It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Obama Cheating Scandal - Watch Thread

page: 7
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in


posted on May, 2 2010 @ 12:37 AM

Originally posted by WWJFKD
The Sex scandal in the White House is overplayed. Nobody cared that Monica Lewinski smoked cigars - ahem...

This humanizes a President who does inhuman things and I think it even plays to their favor in some strange way.

So what he's joined the "mile high" club of sorts like so many Presidents before him and is diverting our attention away from the prize. I can truly say that I am not surprised but the public does not hold the highest office in the land very high and this will be "the Hot story" while other more pertinent issues squeak by at 03:00 in the morning.

Oh yes! and before the hypocrisy is noted - I would have hoped that Kennedy would have been held to a standard regarding his little tryst as well.

Our children are supposed to look up to this office and aspire to one day fill it and actions like this bring dishonor on the office and the public has become so desensitized to corruption and misconduct - they really don't give a damn. that's my opinion - it's going no-where but there it is.

[edit on 1-5-2010 by WWJFKD]

Thank you very much for your reply.

I know some people will not agree with you, nor me, regarding the feeling that a president should be held to a higher standard. I figured out a long time ago this didn't matter to a lot of people anymore, but when I was very young, and children wanted to be the president when they grew up, the president served as a role model, and things like affairs and the like were kept hidden from the innocent.

Sadly, with the internet and media, and just well, welcome to 2010! children are not typically afforded that innocence anymore, and rolemodels have generally gone by the wayside. I think this is, in fact, a great source of the outrage people feel when "scandals" are uncovered, because it dashes their opinions of someone they perhaps held on a pedestal.

As several others have pointed out in other posts in this thread, things like this *do* humanize a person, making the infallible seem truly fallible, and with Clinton, it even improved his ratings.

Not that I would suggest such a thing for that express purpose, but if in fact this was a possible ploy for that, it *is* simply a re-hashing of an old failed news story.

Could this be the case in this instance? It certainly could be, IMO, because the more I think about it, the more it stands to reason.

Firstly, if husband and wife have dealt with this is whatever way (since we do not know the truth, either they managed it and moved on, or in reality it never happened), then it could have been a simple tactic to gain humanization. Couple this with the funeral story, for instance, and suddenly the president has become a touching, real human being to peope who may have perhaps seen him only as cold and calculating.

I would think this, above anything else, should make people angry if it is true, because it is downright manipulation. However, I do not put tactics like that past the president, or his advisors. Worse, far worse.. things have been done.

However, if a public were to come to realize, and believe they had been manipulated emotionally in this way, I would hate to think of the rebound effect of that.

I would think it would anger people in a far greater way than the ones who profess anger to "the affair".

As it stands right now, and at elast for the short term, I am leaning more in the diretion that this was a ploy, and played out exactly for this reason, but it *still* begs the question, Why would the Enquirer do that? Did *they* get paid? Or, are we to expect the other shoe to drop, and find out about a much much larger story?

Stay tuned!

posted on May, 2 2010 @ 12:41 AM

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
This is very likely the saddest thread I've seen on this website. Ever.

Can't find enough reason to trash the President? They're all over the forums concerning one subject or another. They weren't nasty enough for you?

Then just make something up. Pretend like he cheated on his wife, and then go about with all the imaginings, slander, libel, and calumny you can conjure up. Right from your dirty little mind. For amusement. Because you hate him. Since when does integrity matter? Or the truth?

You're not even trying to investigate to see whether or not the rumor has merit. You're just fantasizing that it is true, and some of you seem to be getting some kind of perverted satisfaction from the thought of it.

How childish, and beneath this website's dignity.

Really, what more can I add?


posted on May, 2 2010 @ 12:43 AM

Originally posted by ClearJustMind
reply to post by antonia

I made screen dumps in case this "Disappears". Just saw a snip it on Fox News... (I know most of your feelings but I took his advice, I watch ALL networks.)

I am very glad you did that, because the story line has been revised a minimum of four times now, as best that I can tell. I have made a request for copies of the stories, so if you could please U2U it to me, I would appreciate it. (If it is the National Enquirer story). I am interested in compiling all revisions of the story into the thread.

Thanks in advance.

posted on May, 2 2010 @ 12:46 AM
reply to post by LadySkadi

Really, what more can I add?


Apparently nothing, so why did you bother to post? And have you bothered to read *any* of my posts? It seems not.

Certain people continue to disappoint, and you are one of them. If you have nothing to add besides "support
" could you please send that in a U2U?

Because, as I replied to her post, she told a falsehood. I have spent a good deal of time investigating the story, and posting those results.

So much for your "support
" of someone spreading falsehoods.

edit for typo

[edit on 2-5-2010 by Libertygal]

posted on May, 2 2010 @ 12:50 AM
reply to post by drwizardphd

blahblah blah

he is the freaking president

whats the problem living in a home with only his mother or father if he can still see their other parent

better to live in a happy environment than in a fake one just so americans can say, well, our president is married ...

posted on May, 2 2010 @ 12:51 AM
reply to post by Libertygal

Yes, I read the thread. While I appreciate your apparent fervor and effort on this subject, does not change my support of that assessment. Of all of the issues facing the US - this does not make the list (IMO) and is nothing but glorified gossip. Compile all that you wish, it is still tabloid fodder and while you will not acknowledge the truth - it is still simple - you are contributing to the distraction. Have at it...

[edit on 2-5-2010 by LadySkadi]

posted on May, 2 2010 @ 01:11 AM

Originally posted by LadySkadi
reply to post by Libertygal

Yes, I read the thread. While I appreciate your apparent fervor and effort on this subject, does not change my support of that assessment. Of all of the issues facing the US - this does not make the list (IMO) and is nothing but glorified gossip. Compile all that you wish, it is still tabloid fodder and while you will not acknowledge the truth - it is still simple - you are contributing to the distraction. Have at it...

[edit on 2-5-2010 by LadySkadi]

So you are admitting that you can only follow one topic at a time? Distraction? You seem to not be distracted.

Of COURSE this is tabloid fodder! I never once denied that! However, other relevant points seem to be beyond your grasp of understanding. Tabloid fodder is used for a purpose, one of them certainly to distract, but as I pointed out, I know *I* can think of several subjects at once, my scope is not limited to this story.

Why now? Why has this surfaced after the affair allegedly took place in 2004, with the Enquirer breaking it in 2008?

Is this a cover story for something looming beneath the surface of something we do not know yet?

Where are the MSM in this? Where are our alleged investigative journalists? Right now, some of them are now charging to access their websites, and many are probably going to follow that lead. Some are going bankrupt, or being sold, because they have failed. Why? Because they refuse to do investigative journalism, and leave it to media outlets like tabloids and Breitbart.

Look past the gossip and political pandering, because beneath the surface of this, there is something else. That's the point in investigating it. Things have a tendency to come out, truthful things, whether they be hurtful or not. But in reality, that is beside the point. The point is finding out the reasons and causations.

If you have no interest in that aspect, then fine, quit reading the thread. You fairly much stated this, so why do you keep bothering? No one is making you click "next"! Go somewhere else where you feel your time is more wisely spent!

Have a great day.

edit for typos

[edit on 2-5-2010 by Libertygal]

posted on May, 2 2010 @ 01:28 AM
reply to post by Libertygal

Why so reactive to an opinion? You seem quite angry...

Perhaps it's time to take a breath.

Just a friendly suggestion...

posted on May, 2 2010 @ 02:45 AM
I have finally found at least a translation page of the Le Matin article that appears to have been written about the same time the Globe article came out.

I hope this link works:

The U.S. president is the subject of allegations concerning an alleged infidelity.
Il aurait eu une liaison avec une jeune femme en 2004.

He allegedly had an affair with a young woman in 2004.

Mais l'article sent fortement la manœuvre politique.

But the article feels strongly political maneuver.

Stephane Berney - April 29, 2010, 8:59 p.m.
Le Matin Morning

Beautiful, young, sporty and powerful.

Normal que le président américain, Barack Obama, suscite les convoitises.

Normal for the U.S. President, Barack Obama, raised desires.

C'est encore son épouse, Michelle, qui en parle le mieux: «Je veux dire à toutes ces femmes: «Bas les pattes!

It is still his wife, Michelle, who speaks best: "I mean all these women:" Hands off!

Faites votre vie.

Make your life.

C'est très embarrassant tout ça!»

It's very embarrassing all! "

Les débuts de l'affaire

The beginnings of the case

Les récentes révélations du magazine américain Globe, cette semaine, semblent plutôt ahurissantes.

Recent revelations of the Globe magazine, this week, seem rather startling.

Le journal revient sur une affaire datant de 2004.

The log returns on a case dating from 2004.

A l'époque, le futur sénateur de l'Illinois Obama (élu en novembre 2004) était soupçonné d'entretenir des rapports très proches avec Vera Baker, 29 ans, une Afro-Américaine qu'il connaissait depuis l'enfance.

At the time, the future senator from Illinois Obama (elected November 2004) was suspected to liaise closely with Vera Baker, 29, an African-American woman he had known since childhood.

Cette dernière l'aurait aidé, selon le journal, à amasser des millions pour mener sa campagne sénatoriale en assurant le rôle de directrice financière.

This would have helped, according to the newspaper, to raise millions for his campaign Senatorial ensuring the role of CFO.

The article is very hard to read, as it is translated with google, but you can get the jist of it.

I will not post it in it's entireity, as it is a very long article, but judging from the quoted text above, it appears the Globe is the actual fomenter of this story, and all others are after the fact.

So, what this comes down to is a battle for the front page between the Globe and National Enquirer.

I stand by the opinion that the National Enquirer jumped back onto the bandwagon once they found out about the Globe story in an effort to purchase the :witnesses" or alleged video tape from under the Globe with their offer of 1 million dollars.

I think the National Enquirer was hoping for another John Edwards type story in an effort to boost their legitimacy, and to perhaps beat the Globe to the punchline, but in fact, it looks like an epic fail for them.

Until and unless anything else were to come out, I think it can be conclusively said at this point (political views not withstanding) that it is a non-story, and the Enquirer can chalk up another bad story with no substantiation.

Yet, this still does not negate the information from the Globe, as I have to be unable to obtain that article, as it is a subscription link and I refuse to pay for that. I may look for it in a market at the tabloid shelf if I find myself available to do so in the coming days, but judging from the information available and the Globe's lesser reputation in relation to the Enquirer, I think it is again, a non-story.

If anyone has the Globe article, and can post any information with regards to it, it would be appreciated!

The Le Matin does go on to say they feel it is a strongly political maneuver in an effort destabilize.

another interesting bit here still claims there is a video, that seems to be in someones' hands, I would presume the Globe, but perhaps it is referencing the Enquirer story at this point, I can't say for certain.

Here is where the intriguing reference to the emails comes in, as well.

Whatever, does this not simply a political maneuver to destabilize?

Le magazine persiste pourtant.

The magazine, however, persists.

Car, en plus de la révélation de l'existence d'une vidéo, il produit un document selon lequel des ingénieurs en informatique seraient sur la piste d'e-mails compromettants entre Vera Baker et le sénateur Obama.

For, in addition to revealing the existence of a video he produced a document that software engineers would be on the trail incriminating emails between Vera Baker and Senator Obama.

This remark is made in a section dealing with the testimony of the limo driver, and if that is the case, it is the limo driver that makes the claim of the existance of a video as well as "he produced a document that software engineers would be on the trail incriminating emails between Vera and Barak"

So the way I read this, the limo driver verified the video exists, and produced a document of emails between Vera and Barak (that in other articles are alleged to be recently), that investigators would be able to research?

Again, of this is the case, do we have another Sarah Palin type email hacking scandal in the making?

This sentence makes no sense, so if someone is able to translate this, again, please do so?

Whereas now, the National Enquirer may feel they have an attempt at "legitimacy" to maintain, how far will they go in an attempt to back up the story with evidence?

Will they go so far as to manufacture it, or perhaps pay out more in rewards?

What exactly is the motivation behind this, if the Enquirer has zero information? Is it simply to beat out the Globe? Or, as I have suggested, a ploy for other reasons?

It gets deeper by the minute!

ETA: here is the actual Le Matin link:

[edit on 2-5-2010 by Libertygal]

[edit on 2-5-2010 by Libertygal]

posted on May, 2 2010 @ 03:03 AM
I looked up some google images of Vera Baker. Fairly average looking woman; nothing special. Then there was this from a blog called Daily Tantrum which appeared under the first image:

READ: “Vera Baker | Yet Another Victim of Barack’s Charms?”

The book also talks about the tension and somewhat jealousy between the two, and the young attractive African American named Vera Baker who volunteered during the presidential campaign and developed a “very close” relationship with the president. According to the article posted on the Money Blog at Personal Money Store, the two grew so close that Michele got Barack to drop her off the campaign. Baker disappeared and reappeared in the Caribbean where she has remained up to this day. Whether it’s a mere tactic to destroy the president’s image or, in fact, a true similar story like Bill Clinton’s, the name Vera Baker is no doubt getting a lot of media attention.

posted on May, 2 2010 @ 03:11 AM
reply to post 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?


You do realize that the National Enquirer is full of stories about aliens and ufos, don't you?

Pretty much the very same stuff that ATS is based upon...

posted on May, 2 2010 @ 03:27 AM
reply to post by mishigas

Thanks very much for your reply.

I don't think it has been any secret they were very close friends, but both have continuously denied there was anything else between them.

The Le Matin article, among many others, have also made the claim the Michelle was extremely jealous, and that she had "her shipped off" to get her away from Obama.

According to Vera, however, she stated that she simply finished the campaign, and went to the Carribean to be with her then boyfriend, whom she married and had a child with.

Interestingly, her wikipedia page is scheduled for deletion, however, there is nothing even remotely discriminating on it at this time. It is locked down. I saved it to disk, however.

This page is currently protected from editing.
See the protection policy and protection log for more details. Please discuss any changes on the talk page; you may use the [[editprotected]] template to ask an administrator to make the edit if it is supported by consensus. You may also request that this page be unprotected.

Not sure if some selective editing was being attempted or what, but thats the stance on the page atm.

posted on May, 2 2010 @ 07:38 AM
reply to post by Libertygal

While I do appreciate your numerous attempts to retract and follow up after the fact,
the false genie is out of the bottle. Simple minded people will read your OP and take it as gospel. Hearsay, rumor, gossip and speculation are the root cause of myths.

An excellent metaphor was used in the movie "Doubt." A person spreading rumors is likened to taking a feather pillow on a roof and cutting it open exposing thousands of feathers. When the rumor is found to be untrue weeks later, that person is instructed to go and gather all the feathers.

Too late, damage is done.

[edit on 2-5-2010 by kinda kurious]

posted on May, 2 2010 @ 08:32 AM

Please discuss the topic and not each other.
These personal remarks tend to derail the topic and should be avoided.


posted on May, 2 2010 @ 08:53 AM
Perhaps the "lesson to be learned" is the old adage "consider the source."

The art of propaganda is founded in half-truths and supposition. Tabloids and MSM outlets like FOX News frequently infer falsehoods by adding a question mark.

Case in point. "Do you still beat your wife?" Inference + supposition = fallacy.

ATS has become rife with examples. I can only hope this OP gets an admin edit or title revision.


[edit on 2-5-2010 by kinda kurious]

posted on May, 2 2010 @ 09:17 AM

Originally posted by Libertygal

PRESIDENT OBAMA has been caught in a shocking cheating scandal after being caught in a Washington, DC Hotel with a former campaign aide, sources say.

And now, a hush-hush security video that shows everything could topple both Obama's presidency and marriage to Michelle!

A confidential investigation has learned that Obama first became close to gorgeous 35 year-old VERA BAKER in 2004 when she worked tirelessly to get him elected to the US Senate, raising millions in campaign contributions.

Ah, here we have the National Enquirer. What better way to discount a story than to have it appear here first?

However, in the wake of recent events, especially those relating to cheating spouses, the Enquirer has shown itself to be on target. Even going so far as to hope for a Pulitzer!

March 27, 2010

National Enquirer shocks journalistic establishment with run for Pulitzer prize
From The Times

It is the master of celebrity gossip; the king of the supermarket tabloids and one of the most scurrilous yellow journals in America. Now, however, after decades spent titillating and shocking its readers, the National Enquirer is threatening to become respectable

The Enquirer were the first to be on the JOhn Edwards scandal, which did turn out to be true, as we all know now.

Is it possible this is where Obama was the night he went to his daughters' soccer game? Or yet another night he escaped the clutches of the MSM only to find himself being tailed by the ones who are presenting now as "real journalists"?

We all know the MSM has let us down, is it time for the Enquirer to step up and take the MSM by storm?

What will the video show?

True or not true?

Can a not so worthy news organization gain credibility with breaking stories that are actually factual?

Can the Enquirer change it's face and actually win a Pulitzer next round?

Stay tuned!

[edit on 1-5-2010 by Libertygal]

I apologize for the long quote, however, I'm doing it for a reason. Libertygal, I would like for you to re-read it from the perspective that you are not the author, but are reading it for the first time.

Notice all the loaded questions. All the sensationalism. The hints at the publication is in fact a factual one. The examples you gave of the times they had been first to break a story. The tongue in cheek suggestion of a Pulitzer? The drool of excitement coming from the edge of the writer's mouth. Right up to "Stay Tuned".

The person who wrote this seems to also write for the NE. It 's almost the same writing style.

Your OP is what I responded to. If you will re-read it with an objective eye, I think you will see why I responded the way I did. I see you have since tried to "disclaim" a little of the mess, but I responded after the OP.

Thanks for your time, provided you are still reading my posts.

posted on May, 2 2010 @ 09:33 AM
I want to put my two cents worth in regarding the allegations in this report.

Did I care that Bill Clinton wielded a cigar in Monica Lewinski's panties, and perhaps received a small oral token of her affection (haha)?

I did not. Did not care one bit, and still don't. Other than feeling sorry for Hilary, I thought it was funny, because it was so ridiculous. What I didn't think was funny was that a group of jealous perverted hypocrites used the scenario to impeach him. Nope. I didn't think that was at all amusing.

Do I really give a rats' derriere if Barack Obama went into a limo and hotel room with another woman? Nope. Just don't use my tax dollars to do it, and don't go on vacation in Crawford Texas when New Orleans is drowning. That's all I ask.

My interests lie in what he does in the oval office, not the bedroom. I don't give a flying fig what he does. He might have gone to a hotel last night. I don't care. I do care what he does to try and stop this oil spill.

So, yes, In my mind all this amounts to is petty gossip. Quite frankly, I can't be bothered with it any longer.

posted on May, 2 2010 @ 10:40 AM

I don't care what type of scandal ruins his life, career and sanity.. or drives his family to alcohol rehab for years of counseling .. as long as it gets done on the world stage in the most humiliating, embarrassing and expedient fashion.

Would you stop kissing Obama's butt for two minutes? Sheesh.

Even if he gets disgraced.. he won't feel 1 iota of the pain & misery known by the average iraqi / afghani... people I have way more respect for.

I know an average Iraqi. It's going to make his day when I tell him how much respect you have for him. He doesn't seem too burdened by pain and misery though - actually, he's really glad that the genocidal fascist, Saddam Hussein, is no longer in power in his country. But your respect will be the cherry on the icing.

posted on May, 2 2010 @ 12:46 PM

Originally posted by Libertygal
Interestingly, her wikipedia page is scheduled for deletion, however, there is nothing even remotely discriminating on it at this time. It is locked down. I saved it to disk, however.

This page is currently protected from editing.
See the protection policy and protection log for more details. Please discuss any changes on the talk page; you may use the [[editprotected]] template to ask an administrator to make the edit if it is supported by consensus. You may also request that this page be unprotected.

Not sure if some selective editing was being attempted or what, but thats the stance on the page atm.

This is another odd development. Vera Baker's relationship with obama is old news, so why is wikipedia so worried about it. They have been extremely protective of obama for some time by eliminating anybody from the pages who might be capable of showing the president in a questionable light. Why? it's supposed to be an encyclopedia of sorts, so why exclude something that's making news?

there are so many things about obama that have been suppressed. surely innocent things like details of his schooling. who paid for all those fine schools or did affirmative action pay? what's wrong with knowing those things? His fans won't object to any of it including his past affiliations while his critics already don't trust him. Why so much effort spent on smoke and mirrors?

posted on May, 2 2010 @ 03:50 PM
reply to post by tylermbell

I just got back from the grocery store and saw the article on the front page of The Globe.

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in