It is starting to sound more like a reality show--or a soap opera--with every passing week. Now this doorman needs to put up or shut up--produce the former housekeeper, including child, and let's get a DNA test. This will never happen, of course, because Trump, like most politicians, denies everything.
Does this story surprise anyone, though?
I wouldn't even believe this story if they hadn't gone to the trouble of paying off the doorman. But they did. Which implies they feared him.
Part of the Cohen raid seems to be focused on a pattern of the head of the National Enquirer essentially purchasing the silence of individuals for Trump, all during the heat of the campaign. If documents reveal it was specifically to benefit the campaign, every one of them is a potential illegal donation.
Trying to prove that the cash-for-silence stories were to benefit the campaign may be difficult to prove. They can always claim "we paid when the story broke and its timing had nothing to do with the campaign".
Trying to prove that the cash-for-silence stories were to benefit the campaign may be difficult to prove. They can always claim "we paid when the story broke and its timing had nothing to do with the campaign".
Trying to prove that the cash-for-silence stories were to benefit the campaign may be difficult to prove. They can always claim "we paid when the story broke and its timing had nothing to do with the campaign".
Trying to prove that the cash-for-silence stories were to benefit the campaign may be difficult to prove. They can always claim "we paid when the story broke and its timing had nothing to do with the campaign".
I have it now: Silencegate.
How about 'Coincidencegate'?
How about
@semiticgod I'm afraid that reference escapes me. I'm intrigued as to the meaning though...
I've noticed that the Foxnews website is one of the few that still allows comments. If we all start praising Trump in the comments section there's probably a fair chance we could all be appointed to cabinet positions in the next couple years. If we can then convince Trump that his time would be better spent golfing with foreign dignitaries and businessmen, maybe we could come up with some government policies that would actually accomplish something.
Reports tonight (time for a time-warp) are that Trump is getting set to pardon....Scooter Libby, the man who during the Bush Administration was at the heart of the scandal dealing with the retaliatory outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame because her husband wrote an op-ed totally discrediting the Administration claim that Saddam Hussein was seeking enriched uranium from Niger. I see only two reasons for this: one would be that John Bolton is getting in his ear about this. The other is that, like with Joe Arpaio, he is testing the waters of how is pardon power is received. Something very strange is going on with this. But it is worth noting that Libby was found guilty by a jury of something we hear ALOT about in the Trump era, which is lying to the FBI. This is a might be a more ominous development than it seems. But it also serves to tie Trump at the hip with the disaster of the George W. Bush Presidency and the Iraq War (especially when taken in conjunction with the appointment of Bolton), which is ANOTHER thing he explicitly ran against in the Republican primary. We are off the rails now.
Reports tonight (time for a time-warp) are that Trump is getting set to pardon....Scooter Libby, the man who during the Bush Administration was at the heart of the scandal dealing with the retaliatory outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame because her husband wrote an op-ed totally discrediting the Administration claim that Saddam Hussein was seeking enriched uranium from Niger. I see only two reasons for this: one would be that John Bolton is getting in his ear about this. The other is that, like with Joe Arpaio, he is testing the waters of how is pardon power is received. Something very strange is going on with this.
Talk about old news. What would be the point of pardoning him now? Would Libby get his $250k back? I see no reason at all for Trump to even consider this.
Reports tonight (time for a time-warp) are that Trump is getting set to pardon....Scooter Libby, the man who during the Bush Administration was at the heart of the scandal dealing with the retaliatory outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame because her husband wrote an op-ed totally discrediting the Administration claim that Saddam Hussein was seeking enriched uranium from Niger. I see only two reasons for this: one would be that John Bolton is getting in his ear about this. The other is that, like with Joe Arpaio, he is testing the waters of how is pardon power is received. Something very strange is going on with this.
Talk about old news. What would be the point of pardoning him now? Would Libby get his $250k back? I see no reason at all for Trump to even consider this.
I'm seeing not very far-fetched speculation that this is being floated as a message to potential Mueller witnesses. Given the nature of Libby's crime (essentially lying and taking the fall to protect Cheney), that makes alot more sense than it may seem on the surface.
As someone who remembers how all this shit went down as it happened, Bush not immediately pardoning Libby angered Cheney to absolutely no end, and marked the essential end of their relationship up to that point. From that moment on, Cheney's (frankly) dark influence started to fade slowly.
Here's a question that's only mildly political that I'd like to get people's opinions on. Last Monday I drove down to Tennessee to visit my parents (they really just wanted to see their granddaughter on her Spring Break but that's neither here nor there). Today I got a letter from the City of Toledo, Ohio stating that they caught me speeding through the city on the way down and I have to pay a $120 fine. Included were three pictures of my car including my license plate (my car was the only one in the picture which proves traffic was unusually light). I have no doubt I was speeding since there was hardly any traffic that day (the day after Easter probably having something to do with that). The fine is much lower than if I had gotten the ticket in my home state of Michigan, but no cop pulled me over or anything. I think the fine is low just so people won't make the effort to contest. I'm going to pay it because it would be too much of a pain on the ass to fight it, but to me this is an abuse of technology (and power). What do you all think?
If it matters, they said I was doing 78 mph in a 60 mph zone. 18 over would be around a $250 fine in Michigan...
Here's a question that's only mildly political that I'd like to get people's opinions on. Last Monday I drove down to Tennessee to visit my parents (they really just wanted to see their granddaughter on her Spring Break but that's neither here nor there). Today I got a letter from the City of Toledo, Ohio stating that they caught me speeding through the city on the way down and I have to pay a $120 fine. Included were three pictures of my car including my license plate (my car was the only one in the picture which proves traffic was unusually light). I have no doubt I was speeding since there was hardly any traffic that day (the day after Easter probably having something to do with that). The fine is much lower than if I had gotten the ticket in my home state of Michigan, but no cop pulled me over or anything. I think the fine is low just so people won't make the effort to contest. I'm going to pay it because it would be too much of a pain on the ass to fight it, but to me this is an abuse of technology (and power). What do you all think?
If it matters, they said I was doing 78 mph in a 60 mph zone. 18 over would be around a $250 fine in Michigan...
I think it's absolutely absurd and a way that local law enforcement is used as nothing but a cash machine. I have no idea how such a scheme was ever allowed to hold up in court, but this bullshit is done all over the country. How can you be convicted if it's contested if there is no officer to testify against you that he witnessed you speeding?? We are now going on the authority of a electronic device that could malfunction?? It's a complete scam, and one that doesn't even involve the USUAL laziness of a cop sitting in his squad car pointing a speed gun at the road searching for anyone to make the most minor slip-up.
@Balrog99: Typically, traffic camera tickets are treated like parking tickets -- meaning that if it's your car, it's your problem, but it doesn't go on your driving record or affect your insurance -- instead of moving violations. That saves them from having to prove it was you driving the car.
I generally disapprove of how traffic cameras are used. In most places, it's more of a revenue source than a deterrent.
@Balrog99: Typically, traffic camera tickets are treated like parking tickets -- meaning that if it's your car, it's your problem, but it doesn't go on your driving record or affect your insurance -- instead of moving violations. That saves them from having to prove it was you driving the car.
I generally disapprove of how traffic cameras are used. In most places, it's more of a revenue source than a deterrent.
It's 99.9% a revenue source. If they cared about public safety or deterring speeding, they would have actual cops on the road.
Surprisingly your thoughts mirror my own. I actually wasn't sure how more liberal folks would feel about this since I was definitely speeding and therefore 'breaking the law'. Maybe you guys are more libertarian than you let on...
Edit: the only thing weirder to me would be if @Mathsorcerer said he thinks it's totally justified since I'm clearly a lawbreaker!
Surprisingly your thoughts mirror my own. I actually wasn't sure how more liberal folks would feel about this since I was definitely speeding and therefore 'breaking the law'. Maybe you guys are more libertarian than you let on...
Edit: the only thing weirder to me would be if @Mathsorcerer said he thinks it's totally justified since I'm clearly a lawbreaker!
I'm not a big fan of police, and what modern policing has become. That extends from personal interactions and the endless cavalcade of videos showing them murdering innocent or unarmed people and suffering zero consequences, and the vast majority of the ones who aren't "bad apples" saying essentially nothing about the ones who are. It's become increasingly clear with the prevalence of absurd asset forfeiture laws that the designed mission of "protect and serve" is oftentimes more a slogan than anything based in reality. They do indeed protect and serve, but only if you are rich, white, and in a gated neighborhood. The rest of us are a source of revenue for the department or city that they work for. If push ever came to shove and shit broke down in this country, I wouldn't believe for a second the cops would be on the side of the people. There is too much of an authoritarian mindset inherent in wanting to do the job in the first place.
I don't transfer this disgust to the upper echelons of law enforcement, such as FBI agents or CIA operatives, who clearly are some of the most intelligent and well-trained people in society. Local and city police are no such thing, especially compared to countries in Europe.
Speed limits are set for a reason. It's a safety concern. I bet the next time you drive through that area @Balrog99, you'll be watching your speed more carefully.
Yes it also is a revenue stream for the municipalities but I bet one of the reasons why the ticket was so low is due to the fact they didn't have to pay an officer a salary during the day to issue them. Police officers can be reassigned to more pressing issues in the community instead. Cameras are also set up where speeding is a problem in the city. It isn't like they are on every street just key areas where safety maybe a concern.
Yes they can tend to malfunction sometimes, even issuing tickets to parked cars but that sometimes is quite less than not.
Speed limits are set for a reason. It's a safety concern. I bet the next time you drive through that area @Balrog99, you'll be watching your speed more carefully.
Yes it also is a revenue stream for the municipalities but I bet one of the reasons why the ticket was so low is due to the fact they didn't have to pay an officer a salary during the day to issue them. Police officers can be reassigned to more pressing issues in the community instead. Cameras are also set up where speeding is a problem in the city. It isn't like they are on every street just key areas where safety maybe a concern.
Yes they can tend to malfunction sometimes, even issuing tickets to parked cars but that sometimes is quite less than not.
Your opinion seems to be the minority here. I was actually expecting more 'you lawbreaker you' responses. If there was an actual cop around I think the fact there was hardly anybody else in a 4-lane road (I-75, a major interstate freeway) might have led them to give me the benefit of a doubt. There have been many times I've been speeding and I noticed a cop car in the vicinity and they didn't bat an eyelash. I think it was because traffic was light and they knew the speed limits are set for normal traffic volumes. A camera will never give you a break regardless of circumstances. That's the BS in my opinion...
Speed cameras are used extensively in the UK. In theory they are only allowed to be used in places where there's been a high number of accidents, but in practice I'm sure there is an element of revenue raising involved and they're not generally that popular. However, most people do accept them on the grounds that they are effective at reducing the number and severity of accidents.
We haven't had much in the way of statistics in this thread recently, so here's an international comparison of road death rates, showing how high deaths in the US are.
I've noted before how it's not that long ago that drinking and driving was socially acceptable in western countries, but that's not generally the case now. Speeding is still early in the journey towards being socially unacceptable and may never make that transition, but I do think that in the UK anyway there has been a noticeable shift in attitudes over time as a result of greater knowledge of the risks involved.
Speed cameras are used extensively in the UK. In theory they are only allowed to be used in places where there's been a high number of accidents, but in practice I'm sure there is an element of revenue raising involved and they're not generally that popular. However, most people do accept them on the grounds that they are effective at reducing the number and severity of accidents.
We haven't had much in the way of statistics in this thread recently, so here's an international comparison of road death rates, showing how high deaths in the US are.
I've noted before how it's not that long ago that drinking and driving was socially acceptable in western countries, but that's not generally the case now. Speeding is still early in the journey towards being socially unacceptable and may never make that transition, but I do think that in the UK anyway there has been a noticeable shift in attitudes over time as a result of greater knowledge of the risks involved.
The Libertarian in me argues that some people are able to drive at higher speeds much more safely than others. In my daily commute everyday I see people who shouldn't be allowed to drive at any time at any speed. Speed limits are arbitrary. A few years ago I witnessed an old dude driving 10 mph below the speed limit and swerving into the curb every 50 feet. I also saw an old lady in the Michigan Sec State office fail the damned test four times and was allowed to keep taking the test until she passed. This despite the fact that she couldn't even hear the f'ing lady who was giving her the test!
I really don't see why facing your accuser is relevant to this offence. Speeding is a crime of strict liability, i.e. it doesn't matter whether you intended to do it or not. From that point of view I don't see any difference whether the speed camera was in a box or the hand of a police officer.
I presume that your question comes from the perspective of taking the surrounding conditions into account, i.e. things like the time of day and traffic conditions. If you have a police officer accusing you in court you therefore have the opportunity to quiz him about those conditions. However, a camera is also capturing that sort of data and evidence from that could be used in court if that is important to you.
Are you a British citizen? I only ask because the population density is much higher in Europe and may be a valid reason for your views. In the US, if you're not in the East or West coast areas, speed limits are arbitrary at best. In Michigan they even got rid of the requirement for motorcyclists to wear helmets. It's still suicidal to not wear them on the freeways or in Detroit in my opinion but on the rural highways in the boondocks it's probably relatively safe (and would be much more fun - if I was inclined to drive a motorcycle anyway).
The Libertarian in me argues that some people are able to drive at higher speeds much more safely than others. In my daily commute everyday I see people who shouldn't be allowed to drive at any time at any speed. Speed limits are arbitrary. A few years ago I witnessed an old dude driving 10 mph below the speed limit and swerving into the curb every 50 feet. I also saw an old lady in the Michigan Sec State office fail the damned test four times and was allowed to keep taking the test until she passed. This despite the fact that she couldn't even hear the f'ing lady who was giving her the test!
I have some sympathy with this, but who would make these judgments? Studies consistently show that most people over-estimate how safe a driver they are, so presumably there would have to be an independent process. That would need to be done very regularly and, even so, would be liable to flaws (for instance as a result of tiredness or illness of a driver). It doesn't seem like an efficient system to me (nor suited to libertarian ideas).
There's also the problem that the behavior of drivers affects others on the road. One driver may be perfectly capable of avoiding being in an accident himself while passing others at 140 mph, but still make accidents more likely as a result of surprising or scaring people being passed.
Comments
Part of the Cohen raid seems to be focused on a pattern of the head of the National Enquirer essentially purchasing the silence of individuals for Trump, all during the heat of the campaign. If documents reveal it was specifically to benefit the campaign, every one of them is a potential illegal donation.
I have it now: Silencegate.
I'm afraid that reference escapes me. I'm intrigued as to the meaning though...
Nevermind I finally got it. Very clever! I like it...
Silencegate -> Coincidencegate -> Fire Agate ->
@jjstraka34
@Mathsorcerer
@smeagolheart
@WarChiefZeke
@booinyoureyes
@ThacoBell
I've noticed that the Foxnews website is one of the few that still allows comments. If we all start praising Trump in the comments section there's probably a fair chance we could all be appointed to cabinet positions in the next couple years. If we can then convince Trump that his time would be better spent golfing with foreign dignitaries and businessmen, maybe we could come up with some government policies that would actually accomplish something.
I'm only partly kidding here. Sad...
As someone who remembers how all this shit went down as it happened, Bush not immediately pardoning Libby angered Cheney to absolutely no end, and marked the essential end of their relationship up to that point. From that moment on, Cheney's (frankly) dark influence started to fade slowly.
If it matters, they said I was doing 78 mph in a 60 mph zone. 18 over would be around a $250 fine in Michigan...
I generally disapprove of how traffic cameras are used. In most places, it's more of a revenue source than a deterrent.
Surprisingly your thoughts mirror my own. I actually wasn't sure how more liberal folks would feel about this since I was definitely speeding and therefore 'breaking the law'. Maybe you guys are more libertarian than you let on...
Edit: the only thing weirder to me would be if @Mathsorcerer said he thinks it's totally justified since I'm clearly a lawbreaker!
I don't transfer this disgust to the upper echelons of law enforcement, such as FBI agents or CIA operatives, who clearly are some of the most intelligent and well-trained people in society. Local and city police are no such thing, especially compared to countries in Europe.
I found this kind interesting regarding the use of a traffic camera for ticketing. It is a revenue generator for sure.
Caught by a traffic camera? Throw away that ticket!
Speed limits are set for a reason. It's a safety concern. I bet the next time you drive through that area @Balrog99, you'll be watching your speed more carefully.
Yes it also is a revenue stream for the municipalities but I bet one of the reasons why the ticket was so low is due to the fact they didn't have to pay an officer a salary during the day to issue them. Police officers can be reassigned to more pressing issues in the community instead. Cameras are also set up where speeding is a problem in the city. It isn't like they are on every street just key areas where safety maybe a concern.
Yes they can tend to malfunction sometimes, even issuing tickets to parked cars but that sometimes is quite less than not.
Speed cameras are used extensively in the UK. In theory they are only allowed to be used in places where there's been a high number of accidents, but in practice I'm sure there is an element of revenue raising involved and they're not generally that popular. However, most people do accept them on the grounds that they are effective at reducing the number and severity of accidents.
We haven't had much in the way of statistics in this thread recently, so here's an international comparison of road death rates, showing how high deaths in the US are.
I've noted before how it's not that long ago that drinking and driving was socially acceptable in western countries, but that's not generally the case now. Speeding is still early in the journey towards being socially unacceptable and may never make that transition, but I do think that in the UK anyway there has been a noticeable shift in attitudes over time as a result of greater knowledge of the risks involved.
I presume that your question comes from the perspective of taking the surrounding conditions into account, i.e. things like the time of day and traffic conditions. If you have a police officer accusing you in court you therefore have the opportunity to quiz him about those conditions. However, a camera is also capturing that sort of data and evidence from that could be used in court if that is important to you.
Are you a British citizen? I only ask because the population density is much higher in Europe and may be a valid reason for your views. In the US, if you're not in the East or West coast areas, speed limits are arbitrary at best. In Michigan they even got rid of the requirement for motorcyclists to wear helmets. It's still suicidal to not wear them on the freeways or in Detroit in my opinion but on the rural highways in the boondocks it's probably relatively safe (and would be much more fun - if I was inclined to drive a motorcycle anyway).
There's also the problem that the behavior of drivers affects others on the road. One driver may be perfectly capable of avoiding being in an accident himself while passing others at 140 mph, but still make accidents more likely as a result of surprising or scaring people being passed.