to make "good" decisions.  And as you point out it's about being a liability and having something to hide.  Willing to do anything to ensure no one else finds out.  

I no longer am surprised or upset about what the President does.  I'm more disturbed by those who are willing to look the other way and not hold him accountable.  I've lost faith in them and have made a conscious decision not to care about what they think anymore.   There is something lacking in them to not be concerned.

 
 
Split Personality
11.3.4  Split Personality  replied to  Tacos! @11.3.1    4 months ago

Nah, it's just because in the eyes of everyone reasonable, Trump had a relationship with this woman ( just after his wife had a baby ).

I think everyone agrees, he did this , he eventually paid her to keep quiet, and Cohen effed it up.

I agree with PJ that it speaks to his character,

he continues to proclaim his innocence in the face of overwhelming evidence just like any other lies he makes which are/ere easily refuted by previous audio or video proof.

 
 
igknorantzrulz
11.3.5  igknorantzrulz  replied to  PJ @11.3.3    4 months ago

nicely stated

 
 
Tacos!
11.3.6  Tacos!  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @11.3.2    4 months ago
It’s about his level of risk for blackmail.

The blackmail argument doesn't work here.

Clearly he has enough money to take care of his own blackmail, and in fact, he already did. He is threatened all the time and he either ignores it or takes people to court. For the stuff that does come out, it's clear that it doesn't hurt him enough to keep him out of office.

 
 
Tacos!
11.3.7  Tacos!  replied to  Split Personality @11.3.4    4 months ago
I agree with PJ that it speaks to his character

Of course it does, but presidents are not elected on character alone. Sometimes they are elected in spite of character just because the issues matters more and the differences between candidates are too big to be overcome by character issues. Let's be honest. Nothing in this story is surprising anyone.

 
 
JohnRussell
11.3.8  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @11.3.7    4 months ago

Donald Trump is EASILY the most unqualified person ever to run for president of the United States on a major party ticket, let alone win. He has lied literally thousands of times since he began his political career. He is also a known crook who has been sued hundreds of times for non payment of bills, and had to pay 20 million dollars to a group of people he defrauded. Throw in his misogyny , profound ignorance of national and international issues, and his rather plain appeal to white nationalism, and you have someone who does not belong in any office, let alone the presidency. And I havent even gotten to the Russia thing. 

 
 
Landshark
11.3.9  Landshark  replied to  PJ @11.3.3    4 months ago

  Well it’s not like they can do anything about it so what’s the big deal?

 
 
Hal A. Lujah
11.3.10  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Tacos! @11.3.6    4 months ago

The blackmail argument doesn't work here.

What are you talking about?  Of course it’s a problem.  His callous disregard for his own reputation permeates every facet of his life.  Even Stormy Daniels judged him an idiot for the way he handled himself and his penis.  Now Cohen is stuck looking like an even bigger moron than Trump himself, for trying to defend his indefensible actions - to the extreme of painting a narrative that he paid a porn star with $130k of his own money to not “lie” about Trump.  This no longer borders on the ridiculous, it is deep into the end zone of ridiculous.  

 
 
Trout Giggles
11.3.11  Trout Giggles  replied to  PJ @11.3.3    3 months ago

Not only does it question trump's character, but it questions the character of every one here who is finding a reason to defend him, deflect the issue, bring up other POTUS's indiscretions, spin the problem to justify their support, and or basically thumb their collective noses at the rest of us.

You know who you are. And I'm judging all of you, especially you so-called God-fearing Christians. Do not have the balls to say anything to me religious in nature ever again.

 
 
Tacos!
11.3.12  Tacos!  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @11.3.10    3 months ago
His callous disregard for his own reputation

is precisely why blackmail doesn't work on him. He doesn't care. You want to threaten him with a scandal? Throw some mud at him? Go for it! He'll sue you, pay you off in a way most politicians can't, or attack you publicly. And then he's going to go right back to doing whatever the F he wants.

 
 
Tacos!
11.3.13  Tacos!  replied to  PJ @11.3.3    3 months ago
I'm more disturbed by those who are willing to look the other way and not hold him accountable.

Hold him accountable for what, exactly? What has he done to you? You make it sound like there's something special. 

And how would you hold him accountable in a way that he's not already held accountable? The guy is covered by news media like no president before him and the coverage (and this is true) is 90% negative. 90%! He has been subject to what? Is it three or four separate investigations? All of which are actually being led by Republicans. So how is there no accountability?

He's hated so much that the Leftist media - after spending a year criticizing him for war mongering with North Korea - is actually trying to make the case that talking to the North Korean leader in exchange for his ceasing nuclear testing is somehow a bad thing. Even the Holy Inquisition was more even-handed than that.

 
 
PJ
11.3.14  PJ  replied to  Tacos! @11.3.13    3 months ago

I'm not sure what your comment has to do with my comment.  I'm talking about moral and ethical principals and values.  You're talking about actions taken by investigator and politicians based on potential criminal behavior and the Media's overkill in coverage.

I do agree that the media spends far too much time on his silly antics.   

 
 
Greg Jones
11.3.15  Greg Jones  replied to  PJ @11.3.14    3 months ago

The lefturds seem to conveniently forget about all the Clinton scandals. Yes, it's all history, but it indeed happened and the voters took note of their collective dishonesty and corruptness and made the proper choice.

 
 
sixpick
11.4  sixpick  replied to  Tacos! @11    4 months ago
Admit it men, who among you would say no to that if actually presented with it?

I'd like to see them admit it wouldn't bother them one bit. LOL

 
 
Jasper2529
11.5  Jasper2529  replied to  Tacos! @11    3 months ago
It's just not an important story and there are so MANY important stories the media should be covering.

You're so right. Here's an example. From what I understand, yesterday during their NEWS programs, the 3 major TV channels covered the House Intel Committee's final findings (no Russia collusion) as follows:

  • CBS - approx 30 seconds
  • ABC - approx 30 seconds
  • NBC - ZERO 

But some of them found plenty of time to discuss March Madness.

 
 
lib50
11.5.1  lib50  replied to  Jasper2529 @11.5    3 months ago

The house intel committee has lost any semblance of credibility, nobody can believe a word they put out.   They already tried to mislead the country with the release of that false and misleading memo, Nunes own actions in the beginning (and he has NOT recused for all intents and purposes), and their lack of actual investigating!  This after Benghazi! Give us all a freaking break!  Might as well cover a political advertisement, that's all it is.  And we've got far more pressing things that are real and more current.  I could not be happier journalism is finally doing its job. 

 
 
Jasper2529
11.5.2  Jasper2529  replied to  lib50 @11.5.1    3 months ago
I could not be happier journalism is finally doing its job.

Discussing and reporting March Madness is definitely excellent "journalism". 

 
 
lib50
11.5.3  lib50  replied to  Jasper2529 @11.5.2    3 months ago

Point taken, I never saw that, but I avoid that BS.  March Madness doesn't belong.

 
 
Thrawn 31
12  Thrawn 31    4 months ago

Comment removed for CoC violation [ph]

 
 
Tacos!
12.1  Tacos!  replied to  Thrawn 31 @12    4 months ago

It has nothing to do with my morals, and I'll thank you to not sit in judgment of them.

But fine, you tell me why I should care. Millions of people cheat on their spouse and hide the fact. Do you care? How do you care? What are you doing about it? Are you trying to get them all fired? If not, then don't pretend you care what Donald Trump has done in his life.

Or is it your position that you would have voted for him if he were a better husband? If so, please say so.

As for voting, during the primaries, I had a certain choice: Donald Trump or a handful of other Republicans. I actually voted for a different person - one who, as far as I know, doesn't cheat on his wife, and seems like a decent person. Where policy positions are very similar, then moral issues actually do matter to me.

In November, I had a different choice: Vote for Trump, a person I've never thought much of personally, but one I agree with on a number of policy issues. Or, I could vote for Hillary Clinton, who I used to think a lot more of, but in the last decade has abandoned virtually every major policy stance she used to have so that she could appeal to the more radical progressive elements of her party.

As far as I know, Hillary Clinton never cheated on her husband. That's lovely. Furthermore, I actually give her credit for sticking with a husband who has obviously been unfaithful. But none of that changes my opinion that the policies she has been promoting would be a disaster for this country. 

Context matters when you vote. I don't how know you vote, but that's how I vote.

 
 
sixpick
12.1.1  sixpick  replied to  Tacos! @12.1    4 months ago

They cheat on their partners.

 
 
Greg Jones
12.2  Greg Jones  replied to  Thrawn 31 @12    3 months ago

You guys just can't seem to forego personal attacks, can you?

 
 
DocPhil
13  DocPhil    4 months ago

The problem for Trump is the same problem that Clinton had. The sex itself is irrelevant. Even the payout itself might be irrelevant. The problem facing Trump is the special counsel. The investigation by Mueller's office is getting more and more widespread with the tentacles reaching out from Russian interference in the election to everything that might be generated from that interference. There are definite ties between Trump and Russia as it relates to sexual issues {the Miss Teen World pageant in Moscow just being one. The possibility of Trump being a candidate for sexual blackmail has to be one of the threads that the Mueller investigation is looking at. If there is any possibility that the Russians have any potential sexual blackmail to hold over Trump, that is major trouble for him and his administration, no matter when those incidents might have taken place. Could the 2016 payoff to Daniels been done to keep a potential blackmail situation quiet? Could any of Trump's other sexual peccadillos been a base for Russian blackmail. 

Always remember, when a special counsel is involved, it ain't the sex......its the cover-up.  It is what got Clinton......it is probably what's going to nail Trump.

 
 
sixpick
13.1  sixpick  replied to  DocPhil @13    4 months ago

I bet you were the little kid who expected to get a bicycle for Christmas and only got a new shirt.

 
 
DocPhil
13.1.1  DocPhil  replied to  sixpick @13.1    4 months ago

Nope....I was the little kid who wanted a bicycle and got a motorbike. I'm the one who got the prom queen to whom I'm still married fifty years later. No regrets here until we elected a thieving, megalomaniac President who has disgraced the office of the presidency.

 
 
arkpdx
13.1.2  arkpdx  replied to  DocPhil @13.1.1    4 months ago

Ah so you have gotten what you want for most your life and now that you didn't get just what you wished for on November 9,2016 you are throwing a tantrum. 

 
 
PJ
13.1.3  PJ  replied to  DocPhil @13.1.1    3 months ago
I'm the one who got the prom queen to whom I'm still married fifty years later.

Bravo!  I love happy endings.  

 
 
Greg Jones
13.1.4  Greg Jones  replied to  arkpdx @13.1.2    3 months ago

Yep, overly educated and underly smart.

 
 
Landshark
13.2  Landshark  replied to  DocPhil @13    3 months ago

Doesn't matter now.

 
 
sixpick
14  sixpick    4 months ago

I present to you our star witness, Stormy Daniels!!!

2009 Fantasy Football | Funny Images Gallery

 
 
Tacos!
14.1  Tacos!  replied to  sixpick @14    3 months ago

What really cracks me up is how so many on the Left are willing to just go with the idea that she is a totally reliable witness. There is no reason not to believe 100% of anything bad she might have to say about Trump.

Sure, that's seems legit. stunned

 
 
Jasper2529
14.2  Jasper2529  replied to  sixpick @14    3 months ago
I present to you our star witness, Stormy Daniels!!!

I admit that I haven't followed this Stormy Daniels nonsense very closely, but your comment caused me to look her up. Not only is she a porn star and violent woman, she's also a wannabe politician:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/29/stormy-daniels-arrested-f_n_247098.html

 
 
lib50
14.2.1  lib50  replied to  Jasper2529 @14.2    3 months ago
Not only is she a porn star and violent woman, she's also a wannabe politician:

Lol, could be saying 'not only does he like to bang porn stars, he lies and wants to be a politician'.  Who is the most believable?  Each of us is able to look at both, hear the stories from both, then make judgement as to who tells the best story.  Hey, its what Americans want, right? This is part of the whole schtick, he doesn't get choose what salacious and vulgar part of him hits the spotlight. 

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
14.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  sixpick @14    3 months ago
I present to you our star witness, Stormy Daniels!!!

Yes, your President chose to have an affair with that instead of staying home with his new born son and third wife. Say's more about him than it does about her.

 
 
magnoliaave
16  magnoliaave    3 months ago

They have tried everything to bring him down,but he keeps trucking'

 
 
devangelical
16.1  devangelical  replied to  magnoliaave @16    3 months ago

Deleted, ToS violation [SP]

 
 
Greg Jones
16.1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  devangelical @16.1    3 months ago

No value

 
 
igknorantzrulz
16.1.2  igknorantzrulz  replied to  devangelical @16.1    3 months ago

now your talking...

.

rather disgustingly

.

butt, it is the era of Trumpp, and disgusting unreal realities, are our new ones, yippyKayAAAAAAAAAAA

muther frucker!!!!!!!

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
16.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  magnoliaave @16    3 months ago
They have tried everything to bring him down,but he keeps trucking'

Like a rabid rhino pumped full of tranquilizers he's thrashing around in a stupid stupor proclaiming "I meant to do that!" every time he ignorantly tramples another Presidential norm.

 
 

Share This

Flagging unavailable
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


Raven Wing
1ofmany
Ed-NavDoc
charger 383
bugsy
MUVA
Hal A. Lujah
GaJenn78
Heartland American
Vic Eldred


BeastOfTheEast
epistte
Old School Marine
Sunshine
Gordy327


56 visitors