• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Publisher of National Enquirer admits paying hush money to help Trump ahead of 2016 election

AncientGeek said:
Of the $145 million allegedly contributed to the Clinton Foundation by Uranium One investors, the lion’s share — $131.3 million — came from a single donor, Frank Giustra, the company’s Canadian founder. But Giustra sold off his entire stake in the company in 2007, three years before the Russia deal and at least 18 months before Clinton became secretary of state.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hi...m-russia-deal/
Click to expand...

Yes, Frank Giustra did give the money days after Bill Clinton accompanied him to Eastern Europe to secure uranium mining rights in Kazakhstan. His rich donation brought him financial gains well into the Obama administration and bore ripe fruit in the Uranium One deal. There has likely never been a better or bigger example of a corrupt pay to play operation in the history of American politics.
 
marke said:
Yes, Frank Giustra did give the money days after Bill Clinton accompanied him to Eastern Europe to secure uranium mining rights in Kazakhstan. His rich donation brought him financial gains well into the Obama administration and bore ripe fruit in the Uranium One deal. There has likely never been a better or bigger example of a corrupt pay to play operation in the history of American politics.
Click to expand...

Again, Clinton did not "approve" the Uranium One deal:

Nine federal agencies were required to approve the Uranium One transaction before it could go forward.
Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez represented the State Dept. on CFIUS
The committee can’t veto a transaction; only the president can.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hi...m-russia-deal/
 
marke said:
Let's see, the Muslim #44 occupant of the WH:

- Refused to allow victims of the Muslim terror attack at Ft. Hood to receive benefits given to service victims of the war on terror.
- Refused to call Muslim terror attacks acts of terror.
- Refused to honor Jewish leaders while honoring Muslim leaders.
- Gave Syria $195 million in aid on a Muslim holiday to show sympathy for Muslims in Syria.
- Gave Iran $1.7 billion to use as they saw fit while continuing their worldwide campaign of hatred for Americans.
- Condemned a decorated white cop for arresting an unruly black professor by the book.
- Condemned George Zimmerman for defending himself from a violent assault from a head-banging thug Obama thought looked like him.
- Condemned police officers for doing their jobs.
- Lied about Benghazi.

And many, many more acts of open disrespect for God, Christianity, the Bible, Christians, Jews, and Biblical influence and values in American history.

See America's Most Biblically-Hostile U.S. President https://wallbuilders.com/americas-biblically-hostile-u-s-president/
Click to expand...


Tuquoque.webp
 
I think Liberals will pin all their hopes on a on Pecker only to have them deflate.
 
SLC said:
I think Liberals will pin all their hopes on a on Pecker only to have them deflate.
Click to expand...

So will conservatives. Here's the thing, as outraged you lot are about Trump being investigated like this, if it were Hillary, you and I know damned well you guys would have impeached her - and justly so.

The two most flawed candidates ever, and Trump has -always- been corrupt, since the second his daddy handed him a cool couple million to start his own torrid little empire.

This has expanded to criminal probes of various parts of the Trump empire. I am surprised you lot are suprised, and I am not surprised at the partisan indignation and tu quoque arguments used to justify the way he acts.

At the end of the day, Trump worked hand over fist to control certain media narratives about him, lied and paid off women to silence them and ensure he wasn't exposed pre-election, has sordid business deals with dictators and criminal scum the world over - and you lot insist it's OK, while claiming Benghazi! was essentially the greatest crime of all time, next to some emails, which conveniently your BLOTUS and his daughter - let's include NEPOTISM in the stew - did also!

Hooray for PURE PARTISAN SHENANIGANS.
 
AncientGeek said:
Speaking of talking points, do you get your alternative facts from Breitbart?

Nine federal agencies were required to approve the Uranium One transaction before it could go forward.
Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez represented the State Dept. on CFIUS
The committee can’t veto a transaction; only the president can.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/
Click to expand...

"While Snopes deserves credit for its “just the facts, ma’am” approach to selecting its subjects, we have observed anecdotally that Snopes writers are in the habit of injecting editorial language or opinions into their fact checks. "

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a...es_and_editorializing_fact_checks_137551.html

"More and more, major news outlets are relying on “fact checkers” to, allegedly, ensure that the news is factual, sources are reliable, and statements are accurate.

In theory, this is admirable. In practice, it has proven to be simply another opportunity for the media to push their leftist agenda.

Fact checking groups — such as PolitiFact — routinely cast judgments while failing to disclose their own left-wing bias. Their allies in the media try to cast these groups as neutral third parties when, in fact, they are card-carrying members of the liberal echo chamber.

It’s no wonder that the public has so little faith in the fact-checkers. A 2016 Rasmussen poll found that an astonishing 62% of American voters think the fact-check-ers are biased."

https://www.newsbusters.org/fact-checkers
 
AncientGeek said:
Of the $145 million allegedly contributed to the Clinton Foundation by Uranium One investors, the lion’s share — $131.3 million — came from a single donor, Frank Giustra, the company’s Canadian founder. But Giustra sold off his entire stake in the company in 2007, three years before the Russia deal and at least 18 months before Clinton became secretary of state.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hi...m-russia-deal/
Click to expand...
Snopes has been found to be biased.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/1
 
marke said:
Mueller did some things worthy of honor. However, it is the bad he did which has tainted him forever.
Click to expand...
He lead the US Attorney's office in Boston that was over the Boston FBI that was actively helping Whitey Bolger get rid of Bolger's enemies by arrests or murders. It's one of the biggest scandals in DOJ history.
 
PoliSciXtina said:
I never said there was an indictment of trump (and it’s DOJ policy not to indict a president). But if you have the least bit of intelligence it’s very clear the man surrounds himself with people that are up to no good, and from just the last few days we know that SDNY is at the very least probing trump world finances. If I were to make a gamble I would bet a man that surrounds himself with criminals and who is being probed with several investigations is probably in some trouble. The judge even admitted that trump directed Cohen to commit a crime. You wanna debate that too? Because It’s not debatable. But go ahead, mention Obama and Clinton again if it truly makes you feel better. At some point you’ll have to come to terms with reality.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Did you notice that Cohen didn't confess to "Conspiracy to Commit a Crime" . What do you go to a Lawyer for? To give you legal advice on how to do things legally. It was Cohen's responsibility to advise Trump on what was legal and what isn't.

Trump has the total right to use as much of his own money for the campaign as he wants. He paid Cohen for paying a NDA to a Stormy Daniels and that is LEGAL. If you say it wasn't recorded as a campaign contribution then Hillary paid a Lawyer for opposition research and that wasn't recorded as a campaign contribution either. Then we have the whole issue of if this was for the Campaign or was it to hide the affairs from his wife and his kids or to prevent damage to the TRUMP brand. Trump is correct the Special Council had Cohen plead guilty to the FEC violations solely to embarrass Trump.

It's sad that the hopes of the Anti-Trumpers has disintegrated from Russian Collusion to porn payoff. The right knew Trump wasn't a Saint with his personal life and was a serial philanderer this just proves it. The right isn't worried about an affair or two between two consenting adults from over a decade ago.
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
"While Snopes deserves credit for its “just the facts, ma’am” approach to selecting its subjects, we have observed anecdotally that Snopes writers are in the habit of injecting editorial language or opinions into their fact checks. "

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a...es_and_editorializing_fact_checks_137551.html

"More and more, major news outlets are relying on “fact checkers” to, allegedly, ensure that the news is factual, sources are reliable, and statements are accurate.

In theory, this is admirable. In practice, it has proven to be simply another opportunity for the media to push their leftist agenda.

Fact checking groups — such as PolitiFact — routinely cast judgments while failing to disclose their own left-wing bias. Their allies in the media try to cast these groups as neutral third parties when, in fact, they are card-carrying members of the liberal echo chamber.

It’s no wonder that the public has so little faith in the fact-checkers. A 2016 Rasmussen poll found that an astonishing 62% of American voters think the fact-check-ers are biased."

https://www.newsbusters.org/fact-checkers
Click to expand...

Snopes was just an easy place to get the refuted points of the Russian propaganda. Any Snopes bias does not change the fact that Hilary Clinton did not push Uranium One through.
 
AncientGeek said:
Snopes was just an easy place to get the refuted points of the Russian propaganda. Any Snopes bias does not change the fact that Hilary Clinton did not push Uranium One through.
Click to expand...
Nor does Snopes add to your argument. Hillary had to sign off on the Uranium One deal she could have torpedoed the deal . She was accepting money to the Clinton Foundation from countries that had business before the State Department.

You would be going ballistic if Trump had done the same thing.
 
SLC said:
Did you notice that Cohen didn't confess to "Conspiracy to Commit a Crime" . What do you go to a Lawyer for? To give you legal advice on how to do things legally. It was Cohen's responsibility to advise Trump on what was legal and what isn't.
Click to expand...
1) Cohen was not acting as Trump's lawyer. He was Trump's fixer. That's why 99.9% of the documents seized by the SDNY were allowed into evidence, rather than protected by attorney-client privilege.

2) Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.


Trump has the total right to use as much of his own money for the campaign as he wants. He paid Cohen for paying a NDA to a Stormy Daniels and that is LEGAL.
Click to expand...
Incorrect.

1) Daniels was not paid by Trump or the campaign. She was paid by Essential Consultants LLC, an entity Cohen set up specifically to pay off Daniels. Cohen made a payment of $130,000 out of his own funds. Trump repaid Cohen months later, apparently from his own accounts, deliberately mislabeling it as "retainer fees." There are at least two violations here -- an illegal loan to the campaign, and an undeclared campaign expense.

2) Pecker / AMI paid McDougal $150,000 for an exclusive on her story of an affair with Trump, and promised her they would write up her story, and put her on the front page. Instead, they buried it. Trump did not reimburse AMI. That qualifies as an illegal campaign contribution.


If you say it wasn't recorded as a campaign contribution then Hillary paid a Lawyer for opposition research and that wasn't recorded as a campaign contribution either.
Click to expand...
Incorrect.

Clinton paid for the research. If Fusion did it on their own, and handed it over to the campaign without charging, that would be an equivalent illegal campaign contribution.


Then we have the whole issue of if this was for the Campaign or was it to hide the affairs from his wife and his kids or to prevent damage to the TRUMP brand.
Click to expand...
Please.

McDougal was paid days after the "Access Hollywood" tape broke. Pecker and Cohen have both said it was done for the election. They've both provided SDNY with evidence to back up their claims.


It's sad that the hopes of the Anti-Trumpers has disintegrated from Russian Collusion to porn payoff.
Click to expand...
Incorrect.

These are, for the most part, unrelated cases that the prosecutors are using leverage to find out about Trump's criminal activities -- which apparently involve the campaign, his "charity," his business dealings with Russia... The list goes on. Meanwhile, Mueller is still working on the Russia investigation.
 
SLC said:
Nor does Snopes add to your argument. Hillary had to sign off on the Uranium One deal she could have torpedoed the deal . She was accepting money to the Clinton Foundation from countries that had business before the State Department.

You would be going ballistic if Trump had done the same thing.
Click to expand...

- Nine cabinet agencies had to sign off on the deal. Any one could block it.
- Not normally handled at the secretary level. Any evidence Clinton signed off on it personally?
- Money timing doesn't line up with the deal: Giustra sold off his entire stake in the company in 2007, three years before the Russia deal and at least 18 months before Clinton became secretary of state.

Accepting money from what countries?

You mean like: Trump and Kushner Put Saudi's Money First
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...r-put-saudi-arabia-s-money-ahead-of-khashoggi
 
AncientGeek said:
Again, Clinton did not "approve" the Uranium One deal:

Nine federal agencies were required to approve the Uranium One transaction before it could go forward.
Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez represented the State Dept. on CFIUS
The committee can’t veto a transaction; only the president can.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hi...m-russia-deal/
Click to expand...

She did not have to approve anything. All she had to do was pull strings to make some things happen in order to return the expected favors for having been given $100 million in cash under the table.
 
AncientGeek said:
Snopes was just an easy place to get the refuted points of the Russian propaganda. Any Snopes bias does not change the fact that Hilary Clinton did not push Uranium One through.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but she sure did make sure she benefited from it....
 
Interesting item re: Pecker's pro:45 anti: Hillary/GOP opponents/"catch and kill" stories were worth $2.5-3 mil per month toward 45's victory in the primaries and presidential campaign.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom