It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I think offering/accepting hush money is ok if all we are talking about is consensual sex. It's none of my business what two consenting adults do.
No, the WSJ, NYT, WaPO did not write stories on this. But you better believe they would report allegations like this about Trump.
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: MotherMayEye
I think offering/accepting hush money is ok if all we are talking about is consensual sex. It's none of my business what two consenting adults do.
Sure.
No, the WSJ, NYT, WaPO did not write stories on this. But you better believe they would report allegations like this about Trump.
Actually, I remember the press covering the issue, including his press conference he held the National Press Club, I believe.
Unfortunately, he discredited himself in a variety of ways. Not only did he not have anything to support his claims, he acted like a complete idiot and presented himself as a nutbag of epic proportions.
Not saying his accusations were not true or untrue, but he was the type of person you try to make sure you back away from very slowly and put quite a bit of distance between him and yourself.
originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Cutepants
If there was truth to the claim, like the woman said, you would read it in her book.
She could get paid big time, more than she would be obligated to under an NDA, yet she denies it. I wonder why?
originally posted by: Vector99
originally posted by: YungMahn
a reply to: Vector99
Kathy Griffin has nothing to do with leftist ideology.
Yes she does, bigly!
Is this the left eating the left?
Nom nom, mmmm liberals.
Politico (and the Slate if you consider them mainstream) was the only mainstream outlet to report Larry's arrest and they used it as an opportunity to smear Larry.
And you are correct...Larry didn't have Gloria Allred to take him under her wing...he didn't have any major news interested in hearing him or taking him seriously, at all. He had to do his own PR and he didn't present himself well. Big deal.
BUT, Obama also NEVER denied any of Larry's claims.
So why should you or anyone else deny them on his behalf
and why would any media simply assume that Larry's story was not credible enough to report on?
originally posted by: introvert
Ask the media. I don't know.
Are you being serious with that?
Like, even if I "asked the media" do you think I would get an honest answer if the truth is that they didn't want to report negatively on Obama about sex scandals?
You think they would give me that answer if it was the truth?
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: MotherMayEye
Are you being serious with that?
Yes. I cannot speak for them. Perhaps they are completely biased. Perhaps they thought the guy was a nutbag and when you combine that with unsubstantiated claims, they found it a waste of time.
This story on Trump does not appear to be coming from a nutter, as far as I know, and it's good for webhits and such to run stories about Trump. IE: Not a waste of their time.
Like, even if I "asked the media" do you think I would get an honest answer if the truth is that they didn't want to report negatively on Obama about sex scandals?
You think they would give me that answer if it was the truth?
I suspect that it wouldn't matter what they told you, honest or not. You are only going to believe what you want to believe.
I don't like that you call some people nutters arbitrarily.
This woman claims the WSJ report isn't even true and yet they reported on it.
Larry Sinclair makes claims that Obama doesn't deny
and they don't even ask him about it...they just bury the story for him.
But, you're right, I wouldn't believe 'the media' if I asked them...unless they said, "We drive the public's thinking and we did not want them thinking about Larry Sinclair."
originally posted by: gimcrackery
More corrupt liberal B.S. because they are in the Trumps line of sight. a reply to: DanteGaland
originally posted by: DanteGaland
originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Cutepants
If there was truth to the claim, like the woman said, you would read it in her book.
She could get paid big time, more than she would be obligated to under an NDA, yet she denies it. I wonder why?
And if it's FALSE...
Why hasn't a libel lawsuit been filed against the reporters?
originally posted by: Arnie123
Political gossip, especially considering this was Pre-election. I'd imagine tying up loose ends that would otherwise be used by opponets for nefarious reasons.
If you think charity funds were used, then research it and come back to us, that would be a much more engaging topic, this? come on man. Mad props if he scored a pornstar.
originally posted by: carewemust
Yep.. $130k is too little. Clinton Foundation offered $750k to a FAKE Trump accuser. She chickened-out 3 days before the Presidential election. The day before she was supposed to make the announcement.
What makes you so sure that was fake? IMO it screamed she got paid dearly to keep her mouth shut at the last minute.