Didn’t you get the memo? character does not matter. Although we do reserve the right to invoke this card in the future. And of course it still applies to the past tense…
There’s a non-paywall story here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44906898.
I’m interested to see what comes of this.
So. He was a private citizen. The President could engage with an intern in the Oval Office and be fit for the presidency, ironic since HRC was the opponent.
I don’t care if you choose to ignore this article - there is certainly news that is much more significant - however, I don’t subscribe to the NYT, and I did not experience a paywall.
Is this anything different than the Bill Clinton parade of women cover ups, while he was in public office for the years before the WH?
Normally they allow 5 free articles a month.
Tell us about the claims from women and any documentation of payoffs while Clinton “was in public office for the years before the White House”. You will find that there is very little, especially as compared to the allegations against Trump.
Ignoring articles just puts people behind the information curve.
Who said it didn’t? It does, which for you would eliminate Trump and CLinton. I’d say it eliminated Obama too. Which 3rd party candidate did you vote for in the last too elections, or was in Romney in 2012?
Unless this tape involves Trump saying “use campaign funds to shut this broad up, Michael!” I doubt this will be any more newsworthy than any other salacious story from the last year and half. Numerous large companies, athletes, celebrities, and CEOs have had conversations like this one, and many may payouts rather than fight charges.
Nothing here seems new, unless they determine he violated campaign laws (and then what?). It doesn’t even matter at this point legally whether he had an encounter with McDougall. What matters legally is where the payment came from.
People who likes Trump’s policies have made peace with his poor decisions in the past, so I am not sure what the purpose of these types of info is. Until there is a law broken, its tabloidy garbage like Star or the Enquirer, which for me, is best avoided in my walk as a Catholic who seeks to keep their mind out of the gutter. Other’s mileage may vary.
Two issues. First, why would an attorney record conversations? That is idiotic.
Second, how is this leaking? If this is true that means the police or investigators are leaking what should be very private evidence. This would mean the investigation is corrupt. Even if you don’t like Trump you should find this very disturbing. That the state would be so dishonest and unfair is not good for any of us.
Or maybe you’ve already gone there 5 times this month. Suppose?
Could be. Lot of times when people give citations on here, I just click on them. You might be right.
No one cares. If this is a leak, even if innocuous, it is wrong and dangerous, but most articles gloss right over that and move onto the details of the leak. Apparently Trump’s legal team has the transcript and has said it doesn’t pose any legal problems for the President. Either way, I doubt folks would so glib in police were leaking confidential information about them all over the place, especially facing potential charges.
From the BBC article:
"Ms McDougal says she had a 10-month affair with Mr Trump in 2006, a year after he wed Melania Trump.
When questioned about the allegations, President Trump has denied the affair and said he had no knowledge of any payment."
So we’re talking about a 2006 event which Trump denies.
But perhaps I shouldn’t be amazed that attorney-client privilege means nothing to Mueller. His head guy has twice been chastised by courts for unethical behavior and sending innocent people to jail.
The Mueller witch hunt needs to end now. As Strzok admitted way back when the witch hunt started: “There’s no ‘there’ there.”
The tape would seem to indicate that he lied. But that doesn’t matter anymore.
No, he misspoke! Or Sanders had it wrong. Or it’s the Senate’s fault for believing what he said is what he meant. Or the Dems. It was the Dems.
What truly matters is that Mueller has seized privileged information and leaked it to the public. That proves his malice if anything ever did. And combined with Strzok’s statement before the Mueller witch hunt started that there’s “no there there”, it simply shows malice of an extraordinary level.
But then, his head guy, Weissman sent innocent people to prison and cost thousands of people their jobs by fooling a court, and Mueller fought parole for two men he knew were innocent and they died in prison.
Mueller and his team are dirty beyond all fixing. Time to end the pretense that they’re anything but anti-Trumpers whose purpose is to get Trump out of office.
Some questions remain. Did Rosenstein also know there was “no there there”? Did he know what Strzok said before he appointed Mueller? If so, then he’s just as dirty as Strzok and Mueller.
Democrats should be running from those rats, but they’re inexplicably embracing them.