If Nixon Knew Agnew

[Rexedgar]

The reports that Trump was in the dark as far as Cohen’s actions are as divorced from reality as the reports that MbS wasn’t involved in the Khashoggi murder...........:stop:

https://www.usnews.com/news/politic...nt-explanations-shift-as-legal-exposure-grows

 

[Amelia]

Hey, telling whoppers got him to the presidency.

Why should he stop now?

 

[Captain Adverse]

The reports that Trump was in the dark as far as Cohen’s actions are as divorced from reality as the reports that MbS wasn’t involved in the Khashoggi murder...........:stop:

https://www.usnews.com/news/politic...nt-explanations-shift-as-legal-exposure-grows

Hmm...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/30/...tional-enquirer-american-media-recording.html

My question is this, why would Mr. Pecker (geez that name is unfortunate) buy up stories for 20 years and simply bury them if there was no kind of deal in exchange for this "service."

Can anyone really imagine this was done completely gratis?

I think a case could be made that this information actually exonerates Trump, since there were 2 decades of "scandalous info cover-up" coupled with a long history of Trump's use of NDA's demonstrating a pattern well prior to his election campaign.

Former FEC Member, Dem Attorney Agree Trump Payments Aren't Criminal



I think I will continue to hold to a belief advocated by FEC and constitutional legal minds that this is not evidence of "felonious violations" of Federal campaign law...until clear evidence shows otherwise. :shrug:

 

[notquiteright]

Hmm... My question is this, why would Mr. Pecker (geez that name is unfortunate) buy up stories for 20 years and simply bury them if there was no kind of deal in exchange for this "service." Can anyone really imagine this was done completely gratis?

I think I will continue to hold to a belief advocated by FEC and constitutional legal minds that this is not evidence of "felonious violations" of Federal campaign law...until clear evidence shows otherwise.

You seem to contradict yourself. Can anyone really imagine this was done completely gratis?

Can anyone believe at least Mr. Pecker (geeez how fitting a name) had a lawyer to tell him once tRump becomes a candidate the burying stories and attacking Donald's opponents has a cash value and accountable as a campaign contribution? Let's face it, Pecker can't be a virgin in the legal entanglements from his style of editorship and has a few competent lawyers with some knowledge of political law.

FYI the belief advocated is by a FORMER member of the FEC, not the FEC officially, there is a difference. Somehow I think Faux Noise looked long and hard to find a guy who would back the 'not evidence' theory, but if so then why did Pecker go down so easily for Mueller once Cohen dodged the bullet....

Ponder that for a minute... eace

 

[Cardinal]

Hmm...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/30/...tional-enquirer-american-media-recording.html

My question is this, why would Mr. Pecker (geez that name is unfortunate) buy up stories for 20 years and simply bury them if there was no kind of deal in exchange for this "service."

Can anyone really imagine this was done completely gratis?

I think a case could be made that this information actually exonerates Trump, since there were 2 decades of "scandalous info cover-up" coupled with a long history of Trump's use of NDA's demonstrating a pattern well prior to his election campaign.

What fascinating logic. A hit man has killed hundreds of people before he and I ever met, therefore I couldn't have hired him to kill my wife.

That's your argument.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Agnew literally ran every one of his political offices as a pay for service industry.
He might as well have installed a cash register right on his desk.

Contractors and other clients had been kicking back to Agnew five percent of the value of contracts received through his influence, first county contracts during his term in Towson, and subsequently state contracts while Agnew was governor.
The payments even continued into Agnew's term as VP.

 

[Perotista]

Hey, telling whoppers got him to the presidency.

Why should he stop now?

Like Trump or hate him, what got Trump the presidency was Hillary Clinton's laziness along with the Democrats nominating someone as disliked by America as a whole as Trump was. Laziness, Trump made 116 campaign stops/visits between 1 Sep 2016 and 8 Nov 2016 to Hillary's 71. That probably made all the difference in such states as Florida, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Show me any other candidate that would let their opponent both out work and out campaign by that much as Hillary did. Only one word to describe it, laziness.

Being disliked, 57% of all independents disliked Trump, didn't want him. But 70% of independents disliked Hillary, didn't want her either. Questions 10 and 11.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/l37rosbwjp/econTabReport_lv.pdf

Independents put Trump in the white house by voting for him by a 46-42 margin over Hillary. Still 12% of all independents voted third party refusing to choose between what they considered evil vs. evil.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls

It's not like the Democrats didn't have fair warning about Hillary. In February of 2016 a poll showed 56% of all Americans wanted the Democrats to nominate someone other than Hillary. The Democrats ignored America as a whole, the results are a Trump presidency. I'm convinced that almost any other Democrat, alive or dead would have trounced Trump. But Hillary was their choice, their right to choose her, no doubt about that. But we ended up with two candidates, Hillary, only democrats liked and wanted her. Trump, only Republicans liked and wanted him. Independents, at least 54% of them wanted neither one, they disliked both.

https://news.gallup.com/opinion/pol...mericans-dislike-presidential-candidates.aspx

So we have whom we have due to the choices, actions and decisions made by both major parties in 2016. Live with it, we have to.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I'm convinced that almost any other Democrat, alive or dead would have trounced Trump.

Not to mention one sentimental old fool who repeatedly refused to JOIN the Democratic Party.
Had he done so, I suspect that four years after he joined, the party would belong to him, and they would have been bending over backwards to protect him instead of Hillary.

Fer God's sake, he won't even admit that he hasn't been a socialist since he set foot on Capitol Hill.
He's a New Deal liberal Democrat in the mold of FDR, but for some stupid reason he thinks it's romantic to refer to himself as a socialist.

Aside from being a sentimental old fool, I liked a lot of his ideas.

 

[Perotista]

Not to mention one sentimental old fool who repeatedly refused to JOIN the Democratic Party.
Had he done so, I suspect that four years after he joined, the party would belong to him, and they would have been bending over backwards to protect him instead of Hillary.

Fer God's sake, he won't even admit that he hasn't been a socialist since he set foot on Capitol Hill.
He's a New Deal liberal Democrat in the mold of FDR, but for some stupid reason he thinks it's romantic to refer to himself as a socialist.

Aside from being a sentimental old fool, I liked a lot of his ideas.

View attachment 67246089

I have a lot of respect for Senator Sanders. Our politics are almost completely opposite. But I sure would trust this nation to him a lot more than to either Hillary or Trump. Had Sanders been the nominee vs. Trump, I probably would have voted for him instead of voting third party. I'm one of the 8 million voters who refused to choose between Trump and Hillary. I voted against both.

Fact is I would have voted for almost any Democrat other than Hillary against Trump. I would have voted for almost any other Republican against Hillary other than Trump. 2016 was a unique election in where most voters voted for the candidate they least wanted to lose, not the one they wanted to win, but the one they least wanted to lose.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I have a lot of respect for Senator Sanders. Our politics are almost completely opposite. But I sure would trust this nation to him a lot more than to either Hillary or Trump. Had Sanders been the nominee vs. Trump, I probably would have voted for him instead of voting third party. I'm one of the 8 million voters who refused to choose between Trump and Hillary. I voted against both.

Fact is I would have voted for almost any Democrat other than Hillary against Trump. I would have voted for almost any other Republican against Hillary other than Trump. 2016 was a unique election in where most voters voted for the candidate they least wanted to lose, not the one they wanted to win, but the one they least wanted to lose.

Well the good news about Sanders is, at least for you, that most likely he would have only accomplished about ten percent of what he wanted to do. Maybe universal health care and better college subsidies. That's probably about it.

I like to think he would have fostered a much better dialogue in this country however.

 

[Perotista]

Well the good news about Sanders is, at least for you, that most likely he would have only accomplished about ten percent of what he wanted to do. Maybe universal health care and better college subsidies. That's probably about it.

I like to think he would have fostered a much better dialogue in this country however.

I'm sure he would have, dialogue I mean. He sure wouldn't be going around calling everyone names that disagrees with you or throwing temper tantrums like a five year old kid whose parents forgot to teach him any manners. I'll tell you this, I was born right after WWII, every president since, regardless of party I was comfortable with them being president, in charge. Trump, I'm not.

There's somethings Trump has done I liked, some I haven't liked. But it's been that way with every president. I'm just not comfortable with him as president. That might sound crazy, comfortability over policy or ideology. It just I'd whether have a president that I completely disagree with politically, but one that I know that has this nation's best interest in his heart. Neither Trump nor Clinton had that as far as I'm concerned.

Trump is more interested in himself than the nation as a whole, I had that same feeling about Hillary. There's somethings that are hard to explain. I suppose not being all that partisan or ideological, trust and comfort in a president, candidate, any elected official is important to me. Not the R or the D, but the individual.

 

[Parrish]

If 45 wasn't a crook he wouldn't need a "fixer" in his business for 10+ years.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

There's somethings Trump has done I liked, some I haven't liked.

I just found out the most insulting thing he has done lately, to veterans and their families.
You might have heard that he announced that he was expanding the caregiver stipends to all service connected disabled veterans, and not just the post 9/11 variety.

I was all set to congratulate him on this because it affects me directly.
I've been taking care of my wife for the entire twenty years we've been together...proud to do it, too.
I am a husband first, caregiver second...but I AM indeed a caregiver.

Thing is, up until about two or three years ago, she was pretty easy to take care of, just get her out of bed and into her chair and she could do the rest. In the last couple of years her health problems have taken a nosedive and now she needs constant monitoring because of her kidney and bladder issues and the constant threat of infection, plus she's beginning to lose some dexterity and control in her arms now too.
So as you can imagine, things can get dangerous very quickly.

This has cost me jobs, any jobs that require me leaving for more than a day.
I'm almost sixty-three now, but I've been a professional cinematographer for almost thirty-seven years but I am not able to commit anymore, commit to the time requirements, plus my eyesight is going.
So now I pretty much do film editing at home and that's about it.

My real job description now is "CAREGIVER", so when I heard that the caregiver compensation had been opened up by Trump I was thrilled. Turns out it's no different than his so called deal with the North Koreans. He said it's law but in reality, it's BS.
Nothing in his orders or statements have anything to do with funding, so in essence he threw out a feel-good story so that Trump fans would all nod and say he's taking care of veterans.

It's just more phony Trump
And the real truth of the matter is, such an idea actually SAVES money, because the VA doesn't have to outlay for as many career caregivers, aides and attendants if family is doing the work. The stipend isn't very much but it counts.

I should have known it was all talk.

 

[SoCal]

...My question is this, why would Mr. Pecker (geez that name is unfortunate) buy up stories for 20 years and simply bury them if there was no kind of deal in exchange for this "service."...

Can you imagine being named Richard Pecker?

....2 decades of "scandalous info cover-up" coupled with a long history of Trump's use of NDA's demonstrating a pattern well prior to his election campaign...

I don't think it legally matters how many decades he's been a scumball. It seems that because the last two hush money payoffs were done twelve days before the election, it makes it a campaign contribution:

...But we don’t even have to believe Cohen. There is plenty of other evidence to suggest that these payments were made to keep Trump’s political aspirations alive. For one thing, Cohen made the payment to Stormy Daniels mere weeks before the election. Trump’s current personal attorney, Rudy Guilianni, made the implications of this payment and its timing clear on national television. “Imagine if that [the allegation] came out on Oct. 15, 2016, in the middle of the last debate with Hillary Clinton,” he told “Fox & Friends” in May...

....I think I will continue to hold to a belief advocated by FEC and constitutional legal minds that this is not evidence of "felonious violations" of Federal campaign law...until clear evidence shows otherwise. :shrug:

Yet there are many legal minds who say it is evidence. In any case, the FEC hasn't even made the decision on the legality yet and it looks like it might take a year before it's announced. If they decide it is a felonious violation, they have all the evidence they'll need.

Given his past history and the dozen or more close associates who've pleaded guilty or are serving time, I'll continue believing he's one of them. A fish rots from the head...