Fox reports that NYT reports...

[vraiblonde]

Apparently Michael Cohen recorded his client meetings with Donald Trump. Is that normal? Anyway, supposedly (says the NYT, so there's that) there is audio of The Donald talking about paying women, including a Playboy model, to not dish about him during the campaign.

#1, so? Don't all candidates do this? (HINT: the answer is yes, they do)

#2, I get tired of one outlet reporting what some other outlet is reporting. If I gave a crap about NYT "reporting", I'd read the freaking NYT. Do your own work, Fox.

I feel like our news is one big scam. WashPo reports that Buzzfeed reports...Fox reports that Politico reports... Why don't they do their own reporting instead of barfing up what some other, supposedly competing, news outlet reports? It's like this huge circle jerk.

Now if it turns out to be false, Fox et. al. can say, "Well, WE didn't report it; we just reported that NYT reported it..." That's bull####. "Oh, *I* didn't spread the rumor; I just said that *so-and-so* was saying it..." And this isn't even some earth-shattering story anyway. Hell, half the hookers in Arkansas got paid off by Willie Jeff and nobody gave a crap.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Apparently Michael Cohen recorded his client meetings with Donald Trump. Is that normal? Anyway, supposedly (says the NYT, so there's that) there is audio of The Donald talking about paying women, including a Playboy model, to not dish about him during the campaign.

#1, so? Don't all candidates do this? (HINT: the answer is yes, they do)

#2, I get tired of one outlet reporting what some other outlet is reporting. If I gave a crap about NYT "reporting", I'd read the freaking NYT. Do your own work, Fox.

I feel like our news is one big scam. WashPo reports that Buzzfeed reports...Fox reports that Politico reports... Why don't they do their own reporting instead of barfing up what some other, supposedly competing, news outlet reports? It's like this huge circle jerk.

Now if it turns out to be false, Fox et. al. can say, "Well, WE didn't report it; we just reported that NYT reported it..." That's bull####. "Oh, *I* didn't spread the rumor; I just said that *so-and-so* was saying it..." And this isn't even some earth-shattering story anyway. Hell, half the hookers in Arkansas got paid off by Willie Jeff and nobody gave a crap.

A news outlet crediting the work of another has been around for, like, ever. Fox wants clicks and viewers like everyone else (news is a business now, not actual journalism) so they're (along with every other large news outlet) going to report on news that brings in clicks and viewers.

Lawyers do tape their meetings. That's not out of the ordinary. In fact, in 2001, the American Bar Association issued Formal Opinion 01-422, which withdrew a previous opinion on recording clients. 01-422 says that "the act of surreptitiously yet lawfully recording a conversation is not inherently deceitful." So, Cohen could or could not have told Truimp he was being recorded. Cohen could not have stated that he was not recording Trump if Trump had asked. This is assuming the recordings did not happen in CO, SC, AZ,ID, IN, KS, or KY (where the states either rejected the new opinion, or never withrew the old opinion superceded by 01-422).

I personally don't think all candidates pay off Playboy models.

 

[transporter]

Why are you acting all shocked...high...and mighty???

This forum exists solely to promote articles like the one you are complaining about. Every post by GURPS is nothing more than some far right wing propaganda site's cherry picking a few lines from some other, actual, news site. BTW...the NYTimes is an actual new site.

How many times does it have to be pointed out that the source sucks...or go to the original source or go read the actual data. Christ Gilligan can't post an economic report now unless it is from "legal insurrection". This is from the guy who claims to have an Ivy League Lite type of college education!

BTW...here is the link to the actual NY Times article: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/20/...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

As for it being false...well...as always, maybe you should have read it:

Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, confirmed in a telephone conversation on Friday that Mr. Trump had discussed payments to Ms. McDougal with Mr. Cohen on the tape. He said the recording was less than two minutes long and claimed that the president had done nothing wrong.

As for all politicians doing stuff like this, you are probably right...a lot of them probably do stuff just like this. The difference is, politicians at this level know what they are doing or hire people who know what they are doing. Trump is an unqualified buffoon. He doesn't know what he is doing.

 

[Gilligan]

This forum exists solely for me to spew venom and vitriol.

No, no, no...:shakesheadsadly:...

 

[vraiblonde]

A news outlet crediting the work of another has been around for, like, ever.

I know, but it's annoying and it seems more prevalent in the last decade or so. It's rare to see a story just...you know...reported. It seems like everything is, "Such and such news is reporting that this happened..." It used to be they'd all cite AP or Reuters because those were the major news agencies; now they cite freaking Buzzfeed and The Blaze and whatever other dumb blogs.

Lawyers do tape their meetings. That's not out of the ordinary. In fact, in 2001, the American Bar Association issued Formal Opinion 01-422, which withdrew a previous opinion on recording clients. 01-422 says that "the act of surreptitiously yet lawfully recording a conversation is not inherently deceitful." So, Cohen could or could not have told Truimp he was being recorded. Cohen could not have stated that he was not recording Trump if Trump had asked. This is assuming the recordings did not happen in CO, SC, AZ,ID, IN, KS, or KY (where the states either rejected the new opinion, or never withrew the old opinion superceded by 01-422).

Hmmm...so much for that "confidentiality" all these lawyers talk about, eh?

I personally don't think all candidates pay off Playboy models.

That's because many of them aren't playah enough to get that kind of action. But it's fairly common for politicians to use that method to keep skeletons from coming out of the closet. Donald Trump didn't invent that.

 

[vraiblonde]

Why are you acting all shocked...high...and mighty???

I'm not shocked, stupid, I'm annoyed. I thought I made that clear, but obviously you can't get past the voices in your head blowing dog whistles and speaking in code.

 

[GURPS]

Every post by GURPS is nothing more than some far right wing propaganda site's cherry picking a few lines from some other, actual, news site.

Every post you make is against anyone or any group that doesn't conform to your propagandist viewpoints.

You Were Saying .... You Miserable Git

 

[BOP]

Apparently Michael Cohen recorded his client meetings with Donald Trump. Is that normal? Anyway, supposedly (says the NYT, so there's that) there is audio of The Donald talking about paying women, including a Playboy model, to not dish about him during the campaign.

#1, so? Don't all candidates do this? (HINT: the answer is yes, they do)

#2, I get tired of one outlet reporting what some other outlet is reporting. If I gave a crap about NYT "reporting", I'd read the freaking NYT. Do your own work, Fox.

I feel like our news is one big scam. WashPo reports that Buzzfeed reports...Fox reports that Politico reports... Why don't they do their own reporting instead of barfing up what some other, supposedly competing, news outlet reports? It's like this huge circle jerk.

Now if it turns out to be false, Fox et. al. can say, "Well, WE didn't report it; we just reported that NYT reported it..." That's bull####. "Oh, *I* didn't spread the rumor; I just said that *so-and-so* was saying it..." And this isn't even some earth-shattering story anyway. Hell, half the hookers in Arkansas got paid off by Willie Jeff and nobody gave a crap.

Especially not Hill Dog...in fact, she probably wrote the checks.

 

[Hank]

I know, but it's annoying and it seems more prevalent in the last decade or so. It's rare to see a story just...you know...reported. It seems like everything is, "Such and such news is reporting that this happened..." It used to be they'd all cite AP or Reuters because those were the major news agencies; now they cite freaking Buzzfeed and The Blaze and whatever other dumb blogs.



Hmmm...so much for that "confidentiality" all these lawyers talk about, eh?



That's because many of them aren't playah enough to get that kind of action. But it's fairly common for politicians to use that method to keep skeletons from coming out of the closet. Donald Trump didn't invent that.

Sorry, but you aren't a "playah", if you're paying for it...

Nevermind, the adultry part of it, huh?

 

[Hijinx]

Sorry, but you aren't a "playah", if you're paying for it...

Nevermind, the adultry part of it, huh?

Michael Cohen needs to find himself a job, I don't believe he will make it in the field of law after this.

 

[SamSpade]

You know - I've been thinking - this is what we've come to. It's not totally new. We just haven't had a President in a while that had any likelihood of "bimbo eruptions" (as the Clinton White House so elegantly put it). In the early 90's, it was a matter of national embarrassment while our European - friends - rolled their eyes and thought "those Americans", because they fully expect all of their leaders to have women on the side. Since we've been through this a while, it has lost a lot of its shock value.

But because of this, a related issue has arisen - the idea that someone with knowledge of "damning" evidence somehow has blackmail power over a national leader and it becomes a matter of national security. After all, you can't have a President or national leader held hostage to someone who - knows a secret or two.

Now what gets me about this is - well, many things. For one thing, think of another nation where someone might have "blackmail power" over a national leader. What do you think would NORMALLY happen? I suppose if it was Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, we wouldn't have to think long. If it was most of our European - friends - they'd be prepared to lean on them, own up to it and laugh, figure out a way to ruin them in court - but there'd be a way. We don't have a world where Mr. Smith goes to Washington and brings everyone down with a shocking revelation. We live in a world where Mr. Smith has a heart attack or commits suicide.

And it isn't just - bimbo eruptions. I absolutely believe MOST politicians have stuff to hide. Comes with the territory. I absolutely believe many of the most powerful and influential ones, even in THIS country, you dare not approach and threaten them. You'll come home to a bunch of Feds with warrants - or worse.

So what I want to know is - when is it "a matter of national security" - and when is it "dammit, leave it alone, it's just slightly embarrassing". Because nowadays, a bimbo eruption is more likely to wreck your marriage than your political career - if that even happens, since marriages of politicians are probably predicated on some kind of moral compromise. From some of the stories we hear in Washington - over the past many years - we see a kind of fast and loose attitude about funds for personal reasons and smaller amounts of wasteful spending. I know - I've seen it myself in Washington - someone high up wasting money on something superfluous when the rest of us have to shut down our training budgets.

Rest assured - I excuse nothing. I have enormous respect for people in the government who never bend a rule when it comes to stuff - accounting for time, budgets and frugal spending. They're rare and sometimes, just - #######s for being such tightwads. They're the managers who have sign-in sheets and hover over them with the watch in their hand.

But think about it - don't they all have some shady deal, some agreement, some illegal favor they owe - don't they all to the last have SOMETHING where someone can legitimately pressure them? And don't they all have some mechanism that says send Mr. Smith to jail and shut him up?

Isn't this the world we've lived in for over 100 years?