• 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!

Bucking NDA, ex-Fox News reporter plans to tell Congress about outlet's role in Trump hush money sto

tres borrachos said:
This thread is about Fox's participation in the cover up, not the act itself.

But since you mention Edwards, let's consider a few things. The National Enquirer was the one who went public with the story about him - but they buried the same story about Trump. Apparently Fox did the same thing. Don't we always complain on here about MSM outlets not reporting honestly? Or is that only bad when they don't report on Clinton's actions?

If you're suggesting that what happened to Edwards, which was the complete and total ruination of his career, also happen to Trump, I'll agree with you.
Click to expand...

Keep going further and further left. It seems to suit you, somehow.

Didn't really care much with Edwards. Don't really care much with Trump either, just as long as campaign finance laws were complied with, as seems to have been the case both times. :shrug:

In addition, Trump has a well established track record on this, as do many other wealthy men. When a woman makes the choice of participating in what they did, there's a plus side as well as a down side, and it was their free will choice, so what's all the excitement about?

That Trump is caught in a bad light?

Well, gee, if you listen, watch or read, any of the so called 'news' (political propaganda) media, you'll get some of that each and every day, non stop (reasonable, justified, evidenced or just fabricated - doesn't matter to the media).

:shrug:

Sorry, but I'm not seeing the significant of this 'gotcha' moment, unless some sort of campaign finance violation can be sufficiently and concretely enough evidenced to stand up in the court of law. There's just been too much BS floated to trust anything short of that level of evidence.

For 2+ years so many have demanded so often and so fervently that there was 'Trump / Russia collusion' only to find out it was all gaslighting, all fabricated, so no more. Courtroom level of evidence required now, please. No exceptions.
 
Cardinal said:
The difference is criminal intent. The sheer lengths to which Trump went in order to obscure the payments demonstrates mens rea.

The differences are legion, and this article goes into detailed length.

Stop Comparing Donald Trump’s Campaign Finance Fraud With John Edwards’s Case | Above the Law
Click to expand...

OK. Prove 'criminal intent' if you please.

For 2+ years so many have demanded so often and so fervently that there was 'Trump / Russia collusion' only to find out it was all gaslighting, all fabricated, so no more. Courtroom level of evidence required now, please. No exceptions.
 
Mycroft said:
LOL!!

So now the Dems are going to go after Fox News?

If there were any doubt in anyone's mind that this House nonsense has nothing to do with crimes or justice...rather is just politically motivated misuse of government power and taxpayer resources...this Fox News nonsense should put those doubts to rest.
Click to expand...

Heard about the NDA, but not that they were going to get her to testify. Great. What's astonishing to me is that a so-called news channel has NDAs. What's up with that, Fox?
 
eohrnberger said:
OK. Prove 'criminal intent' if you please.

For 2+ years so many have demanded so often and so fervently that there was 'Trump / Russia collusion' only to find out it was all gaslighting, all fabricated, so no more. Courtroom level of evidence required now, please. No exceptions.
Click to expand...

Read the article. Or don't. I don't care.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
So you ARE okay with the idea of Trump being destroyed the way Edwards was destroyed...wow eohrnberger, that's very broad-minded of you.
Click to expand...

Assigning me a position I didn't take. How much more dishonest can you get?

How about you stick to what I posted.
 
Cardinal said:
Read the article. Or don't. I don't care.
Click to expand...

Let's let the courts decide. The media hasn't been worthy of any trust lately, especially not in regard to their coverage of Trump.
 
eohrnberger said:
Let's let the courts decide. The media hasn't been worthy of any trust lately, especially not in regard to their coverage of Trump.
Click to expand...

What a weird non sequitur. You justify my decision not to expend any energy on you.
 
eohrnberger said:
Assigning me a position I didn't take. How much more dishonest can you get?

How about you stick to what I posted.
Click to expand...

Knock it off because you've played the same game a gazillion times.
Tough beans if you can dish it out but not take it.
 
Roadvirus said:
Fox News sat on a story...so ****ing what?

Old geezer Cummings (aka Droopy) is wasting our tax dollars on this? Kick his ass off the committee.
Click to expand...

Elijah Cummings is the Senior Dem. Congressman and is Chairman of that committee. If there's any 'kicking off' to be done, he'll be the one doing it, not receiving it.
 
j-mac said:
"In May 2017, Falzone filed a lawsuit against Fox News in New York State Supreme Court alleging gender and disability discrimination, and alleging that she had been banned from taking part in on-air activities at Fox News three days after the article was published.[5] Falzone further alleged that after the article ran, a supervisor informed her that senior network executives Bill Shine and Jack Abernethy had banned her from ever appearing on FoxNews.com, and that she was not permitted to host her own shows, conduct her own interviews, appear on Fox TV, or do voiceovers, and that she should look for another job.[5][4]"


Diana Falzone - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

My research indicated that she left by mutual agreement after the settlement of her lawsuit on 3.31.18.
 
In the March 11, 2019 issue of The New Yorker, Jane Mayer reported Falzone had obtained proof that Trump had engaged in a sexual relationship in 2006 with Stephanie Clifford ("Stormy Daniels"), but Ken LaCorte told her the story was killed because "Rupert wants Donald Trump to win. So just let it go." Falzone later discovered that the National Enquirer had made a "catch and kill" deal regarding Daniels for Trump, and Fox did not run that either. The story remained unknown to the public until a year after Trump became President, when the Wall Street Journal news broke of Trump’s alleged payoffs as compensation to Daniels for her agreement to a non disclosure agreement, and then-Trump attorney Michael Cohen’s criminal attempts to conceal them as legal fees.

Do you really want to know who has been doing the manipulation of Trump? It's Fox mogul, Rupert Murdoch. This Australian is worth an estimated $100 billion. In 2013, Rupert Murdoch faced possible criminal charges in America after he was secretly filmed telling journalists at his newspapers that bribing police officers for stories was “the culture of Fleet Street”. Rupert Murdoch has had his hand involved in politics in Australia and Britain. If you want to know what kind of man Rupert Murdoch is, just read his Wikipedia page, particularly about his hacking and bribery allegations.

The old saying 'a fish rots from the head down' applies to Rupert Murdoch too.

ap-17308652060103.jpg
 
j-mac said:
"In May 2017, Falzone filed a lawsuit against Fox News in New York State Supreme Court alleging gender and disability discrimination, and alleging that she had been banned from taking part in on-air activities at Fox News three days after the article was published.[5] Falzone further alleged that after the article ran, a supervisor informed her that senior network executives Bill Shine and Jack Abernethy had banned her from ever appearing on FoxNews.com, and that she was not permitted to host her own shows, conduct her own interviews, appear on Fox TV, or do voiceovers, and that she should look for another job.[5][4]"

Diana Falzone - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

Yet she was not actually fired.

Fox News settles gender discrimination suit with female reporter, her lawyer says

In fact, the claim was made that those actions were taken against her based on something she wrote about.
 
roguenuke said:
Yet she was not actually fired.

Fox News settles gender discrimination suit with female reporter, her lawyer says

In fact, the claim was made that those actions were taken against her based on something she wrote about.
Click to expand...

She may not have actually been fired as in clean out your desk, and security will escort you out. But, when the network big wheels tell you 'maybe you should look for another job' that is as good as 'gtfoh'.... Point is she is a disgruntled ex employee...Anything she says is tainted.
 
j-mac said:
She may not have actually been fired as in clean out your desk, and security will escort you out. But, when the network big wheels tell you 'maybe you should look for another job' that is as good as 'gtfoh'.... Point is she is a disgruntled ex employee...Anything she says is tainted.
Click to expand...

Because she couldn't possibly have an actually valid claim against the network and information that is damning against them at the same time?

There is plenty of evidence that Trump and/or people he was friends with went to a lot of trouble to try to squash stories about him having an affair with Stormy Daniels, so her statements are verified by plenty of other sources. There is no indication that she is a "disgruntled employee", and that is why she is coming out with this information. You are simply showing that you are looking for an excuse why her statements should not be believed, a flimsy excuse at that.
 
roguenuke said:
Because she couldn't possibly have an actually valid claim against the network and information that is damning against them at the same time?
Click to expand...

I didn't say that, did I?

There is plenty of evidence that Trump and/or people he was friends with went to a lot of trouble to try to squash stories about him having an affair with Stormy Daniels, so her statements are verified by plenty of other sources. There is no indication that she is a "disgruntled employee", and that is why she is coming out with this information. You are simply showing that you are looking for an excuse why her statements should not be believed, a flimsy excuse at that.
Click to expand...

Why? Because she says so, and you want to believe her? I have no doubt that Trump is a cad...But, you seem to think that the voter didn't know that before they voted for him...It's a new era since the whole 'extra marital sex is a private affair of the 90s.'

Narratives always work both ways...
 
eohrnberger said:
Keep going further and further left. It seems to suit you, somehow.

Didn't really care much with Edwards. Don't really care much with Trump either, just as long as campaign finance laws were complied with, as seems to have been the case both times. :shrug:

In addition, Trump has a well established track record on this, as do many other wealthy men. When a woman makes the choice of participating in what they did, there's a plus side as well as a down side, and it was their free will choice, so what's all the excitement about?

That Trump is caught in a bad light?

Well, gee, if you listen, watch or read, any of the so called 'news' (political propaganda) media, you'll get some of that each and every day, non stop (reasonable, justified, evidenced or just fabricated - doesn't matter to the media).

:shrug:

Sorry, but I'm not seeing the significant of this 'gotcha' moment, unless some sort of campaign finance violation can be sufficiently and concretely enough evidenced to stand up in the court of law. There's just been too much BS floated to trust anything short of that level of evidence.

For 2+ years so many have demanded so often and so fervently that there was 'Trump / Russia collusion' only to find out it was all gaslighting, all fabricated, so no more. Courtroom level of evidence required now, please. No exceptions.
Click to expand...

Obviously you still have no idea what this thread is about. Not surprising. You come here to defend the lifelong Democrat you adore so much.

I suggest you read the OP again and you'll understand what is being discussed and debated. I'll give you a big hint. It has nothing to do with the serial adulterer you worship paying off his porn stars. The smart people knew he was an adulterer, and we are not surprised that he bribed them into silence. The thread is about Fox News burying the story. You know - like you Trump fans always accuse the other MSM outlets of doing when it comes to someone that Trump no longer supports (like Clinton) and tells you that you are also not to support that person.
 
j-mac said:
I didn't say that, did I?



Why? Because she says so, and you want to believe her? I have no doubt that Trump is a cad...But, you seem to think that the voter didn't know that before they voted for him...It's a new era since the whole 'extra marital sex is a private affair of the 90s.'

Narratives always work both ways...
Click to expand...

No one really cares that he had sex with someone outside of marriage. What is a problem is the hypocrisy that comes when he talks about how good he is and how evil his opponents are for things like extramarital affairs, and then he tries to hide his own, during the campaign, to save face for himself. He could have just admitted it and been done. It wouldn't have been a story or at least not nearly as it is now. But he has lied about it over and over and over again, and other people have worked to squash the story for him as well.

I believe her because there is plenty of evidence to support what she has said, including other statements that others have made as well as the same thing happening at the Enquirer.
 
roguenuke said:
No one really cares that he had sex with someone outside of marriage. What is a problem is the hypocrisy that comes when he talks about how good he is and how evil his opponents are for things like extramarital affairs, and then he tries to hide his own, during the campaign, to save face for himself. He could have just admitted it and been done. It wouldn't have been a story or at least not nearly as it is now. But he has lied about it over and over and over again, and other people have worked to squash the story for him as well.

I believe her because there is plenty of evidence to support what she has said, including other statements that others have made as well as the same thing happening at the Enquirer.
Click to expand...

I really don't care about his sex life....And I don't think that many other do.....So, you believe it, good...Don't vote for him....Not that you would have anyway....
 
tres borrachos said:
Obviously you still have no idea what this thread is about. Not surprising. You come here to defend the lifelong Democrat you adore so much.

I suggest you read the OP again and you'll understand what is being discussed and debated. I'll give you a big hint. It has nothing to do with the serial adulterer you worship paying off his porn stars. The smart people knew he was an adulterer, and we are not surprised that he bribed them into silence. The thread is about Fox News burying the story. You know - like you Trump fans always accuse the other MSM outlets of doing when it comes to someone that Trump no longer supports (like Clinton) and tells you that you are also not to support that person.
Click to expand...

Correction, he has been a Democrat, a Republican, and an Independent throughout the course of his life. He was a Republican in the late 80s, and throughout the 90s. He was an Independent for a couple years after that, then became a Democrat for a decade, then an Independent again, then back to Republican in 2012. Like most other things in his life, he changes Party affiliation at the drop of a hat. He has contradicted his own statements many times over the last 4 decades when it comes to his personal stances on many issues.

I honestly think he simply says things that he thinks people (or at least certain people, whichever group he is trying to gain favor with at the time) want to hear about his positions.
 
j-mac said:
I really don't care about his sex life....And I don't think that many other do.....So, you believe it, good...Don't vote for him....Not that you would have anyway....
Click to expand...

I care about the lies to try to protect it. That is where most have said Clinton went wrong (I was a teenager then), by simply not telling them that it was not their business or that sure he did and it was legal to do so.

It isn't just a single lie though either. It is so many lies just on this one thing, added to the many, many, many other lies about so many other issues. Why would I want to vote for someone like that? Why would anyone want someone like that to be their President?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom