It’s True Trump Paid Stormy Daniels Himself, But
Post# of 65629
(Total Views: 68)
Posted On: 12/12/2018 6:48:06 AM
It’s True Trump Paid Stormy Daniels Himself, But Congress Desperate To Hide The Fact They Paid Victims $17 Million W/ OUR Money …
Which is Worse?
Representative Jerry Nadler seemed to put the Democrats’ reaction to Michael Cohen’s plea of “guilty” and his actions against the President perfectly into a fairly simple explanation.
There has been talk for a while now that the New York Democrat has been toying with the idea of impeachment hearings against President Donald Trump and his people, no matter what the evidence involves.
A day after the midterm elections, a report was released which Conservative Tribune says “had the powerful ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee ranting on a train about impeaching Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. He also talked about going ‘all in’ on Russia.”
This weekend, Nadler appeared on CNN to talk about Michael Cohen’s claim that the President had told him to pay porn star Stormy Daniels as a part of a “non-disclosure” agreement. He then claimed that Trump had paid him back. Nadler stated that this would be enough to have Trump removed from his post as President.
“They would be impeachable offenses. Whether they’re important enough to justify an impeachment is a different question,” Nadler said while on CNN.
“Certainly, they’re impeachable offenses, because, even though they were committed before the president became president, they were committed in the service of fraudulently obtaining the office,” he continued.
In the past, Nadler has called President Trump “non legitimate” as a President of the United States. The mainstream media is eating it up, but they’re not remembering the campaign finance issues at hand. And, there’s also the question of whether or not this counts as campaign finance.
And can Congress really talk?
Thebradfordfile tweeted, “Is Congress going to release the names of everyone in Congress who has been implicated in a sexual harassment claim which was kept silent by a taxpayer funded shush fund—before or after they try to impeach President Trump for using his own money for something perfectly legal?”
Is Congress going to release the names of everyone in Congress who has been implicated in a sexual harassment claim which was kept silent by a taxpayer funded shush fund–before or after they try to impeach President Trump for using his own money for something perfectly legal?
— thebradfordfile™ (@thebradfordfile) December 10, 2018
Conservative Tribune writes:
Yes, $17 million of taxpayer money has been spent on settling, among other things, sexual harassment claims in Congress, and we pretty much don’t know anything about the cases. As CNN noted, the names of those involved are withheld not only from the public but also from party leadership.
“A source in House Speaker Paul Ryan’s office told CNN that Ryan is not made aware of the details of harassment settlements.
That source also said that the top Democrat and Republican on the House administration committee review proposed settlements and both must approve the payments,” CNN reported in November of 2017. “Similarly, a source in Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s office told CNN that Pelosi also is not made aware of those details, and that they are confined to the parties of the settlement and the leaders of the administration committee.”
Think about it… this is the way the establishment set up the system so they don’t have to deal with the repercussions of sexual harassment lawsuits and discrimination lawsuits… because they KNEW there would be so many.
Interesting how Trump paid a much smaller amount of money to a woman who he had consensual sex with to get an NDA.
Conservative Tribune explains:
Because of the methodology of obtaining it and the question of whether or not it should have been included in campaign finance reports, we’re now talking impeachment.
Apparently, Nadler isn’t going all-in on Russia, he’s going all-in on Stormy. I guess it’s easier.
So, yes, Nadler can continue to claim that “the president was at the center of a massive fraud — several massive frauds against the American people.” That doesn’t actually mean anything. If we scrutinized the campaign ledgers of everyone in high office for any sort of problem, we’d probably have to extirpate at least half of them from their position.
Now, here’s the thing: I haven’t seen the Mueller report. Neither has Nadler. For all I know, Trump is implicated in a panoply of heinous crimes and his ties with Russia were way more extensive than we thought. Or it could be a very big nothingburger, albeit a nothingburger dressed up like a very appetizing somethingburger and advertised incessantly in the media like it was the Arch Deluxe circa 1992.
“You don’t necessarily launch an impeachment against the president because he committed an impeachable offense,” Nadler said. “There are several things you have to look at.”
“One, were impeachable offenses committed, how many, et cetera. Secondly, how important were they? Do they rise to the gravity where you should undertake an impeachment?
An impeachment is an attempt to effect or overturn the result of the last election and should do it only for very serious situations. That’s the question.”
https://www.americanjournalreview.com/its-tru...-is-worse/
Which is Worse?
Representative Jerry Nadler seemed to put the Democrats’ reaction to Michael Cohen’s plea of “guilty” and his actions against the President perfectly into a fairly simple explanation.
There has been talk for a while now that the New York Democrat has been toying with the idea of impeachment hearings against President Donald Trump and his people, no matter what the evidence involves.
A day after the midterm elections, a report was released which Conservative Tribune says “had the powerful ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee ranting on a train about impeaching Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. He also talked about going ‘all in’ on Russia.”
This weekend, Nadler appeared on CNN to talk about Michael Cohen’s claim that the President had told him to pay porn star Stormy Daniels as a part of a “non-disclosure” agreement. He then claimed that Trump had paid him back. Nadler stated that this would be enough to have Trump removed from his post as President.
“They would be impeachable offenses. Whether they’re important enough to justify an impeachment is a different question,” Nadler said while on CNN.
“Certainly, they’re impeachable offenses, because, even though they were committed before the president became president, they were committed in the service of fraudulently obtaining the office,” he continued.
In the past, Nadler has called President Trump “non legitimate” as a President of the United States. The mainstream media is eating it up, but they’re not remembering the campaign finance issues at hand. And, there’s also the question of whether or not this counts as campaign finance.
And can Congress really talk?
Thebradfordfile tweeted, “Is Congress going to release the names of everyone in Congress who has been implicated in a sexual harassment claim which was kept silent by a taxpayer funded shush fund—before or after they try to impeach President Trump for using his own money for something perfectly legal?”
Is Congress going to release the names of everyone in Congress who has been implicated in a sexual harassment claim which was kept silent by a taxpayer funded shush fund–before or after they try to impeach President Trump for using his own money for something perfectly legal?
— thebradfordfile™ (@thebradfordfile) December 10, 2018
Conservative Tribune writes:
Yes, $17 million of taxpayer money has been spent on settling, among other things, sexual harassment claims in Congress, and we pretty much don’t know anything about the cases. As CNN noted, the names of those involved are withheld not only from the public but also from party leadership.
“A source in House Speaker Paul Ryan’s office told CNN that Ryan is not made aware of the details of harassment settlements.
That source also said that the top Democrat and Republican on the House administration committee review proposed settlements and both must approve the payments,” CNN reported in November of 2017. “Similarly, a source in Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s office told CNN that Pelosi also is not made aware of those details, and that they are confined to the parties of the settlement and the leaders of the administration committee.”
Think about it… this is the way the establishment set up the system so they don’t have to deal with the repercussions of sexual harassment lawsuits and discrimination lawsuits… because they KNEW there would be so many.
Interesting how Trump paid a much smaller amount of money to a woman who he had consensual sex with to get an NDA.
Conservative Tribune explains:
Because of the methodology of obtaining it and the question of whether or not it should have been included in campaign finance reports, we’re now talking impeachment.
Apparently, Nadler isn’t going all-in on Russia, he’s going all-in on Stormy. I guess it’s easier.
So, yes, Nadler can continue to claim that “the president was at the center of a massive fraud — several massive frauds against the American people.” That doesn’t actually mean anything. If we scrutinized the campaign ledgers of everyone in high office for any sort of problem, we’d probably have to extirpate at least half of them from their position.
Now, here’s the thing: I haven’t seen the Mueller report. Neither has Nadler. For all I know, Trump is implicated in a panoply of heinous crimes and his ties with Russia were way more extensive than we thought. Or it could be a very big nothingburger, albeit a nothingburger dressed up like a very appetizing somethingburger and advertised incessantly in the media like it was the Arch Deluxe circa 1992.
“You don’t necessarily launch an impeachment against the president because he committed an impeachable offense,” Nadler said. “There are several things you have to look at.”
“One, were impeachable offenses committed, how many, et cetera. Secondly, how important were they? Do they rise to the gravity where you should undertake an impeachment?
An impeachment is an attempt to effect or overturn the result of the last election and should do it only for very serious situations. That’s the question.”
https://www.americanjournalreview.com/its-tru...-is-worse/
(1)
(0)