Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
110 online now:
dwise1, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Phat, Tanypteryx (5 members, 105 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,069 Year: 6,181/6,534 Month: 374/650 Week: 144/278 Day: 12/30 Hour: 5/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Book about the Anti-Trump Conspiracy
Percy
Member
Posts: 20959
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 91 of 277 (836780)
07-22-2018 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Faith
07-21-2018 6:05 PM


Re: Focus On The Book
Faith writes:

Capt Stormfield writes:

Faith writes:

Sorry there really is a conspiracy by the leftist media to bring down Trump but all we get is the inane declarations of what the press is supposed to be without a hint that anybody sees the total blitzkrieg that's going on.

So quit your incessant whining and bitching and declaiming and provide some examples of of uncorrected untruths in the mainstream media. You're big on calling conspiracy, but short on evidence.

The evidence is everywhere, open your eyes.

The evidence that the media is merely reporting what Trump says and does and then reacts to it is everywhere, open your eyes. On a number of recent issues even Fox News is chiming in.

We have two opposite and opposing views. Wouldn't you agree that citing specific evidence is the way to discuss and resolve the issue? Wouldn't you agree that refusals to offer evidence and refusals to examine any offered evidence works counter to discussion and resolution?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Faith, posted 07-21-2018 6:05 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20959
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 93 of 277 (836789)
07-22-2018 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Faith
07-21-2018 6:19 PM


Re: Focus On The Book
Faith writes:

As usual. I'm talking to blind unthinking bias.

Regardless of the validity of this accusation against Capt Stormfield, don't you want to show how your own views are based upon reality, i.e., based upon statements and actions rather than upon "blind unthinking bias?" I presume you would want to do that, so I must ask how you propose to do that if you're refusing to consider anyone's evidence or offer any of your own?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Faith, posted 07-21-2018 6:19 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Faith, posted 07-22-2018 3:32 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20959
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 111 of 277 (836817)
07-22-2018 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Faith
07-22-2018 6:33 AM


Re: Focus On The Book
Faith writes:

The willingness of the press to trash this President on the slightest excuse is unprecedented.

That's one of the premises of chapter one of Pirro's book. In order to support that premise you must explain why criticism of such things as these are unjustified:

  • Family separation.
  • Restriction immigration from a number of Muslim countries.
  • Racist comments such as about Charlottesville.
  • Being unable to differentiate between Russian meddling in our 2016 election and collusion of his campaign with Russians.
  • Cheating on his spouse while she was pregnant with his son Barron.
  • Lying about cheating on his spouse.
  • Paying hush money to paramours.
  • Lying about paying hush money to paramours.
  • Starting trade wars that are costing American jobs.
  • Erroneously stating when NATO members would be increasing their contributions.
  • Stating in Helsinki that he didn't know why the 2016 election meddling would be Russia.
  • Giving greater credence to a Russian dictator than to his own intelligence agencies.
  • Indicating in Helsinki a willingness to consider allowing Russian interrogators to question American citizens like the former US ambassador.
  • Erroneously claiming that the nuclear problem with North Korea was solved.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Faith, posted 07-22-2018 6:33 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Faith, posted 07-22-2018 8:51 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20959
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 114 of 277 (836823)
07-22-2018 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Minnemooseus
07-22-2018 8:20 AM


Re: Gender Bending in the Bible
Hey, neat. That intro reminded me a bit of Peter, Paul and Mary, but I see it was Sara Thomsen. Just a few minutes into it so far.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-22-2018 8:20 AM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20959
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 120 of 277 (836848)
07-23-2018 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Faith
07-22-2018 3:32 PM


Re: Focus On The Book
See this message's subtitle? Seems a good idea.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Faith, posted 07-22-2018 3:32 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20959
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 121 of 277 (836849)
07-23-2018 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Faith
07-22-2018 5:30 PM


Re: Focus On This Topic
Faith writes:

Most of the topics don't really lend themselves to evidence, they are judgment calls.

Well, yes. That's why I keep introducing specific things that Trump has said or done. Take us through your reasoning that leads you to conclude the media is misreporting things.

She sometimes mentions various indications that she reads in support of her opinion, such as the outrageous total blitz against Trump in every news outlet.

What "total blitz"? For example, I'm looking at today's New York Times front page, and regarding actual news (not the editorial section) there's only one article about Trump, Trump Threatens Iran in Tweet, Warning of Dire ‘Consequences’. I've read the article, and you could read it, too, then we could discuss whether you really think it reflects a "total blitz" of anti-Trump rhetoric. Fox News has their own article that though shorter says pretty much the same thing: Trump warns Iran's Rouhani to stop the threats or suffer historic consequences.

You can't expect the press to come out and say "we're dedicated to taking down Trump no matter what rules of journalism and basic human decency we have to violate."

Provide an example.

So you read the signs and interpret them according to your viewpoint.

Point us to these signs you're interpreting.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Faith, posted 07-22-2018 5:30 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20959
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 122 of 277 (836850)
07-23-2018 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Faith
07-22-2018 5:36 PM


Re: Focus On This Topic
Faith writes:

If you will not treat the opinions expressed on this thread with respect I recommend you go elsewhere.

Asking you to support your opinions with evidence and argument is not only reasonable, it's in the Forum Guidelines:

  1. Points should be supported with evidence and reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Fix formatting.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Faith, posted 07-22-2018 5:36 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20959
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 124 of 277 (836852)
07-23-2018 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Faith
07-22-2018 8:51 PM


Re: Focus On The Book
Faith writes:

I don't have answers since I don't follow politics much these days,...

But you follow the news, right? You *did* see the news reporting the meetings with Kim Jung Un and Putin, didn't you? Assuming you do follow the news (because if you don't then you have no right to an opinion about what it says), you should explain what you're reading or watching in that news that is leading you to your conclusions.

...but I'm very sure conservatives who keep up with these things do. Pirro probably does, so if I run across relevant comments I'll post them.

Good idea.

Meanwhile my opinion is you are just falling for the leftist party line.

Would this be, for example, the leftist party line that the rightist party line agrees with about Trump's performance in Helsinki? If not, tell us what you're talking about? If you don't follow the news, how do you know it has a leftist party line (again, we're not talking about the editorial portions - all news outlets have them, including Fox News and Breitbart).

You love to post long lists to promote the illusion you have lots of evidence.

I post long lists because you rarely respond to points I make, so after a while I gather them into a list so they are not forgotten.

The lists you posted to prove me wrong on the last evolution thread I'd already answered but that doesn't stop you. It's an illusion you like to create and it fools you as much as anyone else.

But you didn't answer anything. You typed a few words of response to each point. I posted detailed explanations of the problems with everything you said, but you barely responded. Message 79 and Message 88 are still there. You ignored almost all of both messages, and in the couple points we discussed you eventually ceased replying. So all those issues are still open and unaddressed. Open a new thread to discuss them, if you like, but keep in mind that one and two sentence brush-offs aren't answers.

ABE My guess would be that most of them are exaggerations, distortions, willful misunderstandings or the like.

My certainty is that your guess is wrong. Pick a news article you don't like and let's go through it.

EXCEPT FOR THE ONE ABOUT MUSIM IMMIGRATION. Restricting it is the only sane thing to do and criticizing it is suicidal.

All immigration is restricted. Followers of Islam will be screened just like all other immigrants.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Faith, posted 07-22-2018 8:51 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Faith, posted 07-24-2018 12:48 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20959
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 131 of 277 (836917)
07-24-2018 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Faith
07-24-2018 12:42 AM


Re: What is the evidence to support the assertions made in the second paragraph.
Faith writes:

It isn't slander. It's his own words that condemn him.

It's his literal words taken out of context, misquoted, twisted to mean something entirely different, headlined in a way to imply something they are not and so on.

You keep saying this, but you never provide examples. Today's papers are quoting Trump's late night tweet threatening Iran and quoting the tweet:

quote:
To Iranian President Rouhani: NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!

An article quoting Trump's tweet verbatim and writing about it cannot be considered "taken out of context, misquoted, twisted to mean something entirely different, headlined in a way to imply something they are." Here's the Washington Post article: Trump stokes Iran tensions with threats of dire consequences for Tehran. Give it a read and you'll see that nothing was misquoted, taken out of context, twisted, or misimplied.

I looked up the same topic at Fox News and Breitbart, but Fox News only had a video (I prefer the printed word) and Breitbart's article was so brief as to not be worth mentioning.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Faith, posted 07-24-2018 12:42 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20959
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


(3)
Message 132 of 277 (836918)
07-24-2018 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Faith
07-24-2018 12:48 AM


Re: Focus On The Book
Faith writes:

No I don't follow the news.

Then what qualifies you to comment on it?

I see headlines on the internet, sometimes I read part of the story.

For example...

Sometimes I hear it on the car radio when I'm being driven somewhere.

For example...

I get the basic gist of some things. and I see some of what gets written on the Trump Bashing Thread which makes me sick.

For example...

I cannot stomach what the Left is doing to him and to the nation, I really can't.

For example...

I have to shut it out or it will kill me.

Then you should never have started this thread. Don't you think the drama is getting a bit old? Like years and years old?

Sometimes I wish I were up on this so I could argue it but I can't do it and that is that. I wanted the thread to represent an alternative view to the Trump Bashing Thread, but forget it. You win, I lose, the Left wins, the nation loses.

Yeah, sure. As if you don't post appeals to sympathy like this over and over again, then resume posting aggressively and antagonistically. You are not the topic. Leave you and your feelings out of this, especially since after all this time they're obviously just false ploys.

Some examples, please.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Faith, posted 07-24-2018 12:48 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20959
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 137 of 277 (836938)
07-24-2018 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by ringo
07-24-2018 12:23 PM


Re: What is the evidence to support the assertions made in the second paragraph.
ringo writes:

When he compares a black person to a monkey,...

I couldn't find where Trump has done this, but here's stuff from Donald Trump’s Racism: The Definitive List that seems supported by evidence (i.e., not hearsay) and that is specific to blacks (i.e., not Mexicans or Muslims or Haitians or Puerto Ricans or Jews, who he has also attacked):

Here's a couple more from other sources:

  • Referred to African nations as shithole countries.

  • Cheered Rosanne Barr for comparing a former Obama aide to an ape.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by ringo, posted 07-24-2018 12:23 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by ringo, posted 07-24-2018 1:23 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 139 by Chiroptera, posted 07-24-2018 4:32 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20959
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 140 of 277 (836976)
07-25-2018 9:59 AM


Trump Says Not To Believe What You See or Read
In a speech to the VFW yesterday Trump, after speaking out against criticism of his policies, said not to believe what you see or read (long speech, but I've queued this YouTube video up to the exact right spot):

Apparently we should only believe lying, racist, misogynistic, homophobic, dictator loving Trump. This comment is on-topic since it undoubtedly includes criticisms Pirro believes unfair and unprecedented but that can be easily supported.

Trump seems to be getting used to using a teleprompter, though I suspect he adlibs quite a bit.

If you want to hear Trump lying about the Democratic position on immigration and crime, advance forward to 39:51 where he asserts that Democrats want open borders and crime.

--Percy


  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20959
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 142 of 277 (836993)
07-25-2018 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Phat
07-25-2018 10:28 AM


Re: Off Topic or nah?
Phat writes:

I might comment that we are getting off topic. The topic isn't Trump. It is Liars Leakers and Liberals: The Case Against the Anti-Trump Conspiracy..

You say the topic isn't Trump but about a book making the case against the anti-Trump conspiracy. A discussion about this book cannot help but include Trump. It must also include those entities the book charges as responsible for the conspiracy, namely the news media and the Democrats.

Percy writes:

This comment is on-topic since it undoubtedly includes criticisms Pirro believes unfair and unprecedented but that can be easily supported.


If so, wouldn't it be better to focus on Pirro's comments themselves?

We only have access to chapter one and the first two sections of chapter two. Pirro provides no specific examples of what she claims is happening, so we are forced to fill in the blanks with examples ourselves, since Faith (the only one with a copy of the book) is refusing to provide anything specific herself, in fact, seems to glory in her ignorance of the news that is the supposed expression of the conspiracy.

The desire Faith actually expressed in her opening post was to state her beliefs without challenge. She seems to feel that the mere fact of challenging her beliefs is a sign of disrespect. She is in spirit, like her hero, an autocrat.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Phat, posted 07-25-2018 10:28 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Phat, posted 07-25-2018 4:16 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20959
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 152 of 277 (837033)
07-25-2018 5:43 PM


The Cohen Tape as Evidence of an Anti-Trump Conspiracy
A lot is being made recently of the tape where Donald Trump and Michael Cohen discuss the Karen McDougal payoff. Is what's being written in the news part of an Anti-Trump conspiracy by the news media bto ring Trump down, as Pirro alleges?

A copy of the recording may be found in How Michael Cohen’s Audio Clip Unraveled Trump’s False Statements from today's New York Times. The recording appears after the article's 3rd paragraph. Let's examine this article paragraph by paragraph to see if it supports Pirro's thesis. It appears in the Times' politics section. It is not an opinion piece.

An annotated transcript of the tape can be found at The Trump-Michael Cohen tape transcript, annotated.

The article is by Matt Apuzzo and Maggie Haberman. Matt Apuzzo is a two-time Pulitzer Prize winning journalist working for the Times. Maggie Haberman is the Times White House correspondent and a political analyst for CNN.

quote:
WASHINGTON — Just before Election Day, when The Wall Street Journal uncovered a secret deal by the National Enquirer to buy the silence of a former Playboy model who said she had an affair with Donald J. Trump, his campaign issued a flat denial.

The above paragraph is just a straight recounting of facts. In greater detail, it is saying that on November 4th, 2016, the Wall Street Journal reported that then presidential candidate Donald Trump had had an affair with Karen McDougal that AMI (parent company of the National Enquirer) had covered up by performing what is called in the business a "catch and kill," where the rights to a story are purchased with the intent of killing it. The Trump campaign issued a flat denial, spokeswoman Hope Hicks saying the report was "totally untrue." AMI also denied the story, saying in a statement, "AMI has not paid people to kill damaging stories about Mr. Trump." The Times is reporting facts.

quote:
“We have no knowledge of any of this,” Mr. Trump’s spokeswoman, Hope Hicks, told the newspaper. She said the claim of an affair was “totally untrue.”

The Times is reporting what Hope Hicks was reported to have said in the Wall Street Journal. It's just more facts.

quote:
Then last week, when The New York Times revealed the existence of a recorded conversation about the very payment Mr. Trump denied knowing about, Mr. Trump’s lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, described the recording as “exculpatory” — suggesting it would actually help Mr. Trump if it became public.

These are just more facts. It was indeed the Times that broke the story, and Giuliani did indeed describe the recording as "exculpatory."

The Times next includes a way to play the recording. The relevant portion begins at about 2:00. The article continues:

quote:
Finally, the tape has become public. And it revealed the statements by Ms. Hicks and Mr. Giuliani to be false. The recording, which was broadcast by CNN late Tuesday night, shows Mr. Trump directly involved in talks about whether to pay the Enquirer for the rights to the woman’s story.

This paragraph says that the statements from both Hope Hicks and Rudolf Giuliani were false. Is that true, or is it a conspiratorial lie designed to turn the country against a fine and upstanding president doing his best for God and country?

Hope Hicks statement that the Journal report was "totally untrue" would have occurred on November 3rd, 2016, the day before the article appeared in the Journal on November 4th, 2016. The Cohen tape records a discussion between Donald Trump and Michael Cohen that took place in September, 2016. Therefore Trump was discussing payoffs to McDougal at least a month before Hope Hicks declared the reports of the affair and a payoff "totally untrue." What she said was false.

Now let's get to Rudolf Giuliani. Was what Giuliani said false? By exculpatory Giuliani of course meant legally exculpatory, meaning that Trump had done nothing illegal. If Trump lied to the press, whether directly or through spokespeople, that would not be illegal, and Giuliani probably wasn't worried about that. It would be a lost cause denying Trump lied anyway, since he so obviously did.

But why the claim the tape was exculpatory? Does something on the tape imply that Trump did something illegal? Yes, it possibly does, depending on what is learned when all the facts come out. (Remember, we don't have to rely on the tapes alone - Michael Cohen was there and can testify about the conversation, and previous conversations.) Unreported payoffs could possibly be a violation of campaign financing laws. Giuliani was claiming that the tape is exculpatory about campaign finance law violations.

Giuliani provided his own transcript where instead of Trump saying "[unintelligible] pay with cash," he says, "Don't pay with cash." It makes little difference either way. The means of payment has nothing to do with campaign finance laws. Also, paying with cash might be worse, depending upon the means used to hide the money trail, since that might introduce charges of money laundering.

So Giuliani's statement that the tape is exculpatory is false. It is not exculpatory.

quote:
The recording, and the repeated statements it contradicts, is a stark example of how Mr. Trump and his aides have used falsehoods as a shield against tough questions and unflattering stories.

This is the first sentence in the article that Trump supporters will see as an indication of bias and a statement of opinion, rather than just a recitation of facts. But Trump, his campaign and his administration have now told so many documented lies, then doubled down on them, that is hard to see them as anything more than a strategy to defend against the truth when it isn't favorable. If this paragraph is just opinion, then why all the Trump lies?

quote:
Building upon his repeated cry of “fake news,” he told supporters this week not to believe the news. “What you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening,” the president added.

This sentence is just straight reporting of the president's own words.

quote:
In a capital where politicians have made an art form of the nondenial denial, press secretaries typically reserve their on-the-record denials for stories that are outright false. Candidates can weather most embarrassing stories, and press officers know that getting caught in a lie only makes things worse.

This is just a statement about how politicians in general manage the truth when it is inconvenient, such as the "nondenial denial" and just waiting out the storm.

quote:
But Mr. Trump, both as a candidate and as president, has turned that thinking on its head. When faced with the evidence of its misstatements, the administration sidesteps and moves on. “I’m not going to get into a back-and-forth,” the White House press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, said last month when confronted with her unequivocal, and false, denials that Mr. Trump had dictated his son’s misleading statement about meeting with Russians.

I disagree with this paragraph's assessment that Trump has "turned that thinking on its head." I think Trump's using the same techniques that politicians have always used, just more brazenly while combined with constantly churning the news cycle so there's never time to dwell on any particular lie.

The rest of the paragraph is factual, merely mentioning White House Press Secretary Sander's false denials that Trump had dictated his son's statement about the Trump Tower meeting with Russians.

quote:
The tape that surfaced Tuesday concerned the former model, Karen McDougal, who says she began a nearly yearlong affair with Mr. Trump in 2006. Shortly before the 2016 election, she sold her story for $150,000 to The National Enquirer. But the tabloid, which was supportive of Mr. Trump, sat on the story, a practice known as catch and kill. It effectively silenced Ms. McDougal for the remainder of the campaign.

This paragraph is just a factual recounting of events.

quote:
The legal implications of the taped conversation for Mr. Trump are unclear. Federal prosecutors in Manhattan are investigating whether Mr. Trump’s longtime personal lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, committed bank fraud or violated campaign finance laws by arranging payments to silence women critical of Mr. Trump.

This paragraph merely describes what crimes Cohen might possibly have committed, according to federal prosecutors.

quote:
The recording is potentially significant because it places Ms. McDougal in the context of the presidential campaign. Mr. Trump and Mr. Cohen talk polling, surrogates, fending off journalists, and, finally, embarrassing deals. But it is not clear whether that creates legal problems for Mr. Trump.

This is just a factual recounting, concluding that it is unknown whether this creates legal problems for Trump.

quote:
The recording was among 12 handed over to prosecutors from a trove of Mr. Cohen’s material that F.B.I. agents seized in April. It is the only recording of substance between Mr. Cohen and Mr. Trump, according to people familiar with the material. Others include Mr. Cohen speaking to broadcast media figures, according to the people.

Just another paragraph of facts.

quote:
In the recording, Mr. Trump does not appear surprised to hear about the arrangement with the Enquirer’s parent company, American Media Inc. Mr. Cohen describes the agreement with “our friend David,” a reference to the company’s chief executive, David Pecker.

From the tape it is clear that Trump is already familiar with the topic of McDougal. He even offers up himself the amount of the AMI payoff to McDougal, $150,000, so he must have discussed this before, else how could he know?

quote:
The tape surfaced as part of a widening rift between Mr. Trump and Mr. Cohen, his once-trusted adviser. Mr. Cohen has all but advertised his willingness to cooperate with federal prosecutors, an arrangement that could unearth many of the secrets that he helped bury in a decade of work as Mr. Trump’s fixer. No such cooperation deal has been reached, and prosecutors typically do not make such arrangements until they have finished reviewing the evidence they have collected.

Just more factual recounting.

quote:
The tape also shows how enmeshed the Trump Organization had become in politics and the effort to protect Mr. Trump’s image. Mr. Cohen can be heard telling Mr. Trump that he had consulted with the company’s chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg, “when it comes time for the financing” of the payments to the Enquirer’s parent company.

More factual recounting. Cohen is telling Trump that he has already alerted the Trump Organization's CFO that the need for financing for the payments for the McDougal story rights may come soon.

quote:
“Wait a sec, what financing?” Mr. Trump is heard saying.

“Well, I’ll have to pay him something,” Mr. Cohen then says.


Cohen is probably gently reminding Trump that the money for the payoff has to come from somewhere. The "him" Cohen is referring to is probably the head of AMI, though of course the payment would actually be to AMI. Remember, they're not talking about paying off McDougal. She's already been paid off. They're talking about purchasing the McDougal story rights from AMI.

quote:
Mr. Weisselberg was also involved in structuring Mr. Cohen’s reimbursements of more than $400,000 after he parted ways with the Trump Organization. Those reimbursements to Mr. Cohen are said to have included money he spent to silence an adult-film actress named Stephanie Clifford, who goes by the stage name Stormy Daniels. She also alleged a previous affair with Mr. Trump that he has denied.

Just more boring facts.

quote:
When the recording surfaced, Mr. Trump’s lawyers drafted a transcript and circulated it to reporters. In their version, Mr. Trump told Mr. Cohen “don’t pay with cash” and then says, “check.”

More facts. I mentioned the Giuliani version of the transcript earlier.

quote:
Mr. Cohen’s lawyers argued that Mr. Trump’s team manufactured a dialogue to make it more favorable for their client. “They have been getting away with saying that a lie is the truth and don’t believe the media,” said Lanny J. Davis, a lawyer for Mr. Cohen. “But they walked into a trap here because a tape is a tape. It’s a fact. If you’re for Donald Trump, don’t believe me. I’m a Democrat. Believe your own ears.”

Just describing what Cohen's lawyer Lanny Davis said.

quote:
Repeated screenings of the tape do not clearly reveal Mr. Trump saying the words “don’t pay with,” an omission that would entirely change the meaning of his comment. That creates a chasm — between what is heard on the tape, and what Mr. Trump’s aides say is heard on the tape.

Here the article is saying that Giuliani is making up what he says is on the tape out of whole cloth. I've listened to the tape several times and it seems obvious to me that at best Giuliani is hearing what he wishes were on the tape, not what is actually there. Listen yourself and make up your own mind. Again, the recording is after the third paragraph in the article.

But whether Trump said check or cash makes little difference. There's no disagreement about what the rest of the tape says. Trump friend AMI paid off McDougal to keep her quiet before the election, Trump lied about knowing anything about it, and he discussed with Cohen buying the payoff from AMI so they had complete control over it.
Given that the McDougal affair went on for about 10 months, McDougal might have a great deal of evidential documentation.

So there's the whole article analyzed paragraph by paragraph in a search for biased and inaccurate reporting that is part of a conspiracy designed to bring down Trump. No biased or inaccurate reporting was found.

--Percy


  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20959
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 158 of 277 (837040)
07-25-2018 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Faith
07-25-2018 5:24 PM


Re: Focus On The Book
Faith writes:

My position is that there IS a conspiracy to attack Trump against all the rules of journalism and common decency because the majority of journalists are leftist.

There's a conspiracy because the majority of journalists are leftist? Most of us are anti-fascists, but that doesn't mean there's a conspiracy. I think your reasoning is out of whack.

Given that you don't follow the news, how did you perform this detailed analysis of journalistic practices? What evidence do you have of a conspiracy, and what reporting can you point to that breaks the rules of journalism and common decency? I just posted a detailed analysis of a New York Times article about the Cohen tape in Message 152. Go through it and identify the parts that you think are untrue, break rules, are indecent, or are part of a conspiracy.

Here's a graph from Just 7 percent of journalists are Republicans. That’s far fewer than even a decade ago.

But the number of Democratic journalists has also shrunk. Turns out that today most journalists are independent, so you're wrong again.

The "criticism" is so far out of bounds...

This would be the criticism that you don't read?

...he's criticized incessantly, constantly, in such a way that it is impossibly to ignore how much the press hates ME and all his supporters, but they don't seem to care about that or about anything except imposing their leftist views on the nation.

Again, this would be the criticism that you don't read?

I think it was Pew Research...

You don't read or listen to the news, but you read Pew Research?

...that showed that Trump is getting at least twice the amount of negative press of any other President ever or something like that, even conservative Presidents.

I don't think anyone here would question that. If it's only twice as much as any other recent president I'd be surprised. Given the number of negative things Trump does and that are reported on it seems it should be more.

Insisting that this is merely what Trump deserves is just leftist blindness.

You keep saying this while never providing an ounce of evidence.

This idea that we're pushing the idea that Trump "cannot be questioned" is beyond absurd in this political atmosphere.

Did you see the article Trump Weighs Stripping Security Clearances From Officials Who Criticized Him? Apparently Trump doesn't like to be criticized and attempts to punish those who do. He's been trying to stop the Mueller investigation, too.

He isn't being "questioned" he's being subjected to slander, fake news, character assassination, taking his words out of context, refusing to give him the slightest benefit of the doubt, spinning everything he says to bring him under the black cloud of Political Correctness.

Again, since you don't read the news, how would you know?

It is so obvious to any conservative who has any contact whatever with the news,...

But you told us you have very little contact with the news, certainly not enough to back up anything you say nor enough to create informed opinions.

...what's amazing is that nobody on the left can see it at all.

What's amazing is that you who don't read the news are so sure you're right. Why not read the news for a few days and report what you find back to us. With links and excerpts, of course.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Faith, posted 07-25-2018 5:24 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022