Obama Cheating Scandal - Watch Thread

WHO CARES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
its nobodys business what anyone does behind close doors. If he cheats on his wife that's between the two of them. Ridiculous.

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
Oh dear lord, has it really come to this?

Sourcing The National Enquirer?

And trying to give them journalistic legitimacy because they guessed one right?

You know how many copies they sold to gullible idiots when they were running false weekly stories on GW and Condoleezza supposedly doing the nasty?

How much lower can the ATS political forums go?

Embarrassing.

This is the only time I will bite the troll hook.

Read the post.

I asked some questions.

Answer some or stop trolling.

They didn't "guess one right". They had evidence.

I already stated the best way to discredit a story is to have it on the frontpage of the Enquirer.

The Enquirer and other tabloid newspapers have been used this way for dozens of years, any conspiracy theorist knows this.

Get your head out of Obama's butt for a minute and look at it from another perspective.

Is this what the MSM leaves us?

A tabloid that can back it's sources with proof of allegations, as opposed to towing the party line?

If it turns out to be true, then what? You can simply discredit it because it came from the Enquirer? No, you cannot.

Discredit John Edwards.

Point being, when there is basis in fact, evidence, video and witnesses, just because you don't *like* it doesn't make it not true.

I think this is a wait and see.

Discredit it when it is proven false, otherwise you are just like the rest.

Originally posted by drock905
WHO CARES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
its nobodys business what anyone does behind close doors. If he cheats on his wife that's between the two of them. Ridiculous.

Well, judging by the fact you opened the thread and read it, I would say you did.

But, I am glad to see a response of something besides political absolute defense based on... nothing.

I think a lot of people had mixed emotions about the Tiger Woods story, but as so many people said the same thing, "sp what?", a lot of people seemed to want to know, it mattered to them.

I want to know if this matters to people, and if so why? And if not, I would like to know that too.

Thanks for the reply, though.

eep double post

[edit on 1-5-2010 by Libertygal]

The Enquirer used to make up everything and just print it. They've long been just a celebrity gossip rag and don't print 2-headed baby or bat-boy stories and such. In the early 1980's they got sued for millions of dollars by Carrol Burnette and lost big-time for an erroneous story they printed saying she was an drunk. After that they actually started sourcing the stuff they printed and for gossip are pretty accurate.

They have, however, gotten some big ones wrong over the years. I think they do tend to sometimes jump the gun and print stories more on conjecture or partial facts than on hard, fast verifiable facts. Edwards was a big "get" for them. Who's to say if they get Obama on something...and even if they do, I'm not sure what it will amount to.

The only reason the Clinton thing went as far as it did was because of what he said in his Grand Jury testimony. There's no crime here, so it's pretty impossible to see how Obama would get put under oath on this issue, anyway.

He'll just have to face the voters in 2012 if it's true, and see what happens. My guess is, even if true, it won't determine that election one way or the other. Clinton's popularity only went up after the Lewinsky scandal.

Originally posted by drock905
WHO CARES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
its nobodys business what anyone does behind close doors. If he cheats on his wife that's between the two of them. Ridiculous.

Well..

If a man jumps in bed with another woman: that means he doesnt give a damn about his wife and his kids..

Now this is THE PRESIDENT - Do you think a man like that gives a damn about you and others? People that voted for him, people that he should work for? When he doesnt give a fu.. about his OWN family!

NO!

If he did do this I can honestly say I hope it gets dealt with and thrown out in a day because I'm sick of waiting around for things to get done. He spent way too much time coddling the republicans during the HCR debate which wasted a lot of time for other things that need to get done as well. This is honestly nothing.

Originally posted by VintageEnvy
While I will admit National Enquirer is not a great place to get a story, they have been pretty spot on with the affairs aspect of some people lately. If it comes out that he did have an affair with this women I will be very disappointed but not entirely surprised. It is almost normal for politicians to have affairs which is sad but a reality.

Thanks for the reply. Nice to see some people willing to have some nice conversation.

They have been spot on, which is one of the points in my opening post. I agree it would be disappointing if true, because a lot of effort has been put in to making them the media darlings, the wholesome family, and all of that. I think they have been portrayed as role models for a lot of people, not just Americans, when it comes to the family side of things.

It would be a bit different from the Bill Clinton thing though, because I don't think anyone really bought into that aspect from the MSM with the Clintons, though they tried hard to push it for a while.

Simply based on that, I think public outrage about this would be overwhelming, and draw more of a parallell to Tiger Woods in the dashed hopes and lost expectations. I think your one sentence phrases it nicely, it would be disappointing.

Wait, whats that I smell?? The rabid drooling foam of the republican party catching the sweet smell of scandal for Obama. Ken Starr is probably slipping into his big girl panties as we speak.

I doubt anything will come of this in a prosecution sense, Obama is very well cushioned from this type of scandal. Even if video was put out all over, the MSM would still refuse to touch it because they have too much invested.

I expect the GoP panties to get in more of a wad than anyone else though, and they have the least room to speak.

Thanks for the reply.

Well, the same group of people think that Obama was born in Kenya, can't give em too much credit for brains.

Of course the National Enquirer has more journalistic integrity than WND.

People who hate Obama are going to hate him no matter what. The only thing they would like to see, is him hung, preferably while all of them are in a circle around the gallows chanting "White Power" in sheets.

I believe the MSM would be happy to pick this up because the ratings will be great. I don't think anyone is touching it now because they dont want egg on their face. They have to give it some time for more info to come out before they'll report on it, if any of it is wrong, they'll be completely discredited ie the whole Dan Rather debacle.

Originally posted by anglodemonicmatrix
reply to post by skunknuts

 

You can go to Amazon and buy the book its called,"Barack Obama and Larry Sinclair:coc aine,sex,lies and murder"

Yes, I'm sure he has a book. Lucky for him and his wallet that his market enjoys filthy tabloid fantasy.

Best,
SN

Originally posted by LifeInDeath
The Enquirer used to make up everything and just print it. They've long been just a celebrity gossip rag and don't print 2-headed baby or bat-boy stories and such. In the early 1980's they got sued for millions of dollars by Carrol Burnette and lost big-time for an erroneous story they printed saying she was an drunk. After that they actually started sourcing the stuff they printed and for gossip are pretty accurate.

You are spot on with this point, thank you for reminding me about the Carol Burnette thing, I had long forgotten that one.

I know also, that what you said is true, that they now go to extreme lengths to verify their stories largely due to that incident.

They have, however, gotten some big ones wrong over the years. I think they do tend to sometimes jump the gun and print stories more on conjecture or partial facts than on hard, fast verifiable facts. Edwards was a big "get" for them. Who's to say if they get Obama on something...and even if they do, I'm not sure what it will amount to.

Again, you speak a very accurate truth. I have been doing some checking since I saw this story break, and it appears they have been working on it for some months. I found a post on DBPK stating this is an 18 month long venture, but I am still checking into that before adding more to this thread on it.

From the statements I have found, they had only one witness willing to step forward, but now have up to 5, as soon as I can find more, I will add to the thread.

I also am not sure what it will amount to, if anything, but that is why the curiosity grabbed me. I am most intrigued to see how the media will play along with this, or if they will. Speaking A la Edwards here.

The only reason the Clinton thing went as far as it did was because of what he said in his Grand Jury testimony. There's no crime here, so it's pretty impossible to see how Obama would get put under oath on this issue, anyway.

Excellent point again!

If what I have been reading about this pans out to be true, it would have happened some time ago, and the only reason it is coming out now is because of witnesses stepping forward.

If that is the case, and this is an old story gaining new legs, then one would have to reason, where has the video been all of this time?

If the video only shows them arriving and going into, or out of the hotel, does that mean anything?

But, no, there is no crime having been committed, other than the one that would be the media compliance in making them media darlings.

He'll just have to face the voters in 2012 if it's true, and see what happens. My guess is, even if true, it won't determine that election one way or the other. Clinton's popularity only went up after the Lewinsky scandal.

Thanks so much for your post, I really enjoyed reading it, and the points you make are spot on. I doubt it would undermine the election, because Bill was re-elected in the midst of his scandal. It mattered to some people, but not enough to not re-elect him, you are correct.

reply to post by Libertygal


Clinton was already reelected before Lewinsky, but his poll (numbers) did rise throughout the impeachment proceedings.

Best,
SN

Originally posted by VintageEnvy
I believe the MSM would be happy to pick this up because the ratings will be great. I don't think anyone is touching it now because they dont want egg on their face. They have to give it some time for more info to come out before they'll report on it, if any of it is wrong, they'll be completely discredited ie the whole Dan Rather debacle.

Some great points you make.

I am uncertain about the MSM though. They knew they bought it with the Edwards scandal, and were reluctant to go with the story even though it was evident it was true at a point. It took many, many months for the MSM to touch it.

I am anxious to see, if at this point, the MSM follows the same rule they did with Edwards, ie refuse to investigate or to give any legitimacy to the MSSM, *or* will they have a knee jerk reaction and dive in head first?

This is the part of the watch that admittedly, fascinates me. I am a people watcher, and an MSM watcher, I like to see and - and make note of - how they react.

Instead of giving it more time, I would wonder now, will they try to discredit it? Do their own investigations? They failed the Investigative Journalism test with the Edwards story, and instead chose to sweep it under the carpet until they no longer could.

This is why I say the MSM has largely failed us, because they are not doing their jobs and investigating things in the way they should. Another great take on that is the whole Acorn debacle.

The MSM is leaving a gap, and interestingly, we are seeing people from Breitbart and the Enquirer, stepping in to fill those gaps.

Will the MSM continue to falter and ultimately die? Are we witnessing the first steps of replacement news?

Originally posted by skunknuts
reply to post by Libertygal

 

Clinton was already reelected before Lewinsky, but his poll (numbers) did rise throughout the impeachment proceedings.

Best,
SN

Oh, my time line must be off then, I thought it happened after the first election, but before the second. During his first term, in other words.

Thanks for correcting my misunderstanding.

Originally posted by Libertygal

Originally posted by skunknuts
reply to post by Libertygal

 

Clinton was already reelected before Lewinsky, but his poll (numbers) did rise throughout the impeachment proceedings.

Best,
SN

Oh, my time line must be off then, I thought it happened after the first election, but before the second. During his first term, in other words.

Thanks for correcting my misunderstanding.

No problem. I'm only 30, but it sure does seem like a LONG time ago, lol!

Best,
SN

Just to add, if not already mentioned.

The national enquirers website is off the air.

i went to see the article and is is gone (the whole site).

no cache copies found yet. a couple of other sites have mentioned the websites ip address via dns has changed etc.

someone did not like the idea of it on the web...

[edit on 1-5-2010 by CitizenNum287119327]

Ah found another interesting take on the story, fromNewsbusters, who also touch on the investigative media side of things, it was an interesting read, for sure:

newsbusters.org...

Will Media Investigate Obama Affair Rumors?
By John Stephenson (Bio | Archive)
Mon, 10/13/2008 - 02:39 ET

Please note the date of this article!

(So this is from one of their bloggers)

Remember how the media had to play catch-up with the National Enquirer and blogs after rumors that begged for investigation were ignored? Many enjoyed that. Will the media repeat the same mistake again now that strong rumors are surfacing of an Obama affair?

The rumors are swirling, but I never heard them. The first I heard of them was in this preemptive defense calling them smears. Larry Johnson is talking this up, but he isn’t the most reliable source…however when Jammie Wearing Fool has info and predicts this will be a scoop I listen.

Here are a couple of the interesting statements:

From Sharon Churcher’s preemptive defense piece:

The woman was purportedly sidelined from her duties after Senator Obama’s wife, Michelle, became convinced that he had developed a personal friendship with her.

The allegations were initially circulated in August, just two weeks before the convention at which Obama finally beat his opponent for the Democratic Party nomination, Hillary Clinton.

The woman, now 33, vigorously denies the vicious and unsubstantiated gossip.

And some Washington insiders suggested that she was the victim of an 11th-hour attempt to smear Obama by die-hard Hillary supporters.

But now the rumours have resurfaced, suggesting that they may be coming from elements in the Republican Party.

Ok, two interesting statements. How can you be a die hard Hillary supporter and an element of the Republican party? Hm.

More interesting reads, unsubstantiated remarks as of yet, but if these are the leads the NE has...

Ace of Spades:

Having now spoken to someone tracking the story, I can say:

1) It’s not just a silly little rumor.

2) It will break in some form shortly. The question is how prestigious an outlet breaks it. (PS, at best, it won’t be that prestigious, at least at first, but there’s a lot here so when someone finally touches, there is a good chance of an Edwards-like “Oh yeah, we were working on that too” pile-on.) Fire is being held as those who know the story try to get someone of import to break it; if they pass, it will be flooded out through secondary channels.

3) The story has a Fred Baron. Not The Fred Baron. But actually– an even better Fred Baron. The woman is “working” in the Caribbean drawing a salary from…. uhhh… let’s say from someone who is a big, shiny part of the dirty Chicago political machine. And it makes no sense that she’s doing her supposed “job,” for which she seems unqualified anyway, in the Caribbean, of all places. It’s unclear how she could possibly do this job at all, never mind from the Caribbean. And she’s been there for at least a year. (At least.) This isn’t some sabbatical or few months’ of “work” on an island paradise.

4) This woman was a major, big-time fundraiser. She raised x millions of dollars for various Democratic interests (connected to Obama) and then opened her own shop in DC. Since she was (as any fundraiser does) getting a cut of the take, this was a lucrative job. But she, for reasons unfathomable, suddenly shut the shop down and decamped to a little Caribbean island. And somewhere along the line got a “job” from her own Fred Baron. Which conveniently put her far away from Obama, Michelle, and the media.

5) Within hours of the Daily Mail article breaking, she called the Illinois hq of the Obama campaign. They wouldn’t talk to her.

(Please note the date on this article Mon, 10/13/2008 - 02:39 ET)

Who is Vera Baker?

Some people in Chicago claim she was Obama’s Finance Director for his 2004 Senate campaign. FEC Senate campaign records show she was paid a pretty penny as “Finance Director”.

However, people familiar with Obama’s 2004 Senate campaign say Claire Serdiuk was Obama’s Finance Director. Looking through everything we can see online for that 2004 campaign, Claire Serdiuk is consistently listed as the Finance Director - because that’s what she was.

There’s no mention of Vera Baker…but Vera Baker was paid as the “Finance Director” too.

And then, suddenly, Vera Baker was relocated to New York.

Right around the time Michelle Obama got incredibly angry about something. We know it was hard to tell, because Michelle’s angry about something on a good day…but this was EXTRA angry.

And then, even more suddenly, Vera Baker was relocated to the island of Martinique, where she remains.

We hear it’s lovely there. They get lots of sunshine on Sundays. Paradise. A lovely place to read between the lines and ask lots of questions. All reporters should go there and feel inspired

Some more interesting bits:

Ace:

I agree with Andrew Sullivan: Full disclosure.

Let’s see this banished staffer’s work records, pay stubs, and travel schedules. With an eye to seeing how those travel schedules may match up with The One’s.

I’m a journalist. It’s my duty to demand these answers. And I’ll never stop.

Sweet Potato Pie? Just remember…this is only a rumor until the media get off their behinds and actually investigate this. I heard another rumor that they plan on doing that the day after hell freezes over. We are not claiming this rumor to be true, only offering certain facts that raise serious questions we believe any unbiased media has the obligation to investigate. If only an unbiased media existed. Remember how the media played catch-up with the blogs on the John Edwards affair? It will be fun to see them repeat their mistakes if this pans out.

This is akin to the information I was able to find at DBKP, that it is an old story gaining new legs.

reply to post by CitizenNum287119327


Hm. Interesting.

They could have gotten flooded off the air by viewers. It is spreading like wildfire, best as I can tell.

Hit the front page of Drudgereport, so I am sure from just googling the number of blogs and forums picking this up, it is wildly untamed at this point.

I will reserve comments for now about someone not liking it.

Add another breaking news article to the pool, this time by a Swiss paper that claims they have proof. This is a blog posting about the Swiss artilce. I will try to find said article and post the link, but I do not think it is in English.

news.gather.com...
Vera Baker was Obama's mistress: Swiss paper says it has evidence to prove it
April 30, 2010 08:37 AM EDT (Updated: April 30, 2010 08:50 AM EDT)

Swiss newspaper Le Matin is reviving old claims that President Barack Obama had an extramarital affair in 2004 with Vera Baker, a young woman who worked on his campaign team when he was running for Illinois Senator.

The paper claims "video surveillance tapes exist that are rather compromising for the 44th president of the United States." It also alleges that software engineers have dug up email exchanges between Obama and Baker since he has been President.

There are also claims that Michelle Obama found out about the affair and had Baker shipped off to Martinique.

Of course, these "new" revelations could be orchestrated by the ailing, tea-bagging Republican party, which is looking for anything to assassinate Obama's character and jeopardize health care and financial reform. A Lewinsky-type scandal involving Obama is the GOP's wet dream.

But why are these rumors coming from Europe? Here's a guess - Obama is wildly popular there, unlike in the U.S., so turning negative European opinion towards the President would work to the GOP's advantage. It's particularly curious that the rumors are coming from a Swiss source. Isn't that the country where the super-rich hide their money?

I tried to find the link on the Swiss website, but cannot. If anyone can read it, here is the home page:

www.lematin.ch...


[edit on 1-5-2010 by Libertygal]

[edit on 1-5-2010 by Libertygal]