Guests may browse all the site, but only registered users can post in the main forums.
Unregistered users may post in the Free Range Talk Forum

Welcome, Guest
You have to register before you can post on our site.



Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 914
» Latest member: ChristenPi
» Forum threads: 10,516
» Forum posts: 92,177

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 18 online users.
» 2 Member(s) | 16 Guest(s)

Latest Threads
Forum: Under the Street
Last Post: rockchalker52
1 hour ago
» Replies: 1
» Views: 13
Lottsa' Hate on "The View...
Forum: News Discussion
Last Post: BornAgainAmerican
1 hour ago
» Replies: 10
» Views: 66
Presidential priorities
Forum: News Discussion
Last Post: Riverdrifter
1 hour ago
» Replies: 1
» Views: 12
Another one bites the dus...
Forum: News Discussion
Last Post: chootspa
1 hour ago
» Replies: 4
» Views: 68
Stumbled across this pic ...
Forum: Random
Last Post: Jessamine
1 hour ago
» Replies: 14
» Views: 99
Russians charged
Forum: News Discussion
Last Post: chootspa
1 hour ago
» Replies: 79
» Views: 682
War returns to the South ...
Forum: General Discussion
Last Post: chootspa
1 hour ago
» Replies: 4
» Views: 39
Forum: News Discussion
Last Post: chootspa
2 hours ago
» Replies: 11
» Views: 147
Who is Ricky Pinedo?
Forum: News Discussion
Last Post: chootspa
2 hours ago
» Replies: 1
» Views: 18
Leaving this here once ag...
Forum: General Discussion
Last Post: Jessamine
2 hours ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 11

  Another Trump affair and cover up
Posted by: chootspa - Yesterday, 11:28 AM - Forum: General Discussion - Replies (15)

Quote:When In Touch magazine ran Stormy Daniels's seven-year-old, previously unpublished interview about an alleged affair with Donald Trump, there was one detail that stuck out: Trump's preoccupation with (and hatred for) sharks. It was funny, yes, but it was also something Trump would later tweet about. How Daniels knew this personal detail about Trump years before it was in the public domain lent credence to her account, which also otherwise seemed to describe a very familiar Trump.

And now we have another years-old account of a Trump affair — and alleged coverup — that sounds conspicuously familiar.
The New Yorker's Ronan Farrow is reporting that former Playboy Playmate Karen McDougal has confirmed the authenticity of an eight-page document she wrote detailing an alleged nine-month affair with Trump from 2006 to 2007. The Wall Street Journal reported shortly before the 2016 election that the publisher of the National Enquirer, American Media, had paid $150,000 for McDougal's story but never ran it. This has led to allegations that it deliberately bought the story and killed it to protect Trump, who is personal friends with AMI chief executive David Pecker.

And now we know more details of precisely what McDougal was alleging. She didn't talk in detail to Farrow, but she did confirm she wrote the document. And the document tracks with what we've learned about previous alleged encounters Trump had with women and, in the case of Daniels, the payoff that followed.

For one, McDougal describes having always met Trump in the same bungalow at the Beverly Hills Hotel. Both Daniels and Summer Zervos, the latter of whom has alleged Trump sexually assaulted her and is suing him for defamation, have also said they met Trump in a bungalow at the Beverly Hills Hotel. It is not clear when McDougal crafted the eight-page document, but the alleged affair happened around the same time as the alleged Daniels affair more than a decade ago. All three women seem to have independently described meeting Trump in a Beverly Hills Hotel bungalow and having him come on to them.
Farrow also notes that McDougal's account tells of how Trump regularly sent her Trump brand or related items and talked about buying her an apartment in New York. Both of those details jibe with Daniels's account, though in her case the apartment was in Tampa and she talked more about how preoccupied he was with playing up his brand to her.

But the biggest commonality between the McDougal and Daniels accounts is the alleged coverup. In the case of Daniels, Trump's longtime personal lawyer Michael Cohen this week confirmed he had “facilitated” a $130,000 payment to Daniels using his personal money. He conspicuously did not deny, however, that Trump was personally party to the transaction.

In the case of McDougal, the alleged payoff is more indirect, but also involves a third party tied to Trump. This isn't the first time it has been suggested that Pecker deliberately paid McDougal to keep quiet, but Farrow has emails describing the transaction. He also has on-the-record quotes from former AMI employees talking about how the company would purchase stories in order to kill them and buy the silence of the person behind them — a practice known as “catch and kill” — or to use as leverage against celebrities.

Here's the key section of Farrow's piece describing this particular case of “catch and kill”:
Dozens of pages of e-mails, texts, and legal documents obtained by The New Yorker reveal how the transaction evolved. Davidson got in touch with A.M.I., and on June 20, 2016, he and McDougal met Dylan Howard, A.M.I.’s chief content officer. E-mails between Howard and Davidson show that A.M.I. initially had little interest in the story. Crawford said that A.M.I.’s first offer was ten thousand dollars.

After Trump won the Republican nomination, however, A.M.I. increased its offer. In an August, 2016, e-mail exchange, Davidson encouraged McDougal to sign the deal. McDougal, worried that she would be prevented from talking about a Presidential nominee, asked questions about the nuances of the contract. Davidson responded, “If you deny, you are safe.” He added, “We really do need to get this signed and wrapped up ...”

McDougal, who has a new lawyer, Carol Heller, told me that she did not understand the scope of the agreement when she signed it. “I knew that I couldn’t talk about any alleged affair with any married man, but I didn’t really understand the whole content of what I gave up,” she told me.
On August 5, 2016, McDougal signed a limited life-story rights agreement granting A.M.I. exclusive ownership of her account of any romantic, personal, or physical relationship she has ever had with any “then-married man.” Her retainer with Davidson makes explicit that the man in question was Donald Trump.

So now we have two women having said they met Trump in the same type of room at the same hotel, with both reportedly receiving similar amounts of money from Trump allies shortly before the 2016 election. There is plenty to unpack here when it comes to the legal implications of those alleged coverups, but the fact that both cases describe such similar events before either of them became public suggests this story isn't going away.

Print this item

  Sounds of Silence
Posted by: BornAgainAmerican - Yesterday, 09:47 AM - Forum: General Discussion - Replies (2)


The horror of yet another school shooting leaves us heartbroken and speechless.

Not that there's any lack of noise from a 24/7 media which exists only to fill every nanosecond with under-informed chatter while taking no time to simply reflect.

The usual talking heads are making their usual arguments, from which we'll get the usual results: no minds or policies changed, and no new insights about the nature of sheer, primal evil.

We can't and won't add our voices to that cacophony. We have no answers - only profound sadness for all of the lives forever changed or destroyed by this nightmarish act.

Print this item

Posted by: rockchalker52 - Yesterday, 09:25 AM - Forum: Polls - Replies (10)

If you were a regularly published reviewer, what would you review or write about?

((multiple choices available for those who are prolifically inclined.))

Print this item

  Obama's retrospective approval ratings - Gallup
Posted by: susnus - Yesterday, 01:51 AM - Forum: General Discussion - No Replies

interesting, hadn't run across this before. But then, I was never so interested in the smooth running of the presidential administration.

Obama's First Retrospective Job Approval Rating Is 63%

Print this item

  1990s ban on CDC studying gun violence
Posted by: susnus - Yesterday, 01:21 AM - Forum: News Discussion - Replies (14)

this is news to me - anyone else?

Congress should reexamine a policy that bars the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) from studying gun violence as a public health issue, the GOP chairman of the House Judiciary Committee said Thursday.

from Oct 2015 NPR interview with Jay Dickey

The Arkansas politician and owner of two shotguns says he just wanted the CDC to follow a simple rule.

JAY DICKEY: Don't let any of those dollars go to gun control advocacy.

INSKEEP: So that's what the intent was. Did you intend to cut off all research on the effects of guns or gun ownership in society?

DICKEY: We didn't think about that. It turned out that that's what happened, but it wasn't aimed at that. And it wasn't necessary that all research stop. It just couldn't be the collection of data so that they can advocate gun control. That's all we were talking about. But for some reason, it just stopped altogether.

INSKEEP: It has created a strange situation, hasn't it? If you want to learn details about mass shootings, you can't really find good information.

Print this item

  Fake charity
Posted by: susnus - 02-15-2018, 11:01 PM - Forum: News Discussion - No Replies

President Trump’s inaugural committee paid nearly $26 million to an event planning firm started by an adviser to the first lady, Melania Trump, while donating $5 million — less than expected — to charity, according to tax filings released on Thursday.

The nonprofit group that oversaw Mr. Trump’s inauguration and surrounding events in January 2017, the 58th Presidential Inaugural Committee, had been under pressure from liberal government watchdog groups to reveal how it spent the record $107 million it had raised largely from wealthy donors and corporations.

 for our paywalled readers

Print this item

  It could be fun.
Posted by: Liberty - 02-15-2018, 09:41 PM - Forum: General Discussion - Replies (25)

RC knows a secret.

Print this item

  Best Reactions to 'Bummer and Moo-chelle's Portraits
Posted by: BornAgainAmerican - 02-15-2018, 06:09 PM - Forum: General Discussion - Replies (2)

Print this item

  Trump Cost Planned Parenthood $30 Million
Posted by: BornAgainAmerican - 02-15-2018, 05:57 PM - Forum: News Discussion - No Replies

Four organizations refused to comply with the abortion ban.

President Trump's expanded Mexico City Policy has cost Planned Parenthood close to $30 million. The policy blocks funding for foreign groups performing or promoting abortion overseas.

According to LifeNews, a State Department report released yesterday found that under the president's expanded policy, called “Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance (PLGHA),” four organizations that would have otherwise received grants refused to comply with the abortion ban.

"Two of the non-compliance organizations are global abortion providers, Marie Stopes International and the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF)," reports LifeNews. "Both organizations have bilateral USAID grants that would have gone through 2019 for approximately $30 million."

The USAID said it will direct those funds to other groups, “transition[ing] the activities of those organizations that have not agreed to the PLGHA standard provision to other partners, while minimizing disruption of services.”

Twelve sub-grantee recipients also refused to comply with the abortion ban, since the International Planned Parenthood Fund works in close to 170 different countries using hundreds of affiliates to carry out its mission.

A standard provision of the the PLGHA restricts the grantees from allocating any funds to lobby “a foreign government to legalize or make available abortion as a method of family planning” or “conducting a public information campaign in foreign countries regarding the benefits and/or availability of abortion as a method of family planning.”

Such activities were termed by Pope Francis as "ideological colonization," where foreign governments would manipulate third world countries into implementing abortion with aid money. More from LifeNews:

Quote:The standard provision requires awardees to agree to oversight and transparency to assure compliance. The recipient must acknowledge the State Department can at any "reasonable time, announced or unannounced" conduct onsite inspections including "independent inquiries in the community served by the recipient." Violations of PLGHA will result in termination of an award with reimbursement of any unexpended funding to the State Department.

Exempt from PLGHA guidelines is funding for abortion due to rape, incest, or life endangerment of the mother. Also exempt is medical treatment for an induced or spontaneous abortion.

Planned Parenthood has vehemently opposed the president's expanded Mexico City Policy since its implementation, calling it "the global gag rule."

Print this item

Posted by: BornAgainAmerican - 02-15-2018, 05:42 PM - Forum: News Discussion - Replies (11)

In other news, turns out Google is cracking down on fake news by fact-checking websites directly in the search bar.

Except, they’re only doing it to conservative websites or pages who don’t agree with their executives’ politics.

Aaaaand they’re using totally fictitious claims to do so.

Google, the most powerful search engine in the world, is now displaying fact checks for conservative publications in its results.

No prominent liberal site receives the same treatment.

And not only is Google’s fact-checking highly partisan — perhaps reflecting the sentiments of its leaders — it is also blatantly wrong, asserting sites made “claims” they demonstrably never made.

When searching for a media outlet that leans right, like The Daily Caller (TheDC), Google gives users details on the sidebar, including what topics the site typically writes about, as well as a section titled “Reviewed Claims.”

Vox, and other left-wing outlets and blogs like Gizmodo, are not given the same fact-check treatment. When searching their names, a “Topics they write about” section appears, but there are no “Reviewed Claims.”

In fact, a review of mainstream outlets, as well as other outlets associated with liberal and conservative audiences, shows that only conservative sites feature the highly misleading, subjective analysis. Several conservative-leaning outlets like TheDC are “vetted,” while equally partisan sites like Vox, ThinkProgress, Slate, The Huffington Post, Daily Kos, Salon, Vice and Mother Jones are spared.

Occupy Democrats is apparently the only popular content provider from that end of the political spectrum with a fact-checking section.

Big name publications like The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times are even given a column showcasing all of the awards they have earned over the years.

Print this item

Our Amazon Picks

Donate With PayPal