|
|||||
|
| Porn Users Forum » WHY DOESN'T POTUS ARREST BILL CLINTON, HILARY CLINTON, AND OBAMA? |
| 351-400 of 1629 Posts | < Previous Page | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Page 8 | 9 | 14 | 19 | 24 | 32 | 33 | Next Page > |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
| 04-09-18 02:15pm - 2355 days | #351 | |
|
Loki (0)
Active User  Posts: 395 Registered: Jun 13, '07 Location: California |
I don't see that California has to "change or collapse." I see this as simply hate towards progressive policies. Live and let live. If you don't want to live in California, don't. No one here cares. We can find plenty of people who want to come and contribute to our state without you. "A man talking sense to himself is no madder than a man talking nonsense not to himself." | |
|
||
| 04-09-18 02:26pm - 2355 days | #352 | |
|
Jade1 (0)
Active User Posts: 103 Registered: Mar 28, '18 |
Yeah, all those illegals with CA driver's licenses. Sure to help with the debt  | |
|
||
| 04-09-18 04:00pm - 2355 days | #353 | |
|
Loki (0)
Active User Posts: 395 Registered: Jun 13, '07 Location: California |
Immigration is a net benefit to the economy. Immigrants start more businesses than native born Americans, use fewer social services than native born Americans, and are less likely to commit crimes than native born Americans. But that really doesn't fit the narrative that immigrants are lazy criminals here for welfare (which doesn't even make sense, since illegal immigrants can't receive welfare benefits). Probably because the narrative is just flat wrong based on the evidence. "A man talking sense to himself is no madder than a man talking nonsense not to himself." | |
|
||
| 04-09-18 04:14pm - 2355 days | #354 | |
|
Jade1 (0)
Active User Posts: 103 Registered: Mar 28, '18 |
I don't think you are so stupid as to miss the word illegals. And I don't think you are such an economic authority as to be able to pronounce illegals an economic benefit. Given how broke CA is, it doesn't seem to be working out so well. Edited on Apr 09, 2018, 04:22pm | |
|
||
| 04-09-18 04:30pm - 2355 days | #355 | |
|
Loki (0)
Active User Posts: 395 Registered: Jun 13, '07 Location: California |
I may not have a doctorate in economics, but I can read facts from the US Census Bureau (the US department charged with collecting economic data). Maybe you should too. Here's the link. If you find data that supports that immigration is a net drag on an economy, I'd be grateful if you'd share it. https://www.census.gov/econ/ "A man talking sense to himself is no madder than a man talking nonsense not to himself." Edited on Apr 09, 2018, 04:34pm | |
|
||
| 04-09-18 04:40pm - 2355 days | #356 | |
|
Jade1 (0)
Active User Posts: 103 Registered: Mar 28, '18 |
Can you point me to where it describes the activity of illegals? | |
|
||
| 04-09-18 04:43pm - 2355 days | #357 | |
|
Loki (0)
Active User Posts: 395 Registered: Jun 13, '07 Location: California |
No, I figured you were fully capable of navigating a website for yourself. "A man talking sense to himself is no madder than a man talking nonsense not to himself." | |
|
||
| 04-09-18 04:46pm - 2355 days | #358 | |
|
Jade1 (0)
Active User Posts: 103 Registered: Mar 28, '18 |
I thought you had found facts from it describing how illegals were a net economic gain? No huh? Not sure how it could even be measured in a census. You are full of BS. | |
|
||
| 04-09-18 05:08pm - 2355 days | #359 | |
|
Loki (0)
Active User Posts: 395 Registered: Jun 13, '07 Location: California |
I've been very polite to you, and even directed you to data that could help you find evidence for your claims. Ad hominem attacks don't help promote your argument. "A man talking sense to himself is no madder than a man talking nonsense not to himself." | |
|
||
| 04-09-18 05:13pm - 2355 days | #360 | |
|
Loki (0)
Active User Posts: 395 Registered: Jun 13, '07 Location: California |
Here's research on illegal immigration and economic effects. Took two minute's effort to find. https://ideas.repec.org/cgi-bin/htsearch...=illegal+immigration The first paper sited shows that illegal immigrants show net positive benefits for their host countries. The tenth shows that despite competing for similar jobs, illegal immigration has a net gain for the economy of their host country. "A man talking sense to himself is no madder than a man talking nonsense not to himself." Edited on Apr 09, 2018, 05:19pm | |
|
||
| 04-09-18 05:54pm - 2355 days | #361 | |
|
Jade1 (0)
Active User Posts: 103 Registered: Mar 28, '18 |
You're nuts. 2% of immigrants from Japan go on welfare. 46% of the immigrants from Laos do. You can't treat all immigration the same. It depends on which immigrants you are talking about and which period of history. You can't talk about immigrants in the abstract. There are no abstract people. There's no such thing. When you have no border and allow illegals you have no idea who you have. But in your abstract land of unicorns everybody is a net positive to the economy. Again, you're nuts. Edited on Apr 09, 2018, 06:10pm | |
|
||
| 04-09-18 06:36pm - 2355 days | #362 | |
|
Loki (0)
Active User Posts: 395 Registered: Jun 13, '07 Location: California |
Disparaging me won't change the facts. "A man talking sense to himself is no madder than a man talking nonsense not to himself." | |
|
||
| 04-09-18 07:36pm - 2355 days | #363 | |
|
Jade1 (0)
Active User Posts: 103 Registered: Mar 28, '18 |
Obviously. Edited on Apr 09, 2018, 07:39pm | |
|
||
| 04-09-18 08:04pm - 2355 days | #364 | |
|
OldTimer (0)
Suspended  Posts: 1 Registered: Apr 07, '18 Location: On the Road |
It was pretty much inevitable that one man's obsession with his hate for Trump (An obsession, by the way, that he could actually leave if he really wanted to) would lead to some form of a flame war. This shit has no place on this forum. The United States is entrenched in the greatest division since the civil rights era and it's spilled out across the world to some degree. Yeah - I know - don't click on what you don't want to read. But now you've got two people slapping at each other and, even if this thread gets deleted, the animosity between the two of them will still be there, even if to a lesser degree over time. And you can't make me believe otherwise that other people haven't chosen a side in this heated debate, if only in the back of their minds. It's changed the complexion of a place where we were all "united in porn" for so many years. This is exactly why I'd disabled my real account and will disable this one once I'm done with this little soapbox speech. I've been on a lot of forums over the years and I guess it's true that nothing good lasts forever. Changes in management and participants is a roll of the dice.  RagingBuddhist out. | |
|
||
| 04-09-18 08:31pm - 2355 days | #365 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User  Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
@RagingBuddhist, I'm truly sorry to see you've disabled your account. You always contributed to this site with information and civility. In spite of the middle finger pointing directly at me. (Joke) I hope you will return, because the site is still worth visiting. As for this thread, some people might snipe at each other, but it's far from a nuclear flame war. I'm wishing you the best, in your time away from the site. | |
|
||
| 04-09-18 08:36pm - 2355 days | #366 | |
|
Jade1 (0)
Active User Posts: 103 Registered: Mar 28, '18 |
Nah, I doubt there's any actual animosity. You can't say anything of worth without being polarizing. And I'd much prefer someone take a position (delusional or otherwise) than stand for nothing. | |
|
||
| 04-09-18 11:49pm - 2355 days | #367 | |
|
biker (0)
Active User  Posts: 632 Registered: May 03, '08 Location: milwaukee, wi |
What's with people grabbing their marbles and going home. Ragingbuddist didn't have to enter the topic. We have already had a thread discussing the issue of what we could post. Because it didn't agree with his ideas, he left. Now he jumps in to make a snide remark at us and runs away again. He could just as easily continue to post on topics that interested him. Do I agree with everything said here? Of course not, but I'm an adult and I know that it is impossible for any two people to share the same views on everything. We need to be adults. How hard is it to treat people with respect? Warning Will Robinson Edited on Apr 10, 2018, 12:11am | |
|
||
| 04-10-18 09:32am - 2354 days | #368 | |
|
Loki (0)
Active User Posts: 395 Registered: Jun 13, '07 Location: California |
I don't understand why it is so difficult to disagree without name-calling. I try exceedingly hard to be polite to everyone and not make ad hominem attacks or disparage anyone. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I may not agree with someone, but I would never dream of calling them stupid or crazy because of their beliefs. "A man talking sense to himself is no madder than a man talking nonsense not to himself." | |
|
||
| 04-10-18 10:03am - 2354 days | #369 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
@Loki, People are different: different behaviors, different beliefs, different religions, etc. Look at Donald Trump. He is the President. Is he trying to follow the Presidential ideal of an ethical leader, who would never dream of calling people crazy because he feels like it? Or does he take pleasure in calling people crazy or stupid, because it shows how powerful he is? How smart he is. What a great man he is. Be a little more like Donald Trump, and maybe you will become a greater, more powerful person as well. Then you will be able to name-call, and boast, and make up self-serving lies. | |
|
||
| 04-10-18 10:24am - 2354 days | #370 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Scott Pruitt, fan of taxpayer-funded first class travel, flies coach when he has to pay for it The EPA administrator with champagne tastes was also caught in a bold-faced lie on a staffing scandal. Ryan Koronowski Apr 7, 2018, 12:31 pm Fliers posted around Capitol Hill poke fun at EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt on April 6, 2018 in Washington, DC. CREDIT: Win McNamee/Getty Images Fliers posted around Capitol Hill poke fun at EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt on April 6, 2018 in Washington, DC. CREDIT: Win McNamee/Getty Images EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is having a bad week, and it didn’t let up on Saturday. Pruitt, famous for his profligate taxpayer-funded first-class travel, actually flew coach when the taxpayers weren’t footing the bill, according to an Associated Press report on Saturday. The rationale Pruitt’s defenders gave for spending thousands of dollars on first-class travel was an increased volume in security threats. When asked about the nature of these threats, EPA told Politico that someone approached Pruitt in an airport yelling “Scott Pruitt, you’re f—ing up the environment.” It remains unclear how flying first class would prevent people from approaching Pruitt in airports with or without expletive-laden environmental critiques. The AP report from Saturday noted that there is no record of anyone being charged with or arrested for threatening the EPA administrator. Pruitt’s decision to fly coach when the cost of his travel is not covered with public money pokes a giant hole in the argument that he needed to fly first class for his own protection. Anyone threatening harm to the EPA administrator would not be able to distinguish between Pruitt’s personal and business travel. Taxpayers, however, still covered the cost of security detail that accompanied him on personal travel. Pruitt’s predecessor, Gina McCarthy, flew coach, and was not accompanied by security during her personal trips. The AP also reported that Pruitt spent millions on a full-time security detail with 20 members, which is three times the size of the part-time detail McCarthy used. EPA staff who spoke up about Pruitt’s spending or management habits were demoted or reassigned, according to a report by the New York Times on Thursday. At times, these security efforts pulled officers from investigating actual environmental crimes. Under Pruitt, regular environmental enforcement dropped 44 percent from what past administrations accomplished in the first year. And in February, the EPA’s Office of Inspector General told Congress that it could not keep investigating Pruitt’s scandals because the office had run out of money after years of budget cuts. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt. (CREDIT: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images) Don’t let Scott Pruitt’s first class travel distract you from an even bigger scandal The embattled EPA administrator was also caught in a lie this week, heightening the threat to his job security in the Trump administration. On Wednesday, Pruitt told Fox News that he did not know about the use of an obscure loophole that gave two of his top staffers significant pay raises, and did not approve them. “I did not. My staff did. And I found out about that yesterday and I changed it,” he told Fox News’ Ed Henry. However, as the Washington Post reported Thursday, Pruitt did approve of giving Sarah Greenwalt, his 30-year-old senior counsel, a $56,000 raise and 26-year old scheduling director Millan Hupp a $28,000 raise. The White House had denied the raises weeks before the EPA granted them. Pruitt told Fox News that he had stopped the raises this week. Travel and staff salaries were not even the most prominent ethics scandal orbiting the top environmental official in the Trump administration. Pruitt has faced heavy criticism for a sweetheart deal with an energy-industry-connected lobbyist, who let Pruitt stay in a luxury Capitol Hill apartment for $50 per night. The embattled EPA chief met with President Trump on Friday, where he reportedly pleaded for his job. He has few allies in the White House, but still has support from far-right and libertarian-leaning Republicans because of his success gutting Obama-era environmental rules and carrying out a very conservative deregulatory agenda. As Reuters reported on Friday, Pruitt met with 25 times more industry representatives than environmental advocates. | |
|
||
| 04-10-18 10:54am - 2354 days | #371 | |
|
Loki (0)
Active User Posts: 395 Registered: Jun 13, '07 Location: California |
I'm sorry lk2fireone, I can't be like Donald Trump. I don't like name-calling, boasting, or lying. It's simply not my thing. I wouldn't mind dating a Slovenian model though. And I wouldn't drag her through the hell of cheating on her. "A man talking sense to himself is no madder than a man talking nonsense not to himself." | |
|
||
| 04-10-18 05:21pm - 2354 days | #372 | |
|
biker (0)
Active User Posts: 632 Registered: May 03, '08 Location: milwaukee, wi |
Loki: I prefer Hungarians. Eve Angel is so hot. Warning Will Robinson | |
|
||
| 04-10-18 06:01pm - 2354 days | #373 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Eastern European models (from Russia and surrounding areas) and Japanese models are some of the most beautiful women in the world. | |
|
||
| 04-10-18 07:10pm - 2354 days | #374 | |
|
Loki (0)
Active User Posts: 395 Registered: Jun 13, '07 Location: California |
My friend visited Belarus for work. He said that just about every woman was stunning, and I worried a bit that he wouldn't want to return home.  "A man talking sense to himself is no madder than a man talking nonsense not to himself." | |
|
||
| 04-11-18 01:43am - 2354 days | #375 | |
|
Jade1 (0)
Active User Posts: 103 Registered: Mar 28, '18 |
I'm sure you are a pillar of virtue, but keep in mind that you're not under the same level of temptation: https://youtu.be/hEzynAixS10?t=7m52s Edited on Apr 11, 2018, 05:05am | |
|
||
| 04-11-18 06:00am - 2354 days | #376 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
So Bill Clinton was unfit to be President because he lied and played around while he was married. But Donald Trump gets a pass. So what if Donald Trump is a liar, a bully, a womanizer who cheats on his wives? What is the meaning of virtue if there is no temptation? Kind of meaningless, if you think about it. What kind of moral code is Donald Trump following? As far as I can tell, he doesn't have a moral code. He grabs for whatever he can get. Cash, fame, women, whatever. Would a lie stand in the way of his grabs? Of course not. Morality is for the simple man, the idiots who are too stupid to grab for themselves. That's why Donald Trump is the smartest, bravest, the best-est President we've ever had: because he says it again and again. So it must be true, right? (Except that Donald Trump believes, or hopes, that his current lies are covered by some theory that whatever he says cannot be judged by truth, since he is now a politician, and political speech is protected by law.) Edited on Apr 11, 2018, 06:10am | |
|
||
| 04-11-18 06:18am - 2354 days | #377 | ||
|
Jade1 (0)
Active User Posts: 103 Registered: Mar 28, '18 |
I won't defend Donald Trump's actions regarding women. But they do pale in comparison to Bill Clinton. What Bill Clinton did, he did while in public office. And he's accused by multiple women of sexual assault and rape. Trump, a reality TV star, cheating on his wife w/ a porn star isn't good behavior but there was nothing non-consensual about it. The worse possible scenario for what Trump did is not nearly as bad as what we know for a fact Clinton did in Arkansas as AG or as President in the Oval Office.
Kind of my point. Edited on Apr 11, 2018, 06:29am | ||
|
|||
| 04-11-18 10:15am - 2353 days | #378 | |
|
Loki (0)
Active User Posts: 395 Registered: Jun 13, '07 Location: California |
The amount of temptation is irrelevant. Right and wrong are not matters of degree. Your assertion is like saying that committing crime is justified if there would be enough payoff or the target would be easily victimized. Either you are a person of good moral character, or you aren't. As for Bill Clinton, he was a scumbag. I never voted for him and still regard his presidency as chaotic, weak, and detrimental to the country. But "whataboutism" (excusing Trump's crimes by pointing out that others are bad too) is an empty rhetorical dodge. It is actually exactly what Goebbels used in Nazi Germany and the USSR did in the Cold War. It isn't a defense, it's propaganda. "A man talking sense to himself is no madder than a man talking nonsense not to himself." | |
|
||
| 04-11-18 10:23am - 2353 days | #379 | |
|
Jade1 (0)
Active User Posts: 103 Registered: Mar 28, '18 |
The only thing I'm asserting is that you don't know what you would do if you were in that position because you'll likely never be in that position. So I caution against being too holier than thou. You can kid yourself if you want, but you don't know until you actually have that level of temptation presented to you. Unless you are a famous billionaire with a TV show too, I don't know. And I'm not justifying Trump's behavior. I was just saying to lk2fireone that you shouldn't compare a rapist to someone who cheats on their wives. It's not an equivalent thing. Also, I'm pretty sure sleeping with a porn star is not a crime. Edited on Apr 11, 2018, 10:42am | |
|
||
| 04-11-18 10:50am - 2353 days | #380 | |
|
Loki (0)
Active User Posts: 395 Registered: Jun 13, '07 Location: California |
Sleeping with a porn star is not a crime. Paying hush money to her is not a crime. Conspiring with your attorney to violate campaign finance laws to pay that hush money is a crime. And it doesn't really matter the extent of the temptation. I was raised to understand right and wrong, and personally strive to be a good and ethical person. But the future is unknown. Perhaps the example of people in Washington DC will rub off on me and I will become an unethical sleaze bag. "A man talking sense to himself is no madder than a man talking nonsense not to himself." | |
|
||
| 04-11-18 11:17am - 2353 days | #381 | ||
|
Jade1 (0)
Active User Posts: 103 Registered: Mar 28, '18 |
Yes, if that was in fact done, it is. Interestingly as I understand it if Trump were to have paid her directly that would have been perfectly legal.
I feel like you may not be understanding me. I'm not suggesting that something is less wrong based on the level of temptation. Sin is pretty black and white. I'm saying that different levels of temptation exist, and that it is unwise to judge that you would do better than someone else who has a much higher degree of temptation and options available to them unless you've been there. But you may be the exception. As I said, I'm sure you are a pillar of morality, fighting for all that is good and ethical as you scour the web for porn. Edited on Apr 11, 2018, 11:24am | ||
|
|||
| 04-11-18 11:56am - 2353 days | #382 | |
|
Loki (0)
Active User Posts: 395 Registered: Jun 13, '07 Location: California |
You're being insulting and making personal attacks again. But I've always tried to be factual and polite to you despite your unwillingness to reciprocate. "A man talking sense to himself is no madder than a man talking nonsense not to himself." | |
|
||
| 04-11-18 12:01pm - 2353 days | #383 | |
|
Jade1 (0)
Active User Posts: 103 Registered: Mar 28, '18 |
What insulted/attacked you? Maybe you are reading things into my words and judging yourself. | |
|
||
| 04-11-18 12:11pm - 2353 days | #384 | |
|
Loki (0)
Active User Posts: 395 Registered: Jun 13, '07 Location: California |
You said, "You're nuts." Twice in the same post. You implied I was delusional. You insulted my ethics by insinuating that I'm "a pillar of morality, fighting for all that is good and ethical as you [sic] scour the web for porn." Three direct quotes. One is an inference, but a logical one. You have repeatedly been personally insulting and belittling. If you truly think you are innocent, the facts prove otherwise. "A man talking sense to himself is no madder than a man talking nonsense not to himself." | |
|
||
| 04-11-18 12:15pm - 2353 days | #385 | |
|
Jade1 (0)
Active User Posts: 103 Registered: Mar 28, '18 |
K | |
|
||
| 04-11-18 06:18pm - 2353 days | #386 | |
|
Loki (0)
Active User Posts: 395 Registered: Jun 13, '07 Location: California |
Trolling much? "A man talking sense to himself is no madder than a man talking nonsense not to himself." | |
|
||
| 04-11-18 06:43pm - 2353 days | #387 | |
|
biker (0)
Active User Posts: 632 Registered: May 03, '08 Location: milwaukee, wi |
Hello Loki: Thank you for proving you can have discourse without personal attacks. As I said in a post just above this, "we are adults". The difference is, do we choose to behave as such. At age 37 I was seeing a physiologist and after several months of visits she told I had the maturity of a 14 year old. It hurt. It has been a long hard journey to bring my maturity up to the level it is today, but it brought many rewards. I was able to see my faults and make changes in them. One was treating the people around me with respect. Continue on this path and you will have friendships and respect wherever you go. There is no greater freedom then the freedom of living a good life. Thank you again for being an example of this. Warning Will Robinson | |
|
||
| 04-11-18 07:09pm - 2353 days | #388 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Fake news: Missouri governor Eric Greitens accused of aggressive sexual encounters with his hairdresser. Shades of Donald Trump. Why shades of Donald Trump? Greitens "has steadfastly denied any criminal wrongdoing. He said he expects to be proven innocent during this trial, which is scheduled for May 14. Speaking shortly before the report was released, Greitens told reporters gathered at the Capitol that he expected it to contain "lies and falsehoods" and reaffirmed his commitment to remaining in office. "This is a political witch hunt," Greitens said, invoking one of President Donald Trump's favored criticisms of unwanted investigations. Greitens later added: "This is exactly like what's happening with the witch hunts in Washington, D.C." Although Greitens might be trying to follow in Trump's footsteps, my hope is that Trump himself treats the women he beds with a little more decency, even if he and his lawyer and allies try to silence the women from public disclosure. ---------- ---------- Report: Missouri Gov. Greitens initiated unwanted sex acts Associated Press David a. Lieb and Summer Ballentine, Associated Press,Associated Press 29 minutes ago Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens speaks at a news conference about allegations related to his extramarital affair with his hairdresser, in Jefferson City, Mo., Wednesday, April 11, 2018. Greitens initiated a physically aggressive unwanted sexual encounter with his hairdresser and threatened to distribute a partially nude photo of her if she spoke about it, according to testimony from the woman released Wednesday by a House investigatory committee. (Julie Smith/The Jefferson City News-Tribune via AP) JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) -- Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens initiated a physically aggressive unwanted sexual encounter with his hairdresser and threatened to distribute a partially nude photo of her if she spoke about it, according to testimony from the woman released Wednesday by a House investigatory committee. The graphic report details multiple instances in which the woman said Greitens spanked, slapped, grabbed, shoved and called her derogatory names during a series of sexual encounters as he was preparing to run for office in 2015. The testimony contradicts Greitens' previous assertions that "there was no violence" and "no threat of violence" in what he has described as a consensual extramarital affair. The report, signed by all five Republicans and two Democrats on the committee, describes the woman's testimony as credible and notes that Greitens has so far declined to testify or provide documents to the panel. But it outlines some of the Republican governor's public comments that appear to run counter to her allegations. Flanked by other top Republican legislative leaders, House Speaker Todd Richardson announced that the special committee will expand its mission and make recommendations after the May 18 end of the regular legislative session on whether to pursue impeachment proceedings seeking to remove Greitens from office. The special House investigation was initiated shortly after Greitens was indicted in February on a felony invasion-of-privacy charge for taking a nonconsensual photo of the partially nude woman and transmitting it in a way that could be accessed by a computer. The woman told the committee that Greitens took the photo after manipulating her into a compromising position during an unwanted sexual encounter and that he told her "everyone will know what a little whore you are" if she told anyone about him. Greitens, 44, has refused to directly answer media questions about whether he took the photo, but he has steadfastly denied any criminal wrongdoing. He said he expects to be proven innocent during this trial, which is scheduled for May 14. Speaking shortly before the report was released, Greitens told reporters gathered at the Capitol that he expected it to contain "lies and falsehoods" and reaffirmed his commitment to remaining in office. "This is a political witch hunt," Greitens said, invoking one of President Donald Trump's favored criticisms of unwanted investigations. Greitens later added: "This is exactly like what's happening with the witch hunts in Washington, D.C." Richardson called the women's testimony "beyond disturbing" and defended the integrity of the investigation. He said: "Let me be very clear about this: This is not a witch hunt, and the committee had no political agenda." If the House were to impeach Greitens, the Senate then would choose seven jurists to conduct a trial on whether Greitens should be ousted. The impeachment process can occur independently of a criminal case. The report prompted Republican U.S. Senate candidate Josh Hawley to call for Greitens' resignation. Hawley, the state's attorney general, said the report contains "shocking, substantial, and corroborated evidence of wrongdoing by Governor Greitens." Hawley is seeking Democratic U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill's seat, and she and Democratic state legislative leaders also called for Greitens' resignation. Democrats have been running TV ads linking Greitens to Hawley. According to the report, the woman testified that she met Greitens in 2013 as a customer of her hair salon. She said she had a crush on Greitens but was shocked when he ran his hand up her leg and touched her crotch without her consent during a March 2015 hair appointment. He later invited her to his St. Louis home while his wife was out of town. After she arrived through the back door, the report said that the woman testified Greitens searched her purse and "patted her down from head-to-toe." He then asked if she had exercised and had her change into a white T-shirt with a slit on the top and pajama pants. "I thought, oh, this is going to be some sort of sexy workout," the woman testified. But once in his basement, Greitens taped her hands to pull-up rings, blindfolded her, started kissing her, ripped open the shirt and pulled down her pants, the woman testified. She didn't give consent to be disrobed or kissed, the report said. The woman testified that she then heard a click, like of a cellphone picture, and saw a flash. The woman testified that Greitens told her: "Don't even mention my name to anybody at all, because if you do, I'm going to take these pictures, and I'm going to put them everywhere I can. They are going to be everywhere, and then everyone will know what a little whore you are." When she remained silent, the woman said Greitens "spanked me and said, 'Are you going to mention my name?' And I said, I just gritted through my teeth, and I said, 'No.' And he's like, 'Good, now that's a good girl.'" "I was definitely fearful," the woman testified to the legislative committee. After telling Greitens, "I don't want this," the woman testified that Greitens unbound her hands. She said she started "uncontrollably crying." She said Greitens then grabbed her in a hug and laid her down. She said he put his penis near her face and she gave him oral sex. Asked by the committee whether the oral sex was coerced, she responded: "Coerced, maybe. I felt as though that would allow me to leave." The woman testified that she confronted him later that day about the photo and he responded: "You have to understand, I'm running for office, and people will get me, and I have to have some sort of thing to protect myself." Then she said Greitens added: "I felt bad, so I erased it." The House committee report said it doesn't possess any physical or electronic evidence of the photo. Prosecutors in his criminal case previously acknowledged that they don't have the photo, though they could be trying to obtain it. The woman's name never has been officially released; it is redacted from the legislative documents and she is identified only by her initials in court filings. Her attorney has repeatedly sought anonymity on her behalf. The woman testified to the committee that she had several additional sexual encounters with Greitens, including one in June 2015 when "he slapped me across my face" after she acknowledged having slept with her husband. She said she "felt like he was trying to claim me." In another subsequent sexual encounter, the woman testified that Greitens "out of nowhere just, like kind of smacked me and grabbed me and shoved me down on the ground, and I instantly just started bawling." It "actually hurt, and I know that I actually was really scared and sad when that happened," she testified. The woman's account contradicts statements Greitens made previously. Asked in a January interview with The Associated Press if he had ever slapped the woman, Greitens responded: "Absolutely not." Greitens, a Rhodes Scholar and former Navy SEAL officer who was once considered a rising GOP star, first acknowledged having an extramarital affair on Jan. 10, when St. Louis TV station KMOV ran a story revealing that the woman's ex-husband had released a secret audio recording of a 2015 conversation in which she told him about the photo Greitens took at his home. The woman testified to the House committee that her husband had said: "I'm going to ruin this guy." Greitens on Wednesday criticized the House report as "one-sided tabloid, trash gossip that was produced in a secret room." He also referenced a comment the woman made during a lengthy deposition in his criminal case when she was asked if she saw what she believed to be a phone. A court filing from Greitens' attorneys quoted her as saying, "I haven't talked about it because I don't know if it's because I'm remembering it through a dream or I — I'm not sure, but yes, I feel like I saw it after that happened." Greitens and his defense team have seized on the "dream" comment to attack the credibility of her testimony. But the prosecutor in the case says the defense "cherry picked bits and pieces" of her nine-hour deposition and the woman's attorney says the comment referred to one particular instance concerning the photo. | |
|
||
| 04-11-18 07:16pm - 2353 days | #389 | |
|
Loki (0)
Active User Posts: 395 Registered: Jun 13, '07 Location: California |
Thanks, biker. I've been feeling particularly beleaguered recently and wondering what to do. Your words of support are much appreciated. "A man talking sense to himself is no madder than a man talking nonsense not to himself." | |
|
||
| 04-11-18 07:18pm - 2353 days | #390 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Fake news: Impeachment of Trump seems to be a growing possibility. Now the problem becomes: Do we really want Mike Pence to become President? ----------- ----------- Trump admits to obstruction of justice on Twitter, says he only did it to ‘fight back’ Tweets a good lawyer would advise against. Aaron Rupar Apr 11, 2018, 10:06 am On Wednesday morning, President Trump tried to make a case that investigators had no good reason to raid the office, home, and hotel room of his longtime personal attorney, Michael Cohen. But in doing so, Trump seemed to casually admit to obstruction of justice. “I (we) are… doing things that nobody thought possible, despite the never ending and corrupt Russia Investigation, which takes tremendous time and focus,” Trump tweeted. “No Collusion or Obstruction (other than I fight back), so now they do the Unthinkable, and RAID a lawyers office for information! BAD!” Suffice it to say there is no “fighting back” exception to obstruction of justice charges, which were part of the articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. Trump’s tweet comes almost 11 months to the day after he seemed to admit to obstructing justice during an interview with NBC’s Lester Holt conducted just days after he fired FBI Director James Comey — who at the time was overseeing the investigation into the Trump campaign. CREDIT: Screenshot, NBC Did Donald Trump just write his own articles of impeachment? Trump told Holt that “when I decided to do it, I said to myself… this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story.” In short, Trump admitted his decision to fire Comey was motivated by his frustration about the FBI’s investigation of his campaign. The president’s extraordinary Twitter admission comes a day after responded to news of the Cohen raid by expressing deep confusion about attorney-client privilege. In a tweet, Trump proclaimed that “Attorney–client privilege is dead!” — apparently oblivious to the existence of the “crime-fraud exception,” which means communications between you and your attorney about future criminal acts are not protected. Trump is not a lawyer, and his legal team is currently in chaos. His former lead attorney responding to Mueller’s investigation, John Dowd, resigned late last month — reportedly because he and Trump weren’t on the same page about whether sitting for an interview was a good idea. Two replacements he sought to add to his team decided not to join it, purportedly due to a conflict of interest. That left Trump’s least qualified lawyer, Jay Sekulow, as a de facto leader of his legal team. Last month, Bloomberg reported that Mueller’s investigation pertaining to obstruction of justice is “close to completion, but he may set it aside while he finishes other key parts of his probe, such as possible collusion and the hacking of Democrats.” | |
|
||
| 04-11-18 07:21pm - 2353 days | #391 | |
|
Loki (0)
Active User Posts: 395 Registered: Jun 13, '07 Location: California |
What is it with politicians claiming that investigations of wrongdoing are "witch hunts?" The Salem Witch Hunts were largely land grabs by the wealthy and powerful against the marginalized in society. For some reason the president and other political figures (who are largely rich, white, male millionaires) feel so victimized that they cannot distinguish between persecution and prosecution. "A man talking sense to himself is no madder than a man talking nonsense not to himself." | |
|
||
| 04-11-18 08:19pm - 2353 days | #392 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Politics NYT Editorial Board Unloads On Trump: 'The Law Is Coming' HuffPost Hayley Miller,HuffPost 14 hours ago The New York Times editorial board has issued another searing indictment on President Donald Trump’s character and leadership. In a blistering piece published Tuesday, the Times’ editorial board taunted the president about Monday’s FBI raid of the office of Michael Cohen, Trump’s personal lawyer, and warned that “the law is coming.” “Mr. Trump has spent his career in the company of developers and celebrities, and also of grifters, cons, sharks, goons and crooks,” the editorial board wrote. “He cuts corners, he lies, he cheats, he brags about it, and for the most part, he’s gotten away with it, protected by threats of litigation, hush money and his own bravado.” “Those methods may be proving to have their limits when they are applied from the Oval Office,” it continued. “Though Republican leaders in Congress still keep a cowardly silence, Mr. Trump now has real reason to be afraid.” Trump has been fuming since news broke of the FBI raid on Cohen’s office. The search warrant was reportedly executed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York following a tip from special counsel Robert Mueller, the head of a federal probe into whether Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign colluded with Russia. Trump on Monday floated the idea of firing Mueller, despite both Democratic and Republican lawmakers warning him not to do so. Trump appeared to call the raid “a total witch hunt” in a tweet Tuesday. “One might ask, if this is all a big witch hunt and Mr. Trump has nothing illegal or untoward to hide, why does he care about the privilege in the first place?” the editorial board wrote. “The answer, of course, is that he has a lot to hide.” In a final blow, the Times editorial board skewered Trump for calling the raid “an attack on our country.” “No, Mr. Trump — a true attack on America is what happened on, say, Sept. 11, 2001. Remember that one?” it wrote. “Thousands of people lost their lives. Your response was to point out that the fall of the twin towers meant your building was now the tallest in downtown Manhattan. Of course, that also wasn’t true.” This isn’t the first time the editorial board has unloaded on Trump. In January, it published a piece titled “Why Does President Trump Fear The Truth?” In March, it published another called “Donald Trump Sure Has A Problem With Democracy.” Read the full editorial at The New York Times. This article originally appeared on HuffPost. | |
|
||
| 04-11-18 09:14pm - 2353 days | #393 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Fake news: “as a DOJ employee, Mr. Cohen-Watnick will abide by all laws and ethical obligations that bind him.” Political games: Trump orders DOJ to hire controversial former aide. Lawyer says his client was not fired from the White House. Instead, the client left of his own free will. However, other sources say the client was forced out. Are lawyers legally liable for statements they make on behalf of their clients? Apparently not. The rules seem to be: they can say whatever the fuck they want. Their statements do not have to respond to reality. Or truth. ---------- ---------- Trump Ordered DOJ to Hire Controversial Former Aide, Sources Say By Chris Strohm and Jennifer Jacobs April 11, 2018, 9:52 AM PDT Updated on April 11, 2018, 2:40 PM PDT President Donald Trump personally ordered the Department of Justice to hire a former White House official who departed after he was caught up in a controversy over the release of intelligence material to a member of Congress, according to people familiar with the matter. Ezra Cohen-Watnick, who was forced out of the National Security Council last year, will advise Attorney General Jeff Sessions on national security matters. He left the White House in August for a job at Oracle Corp. following reports that he had shown House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes classified documents. The material allegedly revealed that members of the Obama administration had sought the identities of Trump campaign officials and associates inadvertently caught on government intercepts, in a process known as “unmasking.” Nunes then disclosed that information publicly in an attempt to bolster Trump’s unsubstantiated allegation that President Barack Obama had wiretapped him. Cohen-Watnick’s attorney, Mark Zaid, said that reports of his involvement in the Nunes incident were erroneous. While Cohen-Watnick was working on unmasking issues at the NSC, Zaid said in an interview, “he never showed the documents to Nunes. He never met with Nunes. He had nothing to do with Nunes.” Zaid said that Cohen-Watnick was not fired from the White House. “There was a decision that he was going to leave the NSC to go to another federal position and he resigned on his own accord to go to Oracle,” Zaid said. Bloomberg previously reported that former National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster had Cohen-Watnick removed from the White House agency. A White House official confirmed Wednesday he was forced out. Zaid said that Sessions offered Cohen-Watnick a job in September. Cohen-Watnick neither accepted nor declined the position, Zaid said. “He was continuing to enjoy his time at Oracle,” he said. Trump had thought Cohen-Watnick began working at the Justice Department in the fall, but a confidant told the president during a recent phone call that he was not, according to a person briefed on the call. Trump was displeased, and told staff to make it clear he wanted Cohen-Watnick on the job as soon as possible. Cohen-Watnick was recently asked again to join the Justice Department and accepted, Zaid said. He starts his new government job on Monday. As a matter of policy, the White House generally doesn’t approve the rehiring of staff who are dismissed, aides said. But after it became clear the president wanted Cohen-Watnick on Sessions’ staff, the move was approved. His rehiring drew criticism from Democrats, who speculated Cohen-Watnick may attempt to interfere in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election. “Given Mr. Cohen-Watnick’s reported role in helping Congressman Nunes turn the House Intelligence Committee investigation into a partisan breeding ground for conspiracy theories, his new position with the Attorney General at such a sensitive time is deeply troubling,” Matt House, a spokesman for Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, said in a statement. “Mr. Cohen-Watnick must not come anywhere near the Mueller investigation, and Democrats will watch like a hawk to ensure that’s the case.” Zaid called House’s statement “highly irresponsible” and said “as a DOJ employee, Mr. Cohen-Watnick will abide by all laws and ethical obligations that bind him.” Cohen-Watnick also previously worked with Trump’s first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, who resigned after he misled administration officials, including Vice President Mike Pence, about his contacts with the Russian ambassador to the U.S. Cohen-Watnick’s new role at the Justice Department was first reported by Talking Points Memo. | |
|
||
| 04-11-18 09:52pm - 2353 days | #394 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
The EPA just fired an official whose report undermined Scott Pruitt's justification for expensive security April 10, 2018 Molly Riley-Pool/Getty Images The Environmental Protection Agency says it's a complete coincidence that it fired a career staffer who signed off on a report contradicting claims that EPA head Scott Pruitt has received death threats on the same day Senate Democrats cited that assessment as evidence that the EPA had no reason to spend millions on increased security for Pruitt. Until Tuesday, Mario Caraballo was the deputy associate administrator of EPA's Office of Homeland Security. A person with direct knowledge of Caraballo's dismissal told Politico that the EPA is saying he was let go because of a personnel issue stemming from a military job he held nearly 10 years ago that was resolved at the time and reviewed by the EPA years ago. His firing won't scare critics of Pruitt, one employee told Politico, adding, "this is going to embolden us to leak more to get these criminals out." On Feb. 14, Caraballo signed off on a report that stated, "EPA Intelligence has not identified any specific, credible, direct threat to the EPA administrator." EPA spokesman Jahan Wilcox has claimed that Pruitt has received an "unprecedented" amount of death threats, and that's why he has a full-time, 20-person-strong security detail and must travel in first class. President Trump repeated that death-threats claim last week. In a letter sent Tuesday, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) said they read the report, and the "threats" were actually "nonviolent protests" and "negative feedback" about Pruitt's policies and actions. The senators called for bipartisan oversight hearings at the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, a request denied by committee chairman Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.). Catherine Garcia | |
|
||
| 04-11-18 10:39pm - 2353 days | #395 | |
|
Loki (0)
Active User Posts: 395 Registered: Jun 13, '07 Location: California |
Not one person has been arrested for threatening EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. Threats against public officials are very serious. They are investigated and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. If Scott Pruitt was actually receiving credible death threats, why isn't the FBI or Secret Service able to substantiate the danger (they would be investigating all threats). Evidently one individual yelled at Scott Pruitt in an airport about destroying the environment, but there was no arrest or charges filed, as there were no actual threats. If Scott Pruitt is really being threatened, find, arrest, and convict those individuals. But it seems that Pruitt has no justification for his security other than to protect his fragile ego from people who don't like the policies he is promulgating. Isn't he a grown-up? Doesn't he have the courage of his convictions? Man up Scott Pruitt and stop hiding from the public. "A man talking sense to himself is no madder than a man talking nonsense not to himself." | |
|
||
| 04-11-18 10:56pm - 2353 days | #396 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Pruitt and Trump and other Trump officials use lies to justify spending millions of dollars of taxpayer money. For private plane rides, etc. While they criticize the government for wasteful spending. I've never read so many news articles/editorials about the government officials unethical behavior in any previous administration. Graft, unethical behavior is nothing new. But the Trump administration is the worst I've ever seen. And the most callous. The EPA is supposed to protect the health of US citizens. But they've lowered the standards for pollution, saving big business millions of dollars, and increasing the health risks of citizens. | |
|
||
| 04-11-18 11:36pm - 2353 days | #397 | |
|
Loki (0)
Active User Posts: 395 Registered: Jun 13, '07 Location: California |
When I was growing up, I was proud to be a Republican. My party, after all, threatened to impeach Richard Nixon (forcing his resignation) after the Watergate break-in and cover-up. It was a mark of pride for Republicans that we had put the good of the country above political party and forced Nixon's resignation. Republicans were considered the "natural party of government" (though they didn't hold Congress, they held the Presidency most elections since the Civil War). Flash forward to 1992, when Newt Gingrich defected from President George H.W. Bush's plan to raise taxes to help shore up the nation's finances. Bush had gathered Republicans and Democrats to get both parties on board to raise taxes. Gingrich agreed in the meeting with Bush and leaders of both parties. The next day he didn't sign on to tax increases, and didn't attend the Rose Garden announcement of bipartisan tax increases. (Those tax increases led to the budget surpluses that occurred during Clinton's administration.) Gingrich orchestrated the Republican takeover of Congress in 1992 (but also helped orchestrate Clinton's presidential win). But Gingrich broke his deal with Bush and congressional leaders of both parties. I really trace a lot of the political decline of this country to Newt Gingrich's breaking the bipartisan deal, and his aggressive anti-Clinton agenda in Congress. After 1992, Republicans began to stop being the party of ideas (remember William F. Buckley?) and began to become the party of anti-intellectualism. Evidence-based policy, which had been a hallmark since Progressive Republicans under Theodore Roosevelt, was thrown out. Fast-forward to 2016. A celebrity with no political experience and a history of business failures, sexual harassment, and racist comments becomes the nominee of the party. Where are the ideas? Where is the fiscal responsibility? Where is the competence? The Republican party has become intellectually and morally bankrupt. "A man talking sense to himself is no madder than a man talking nonsense not to himself." | |
|
||
| 04-12-18 12:07am - 2353 days | #398 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
The truth is, I do not have a basic understanding of politics, or political history. But I'm amazed at how often stories of lies, petty grabs for money, large grabs for money, etc. are being published in the news by national and state officials. Arnold Schwarzenegger was a movie star, and a businessman. But he didn't have massive stories of corruption while he was governor. The news came out about his fathering a child outside of his marriage. But he didn't have hordes of flunkeys paying bribes to bury his scandals. And he admitted the child (or teenager) was his. But Trump and his officials lie, and lie, and lie. That's Trump's style. Trump really needs a straight doctor to put him on the proper medication. Otherwise, he could start a war we don't really need. | |
|
||
| 04-12-18 12:16am - 2353 days | #399 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
$30,000 rumor? Tabloid paid for, spiked, salacious Trump tip JAKE PEARSON and JEFF HORWITZ JAKE PEARSON and JEFF HORWITZ 1 hour 5 minutes ago NEW YORK (AP) — Eight months before the company that owns the National Enquirer paid $150,000 to a former Playboy Playmate who claimed she'd had an affair with Donald Trump, the tabloid's parent made a $30,000 payment to a less famous individual: a former doorman at one of the real estate mogul's New York City buildings. As it did with the ex-Playmate, the Enquirer signed the ex-doorman to a contract that effectively prevented him from going public with a juicy tale that might hurt Trump's campaign for president. The payout to the former Playmate, Karen McDougal, stayed a secret until the Wall Street Journal published a story about it days before Election Day. Since then curiosity about that deal has spawned intense media coverage and, this week, helped prompt the FBI to raid the hotel room and offices of Trump's personal lawyer, Michael Cohen. The story of the ex-doorman, Dino Sajudin, hasn't been told until now. The Associated Press confirmed the details of the Enquirer's payment through a review of a confidential contract and interviews with dozens of current and former employees of the Enquirer and its parent company, American Media Inc. Sajudin got $30,000 in exchange for signing over the rights, "in perpetuity," to a rumor he'd heard about Trump's sex life — that the president had fathered an illegitimate child with an employee at Trump World Tower, a skyscraper he owns near the United Nations. The contract subjected Sajudin to a $1 million penalty if he disclosed either the rumor or the terms of the deal to anyone. Cohen, the longtime Trump attorney, acknowledged to the AP that he had discussed Sajudin's story with the magazine when the tabloid was working on it. He said he was acting as a Trump spokesman when he did so and denied knowing anything beforehand about the Enquirer payment to the ex-doorman. The parallel between the ex-Playmate's and the ex-doorman's dealings with the Enquirer raises new questions about the roles that the Enquirer and Cohen may have played in protecting Trump's image during a hard-fought presidential election. Prosecutors are probing whether Cohen broke banking or campaign laws in connection with AMI's payment to McDougal and a $130,000 payment to porn star Stormy Daniels that Cohen said he paid out of his own pocket. Federal investigators have sought communications between Cohen, American Media's chief executive and the Enquirer's top editor, the New York Times reported. Cohen's lawyer has called the raids "inappropriate and unnecessary." American Media hasn't said whether federal authorities have sought information from it, but said this week that it would "comply with any and all requests that do not jeopardize or violate its protected sources or materials pursuant to our First Amendment rights." The White House didn't respond to questions seeking comment. On Wednesday, an Enquirer sister publication, RadarOnline, published details of the payment and the rumor that Sajudin was peddling. The website wrote that the Enquirer spent four weeks reporting the story but ultimately decided it wasn't true. The company only released Sajudin from his contract after the 2016 election amid inquiries from the Journal about the payment. The site noted that the AP was among a group of publications that had been investigating the ex-doorman's tip. During AP's reporting, AMI threatened legal action over reporters' efforts to interview current and former employees and hired the New York law firm Boies Schiller Flexner, which challenged the accuracy of the AP's reporting. Asked about the payment last summer, Dylan Howard, the Enquirer's top editor and an AMI executive, said he made the payment to secure the former Trump doorman's exclusive cooperation because the tip, if true, would have sold "hundreds of thousands" of magazines. Ultimately, he said the information "lacked any credibility," so he spiked the story on those merits. "Unfortunately...Dino Sajudin is one fish that swam away," Howard told RadarOnline on Wednesday. But four longtime Enquirer staffers directly familiar with the episode challenged Howard's version of events. They said they were ordered by top editors to stop pursuing the story before completing potentially promising reporting threads. They said the publication didn't pursue standard Enquirer reporting practices, such as exhaustive stake-outs or tabloid tactics designed to prove paternity. In 2008, the Enquirer helped bring down presidential hopeful John Edwards in part by digging through a dumpster and retrieving material to do a DNA test that indicated he had fathered a child with a mistress, according to a former staffer. The woman at the center of the rumor about Trump denied emphatically to the AP last August that she'd ever had an affair with Trump, saying she had no idea the Enquirer had paid Sajudin and pursued his tip. The AP has not been able to determine if the rumor is true and is not naming the woman. "This is all fake," she said. "I think they lost their money." The Enquirer staffers, all with years of experience negotiating source contracts, said the abrupt end to reporting combined with a binding, seven-figure penalty to stop the tipster from talking to anyone led them to conclude that this was a so-called "catch and kill" — a tabloid practice in which a publication pays for a story to never run, either as a favor to the celebrity subject of the tip or as leverage over that person. One former Enquirer reporter, who was not involved in the Sajudin reporting effort, expressed skepticism that the company would pay for the tip and not publish. "AMI doesn't go around cutting checks for $30,000 and then not using the information," said Jerry George, a reporter and senior editor for nearly three decades at AMI before his layoff in 2013. The company said that AMI's publisher, David Pecker, an unabashed Trump supporter, had not coordinated its coverage with Trump associates or taken direction from Trump. It acknowledged discussing the former doorman's tip with Trump's representatives, which it described as "standard operating procedure in stories of this nature." The Enquirer staffers, like many of the dozens of other current and former AMI employees interviewed by the AP in the past year, spoke on condition of anonymity. All said AMI required them to sign nondisclosure agreements barring them from discussing internal editorial policy and decision-making. Though sometimes dismissed by mainstream publications, the Enquirer's history of breaking legitimate scoops about politicians' personal lives — including its months-long Pulitzer Prize-contending coverage of presidential candidate Edwards' affair — is a point of pride in its newsroom. During the 2016 presidential campaign, the Enquirer published a string of allegations against Trump's rivals, such as stories claiming Democratic rival Hillary Clinton was a bisexual "secret sex freak" and was kept alive only by a "narcotics cocktail." Stories attacking Trump rivals or promoting Trump's campaign often bypassed the paper's normal fact-checking process, according to two people familiar with campaign-era copy. The tabloid made its first-ever endorsement by officially backing Trump for the White House. With just over a week before Election Day, Howard, the top editor, appeared on Alex Jones' InfoWars program by phone, telling listeners that the choice at the ballot box was between "the Clinton crime family" or someone who will "break down the borders of the establishment." Howard said the paper's coverage was bipartisan, citing negative stories it published about Ben Carson during the Republican presidential primaries. In a statement last summer, Howard said the company doesn't take editorial direction "from anyone outside AMI," and said Trump has never been an Enquirer source. The company has said reader surveys dictate its coverage and that many of its customers are Trump supporters. The company has said it paid McDougal, the former Playboy Playmate, to be a columnist for an AMI-published fitness magazine, not to stay silent. McDougal has since said that she regrets signing the non-disclosure agreement and is currently suing to get out of it. Pecker has denied burying negative stories about Trump, but acknowledged to the New Yorker last summer that McDougal's contract had effectively silenced her. "Once she's part of the company, then on the outside she can't be bashing Trump and American Media," Pecker said. In the tabloid world purchasing information is not uncommon, and the Enquirer routinely pays sources. As a general practice, however, sources agree to be paid for their tips only upon publication. George, the longtime former reporter and editor, said the $1 million penalty in Sajudin's agreement was larger than anything he had seen in his Enquirer career. "If your intent is to get a story from the source, there's no upside to paying upfront," said George, who sometimes handled catch-and-kill contracts related to other celebrities. Paying upfront was not the Enquirer's usual practice because it would have been costly and endangered the source's incentive to cooperate, he said. After initially calling the Enquirer's tip line, Sajudin signed a boilerplate contract with the Enquirer, agreeing to be an anonymous source and be paid upon publication. The Enquirer dispatched reporters to pursue the story both in New York and in California. The tabloid also sent a polygraph expert to administer a lie detection test to Sajudin in a hotel near his Pennsylvania home. Sajudin passed the polygraph, which tested how he learned of the rumor. One week later, Sajudin signed an amended agreement, this one paying him $30,000 immediately and subjecting him to the $1 million penalty if he shopped around his information. | |
|
||
| 04-12-18 12:27am - 2353 days | #400 | |
|
Loki (0)
Active User Posts: 395 Registered: Jun 13, '07 Location: California |
This is literally the most corrupt and inept administration I've ever seen in my lifetime. It's staggering. Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected Governor of California when Gray Davis was recalled. It was recall election and gubernatorial election on one ballot. First, Should Gray Davis be recalled? and if that wins, pick your candidate to replace him. The bar for candidacy was ridiculously low. Arnold Schwarzenegger was a candidate, but so was Gary Coleman of Diff'rent Strokes fame. How exactly was Arnold Schwarzenegger more qualified than Gary Coleman? Because he was taller? Yet Schwarzenegger turned out to be a modestly successful governor. I held out similar hopes for Trump, but didn't really expect my hopes would be rewarded. Instead we are getting the most inept and dishonest administration I've ever seen. There's a political axiom from French writer and philosopher Joseph de Maistre "Toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite." In English it translates to "Every nation gets the government they deserve." Similarly H.L. Mencken said, "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." "A man talking sense to himself is no madder than a man talking nonsense not to himself." | |
|
||
| 351-400 of 1629 Posts | < Previous Page | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Page 8 | 9 | 14 | 19 | 24 | 32 | 33 | Next Page > |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
|
