# Telling the truth



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Today Trump admitted that Cohen was his lawyer in the Stormy Daniels case. He has been lying and saying he knows nothing about it many times over the last month. He has been telling so many lies,that he can't keep everything straight. The dummy again said it in an off the cuff statement. Most likely with no lawyer close by to tell him to shut up.

He is the smartest person in the room only when he is by himself. He feels like he can say and tweet anything he wants.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

More draining the swamp in the Whitehouse. EPA head Pruit was grilled and roasted today for using his position to use our money for his benefit. Watching excerps today....he basically didn't answer any questions straight. This guy needs to go.

His pick for VA leader resigned today. What a joke in the Whitehouse.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I see they confirmed Pompeo today by 57 42. I think the vote for Hillary was about 90% so the republicans were much more cooperative. At least he can help Trump with North Korea now. The pervert party will be praying (if they do that :rollin: ) for Trump to fail with North Korea. Actually I'm sure the money worshiping party is praying he fails in North Korea. The swamp smells.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> I see they confirmed Pompeo today by 57 42. I think the vote for Hillary was about 90% so the republicans were much more cooperative. At least he can help Trump with North Korea now. The pervert party will be praying (if they do that :rollin: ) for Trump to fail with North Korea. Actually I'm sure the money worshiping party is praying he fails in North Korea. The swamp smells.


Money worshipping party????? That's your Republican buddies. That's all they care about.

The Republican Party motto....." I got mine, screw you."

Oh and I saw DEMOCRAT Heidi Heightkamp voted for Pompeo. Guess we aren't all perverts. :laugh: :laugh:

Just drive by 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and you can smell that swamp.Smells like rotten eggs.


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

She is up for re-election and needs to make amends for past actions. She tends to cross the isle on issues that are benign and when her vote won't be decisive. Most of the time she is lock step with Schumer and the rest of the leftist bunch. That has gotten her in hot water with a lot of voters in the state. She originally ran on a middle of the road platform. To be quite honest she is more two faced than you think trump is. To quote The Who, "Won't Get Fooled Again."


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Sorry, I disagree, she was the first Democrat to come out in favor of Pompeo. Days ago, right after Trump nominated him. That's not a Senator who waits for the vote to see how close it is and then make the decision.She had no idea how the vote would go when she said she would vote for him.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Money worshipping party????? That's your Republican buddies. That's all they care about.


 Exactly. We have a two party system, perverts and money worshippers. I meant to call republicans money worshippers.

I think it's seven democrats that voted for Pompeo. It's interesting that they are all up for reelection. It would appear they know what the people want, but the pompous ***** will obstruct until to save their hide they vote as they should. If the republicans can vote for Hillary we should expect the democrats to have cooperation when their is a Republican president. Booboo they can't do that. Not because of any principles, but rather childish vindictiveness because crooked Hillary lost.

If you want to actually take off the blinders and see who the obstructionist are look at the vote for Hillary and Pompeo. The left always accused others of what they themselves do. It's their MO.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

KEN W said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > I see they confirmed Pompeo today by 57 42. I think the vote for Hillary was about 90% so the republicans were much more cooperative. At least he can help Trump with North Korea now. The pervert party will be praying (if they do that :rollin: ) for Trump to fail with North Korea. Actually I'm sure the money worshiping party is praying he fails in North Korea. The swamp smells.
> ...


The Democratic Party motto....." I got mine, I've got you fooled into thinking you have yours, screw you."


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

The thing about Trump finally admitting to Cohen and Stormy issue... Maybe he is following the disclosure agreement??? But now that it is completely out of the bag (like it wasn't before). He is talking.... Just something to think about before going off about "lying".

Just like I stated before when people talked about how Cohens office raid was going to put a nail in the coffin about Russia..... It was all about Stormy. Which again is this the "special counsel" grasping for straws?? I don't know... we will soon find out. :bop:

The Dems have been stalling on all of the nominations (granted some are/were horrible choices IMHO) but they are stalling just to stall. If you don't believe so look at how long it is taking to get nominations appointed. The longest in history. They are doing it until the mid terms. It is all political BS... that is what the issue is. It is the issue with our whole political system right now. People are so split and think it is one way or another. They don't want to give compromise or find a middle ground. It is sickening. No matter what way you lean right or left... you should see this. If you don't you are apart of the problem. IMHO.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Chuck.....The Special Council did not raid Cohen's office. The Justice Department, which is run by a Republican, did. FBI in the Southern District of New York made the raid. And the DA there is also a Republican. And they had get a federal judge to sign off on it.Now that they have done that, guess who now admits he knew about Daniels and Cohen, after lying about it for a month?

The Dems are certainly stalling appointments.They would be stupid not to with mid-terms coming. No different than Republicans did under Obama. There is only one way to stop this if both parties are doing it. Especially if the numbers in Congress are close to 50-50.

That is to change the constitution so both bodies of Congress are limited to 1 six-year term. No running for a second term. One third are elected every 2 years. Then they would know they need to do their job.Because they would be going home after 6 years.No re-election funding needed.Cuts back the influence of outsider PACS. It makes to much sense to get done. :******:

The other thing is.....no Gerrymandering. When it is time to redraw districts because of population shifts, each side should be represented equally, and their final decision should stand like the military base closing was done. No voting by state legislatures.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> That is to change the constitution so both bodies of Congress are limited to 1 six-year term. No running for a second term. One third are elected every 2 years. Then they would know they need to do their job.Because they would be going home after 6 years.No re-election funding needed.Cuts back the influence of outsider PACS. It makes to much sense to get done. :ticked:
> 
> The other thing is.....no Gerrymandering. When it is time to redraw districts because of population shifts, each side should be represented equally, and their final decision should stand like the military base closing was done. No voting by state legislatures.


I don't care who raided Cohens office. I do care that the law was broken. Democrat or republican place them under the law and prosecute. If it's republican I'm ok with that.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

How was the law broken? The had a court order from a Federal judge.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

KEN W said:


> How was the law broken? The had a court order from a Federal judge.


 As I understand it they took more than they were entitled to. Court orders are very specific and they took everything. There is no way to know, but 90% of that had to be unrelated. That means that everything at your attorneys office could be taken while they are looking for something for someone else. Would you like that?

If I had broken the law, probably not.If I had nothing to hide, what difference would it make?


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

What laws were broken....confidentiality..... if not...

Why is Hannity now getting thrown under the bus? Was he under investigation for anything? Or is it just because he was saying, "I am not a client of Cohen"....

Think about it. Why is Hannity now in hot water by the other media outlets?

I honestly haven't been following this Hannity thing that closely. So if someone can inform me on this.

But like I said... if Hannity hasn't broken any laws, how did his stuff get "leaked" if it wasn't from this raid??? I know the other media outlets seem to be throwing him under the bus with some of his real estate deals. But landlords evict, raise rent, change leases, "clean up" places every single day. Why is his dealings now so worse than others????


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Chuck Smith said:


> What laws were broken....
> 
> Why is Hannity now getting thrown under the bus? Was he under investigation for anything? Or is it just because he was saying, "I am not a client of Cohen"....
> 
> ...


Because liberals are not concerned with doing what's right only power and they don't care who they destroy. Tried by media not court.


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

Plainsman said:


> KEN W said:
> 
> 
> > How was the law broken? The had a court order from a Federal judge.
> ...


They didn't break any laws, had obtained the proper court authority and proceeded with the action. As with any seizure of this type dealing with lawyers and clients, it all goes to a third entity for review to see if it is privileged information or not. Privileged information is returned and not admissible in any legal action and the rest is free to be used.

It's all a bull**** smoke screen that makes for good press, click bait and stirs up the base, but in the end it was 100% legal and properly done.

You can question a judges motivations, but it was a republican justice that signed the court order so there is that too.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

In Washington there is very little real difference between democrats and republicans. Most are corrupt power hungry the worst of society. Republicans hate Trump as much as democrats do. Because the judge was Republican means nothing. Stop thinking with partisan bias.

If everything is above board how did Hannitys name come out? If they are using a third party to look at all confiscated files who is he or her?


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

"Cohen's lawyers revealed during a hearing in Manhattan Federal Court about the April 9 FBI raids on his office, hotel room and home that he has been the attorney to the conservative commentator for the past two years."

The judge ordered Cohen's lawyers to name the person.How would she even know there was another person represented by Cohen unless Cohen's own lawyers told her there was someone else. Doesn't sound illegal.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ken,

Yep there it sounds why Hannity's name was brought up. The judge ordered it. The only thing that could have been breeched is "confidentiality" laws Which if the stuff got leaked and what not. But again if a judge ordered it. Then confidentiality is thrown out the window. Unless a sealed type doc situation. But this doesn't sound like that was the case.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Another lie. So what else is new?? uke:

After emphatically denying any knowledge of having sex With Stormy Daniels, then denying the $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels, we now know the fake president repaid his lawyer Cohen. This guy lies all the time. Yet I'm guessing his faithful base won't care. :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll:

How is this different than Bill Clinton saying " I did not have sex with that woman." Yet Republicans went ballistic.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Trumps own staff members didn't know he paid Daniels off. So they kept repeating his lies. Especially Sanders his press secretary. What credibility does she have? Even though she may not know she is spreading Trumps lies.

Rudi Giuliani....."I wanted to get out in front of the Special Counsel and the Southern District of NY because at some point they would realize this information and leak it." He probably should have let the rest of the staff know ahead of time that he would be making a liar of their boss again.

Also, I guess it's OK to release a glowing medical report from the Whitehouse Doctor that says you are the healthiest president ever and write it yourself.

As we all know....." the fish rots from the head down."


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

KEN W said:


> Another lie. So what else is new?? uke:
> 
> After emphatically denying any knowledge of having sex With Stormy Daniels, then denying the $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels, we now know the fake president repaid his lawyer Cohen. This guy lies all the time. Yet I'm guessing his faithful base won't care. :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll:
> 
> How is this different than Bill Clinton saying " I did not have sex with that woman." Yet Republicans went ballistic.


I do care....It bothers me that he lied about something he did BEFORE he was in office........... though having sex with a porn star when you are a regular citizen IS a little different than having sex with a staffer when you are in office as president. .


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

I'm not afraid to admit it ..I didn't vote for Trump just because he is a Republican or because I though he would make a great president... I voted for him with the anticipation he would shake this country to its core. That he would be a wakeup call to all the citizens of this country. he definitely is shaking up the country but I fear it may not be the wakeup call I had hoped. Both parties are still showing their unwillingness to do their jobs, work together and quit bowing down to special interests.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

dakotashooter2 said:


> I'm not afraid to admit it ..I didn't vote for Trump just because he is a Republican or because I though he would make a great president... I voted for him with the anticipation he would shake this country to its core. That he would be a wakeup call to all the citizens of this country. he definitely is shaking up the country but I fear it may not be the wakeup call I had hoped. Both parties are still showing their unwillingness to do their jobs, work together and quit bowing down to special interests.


 :thumb:



> How is this different than Bill Clinton saying " I did not have sex with that woman." Yet Republicans went ballistic.


 Come on Ken you know the answer to that.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Like I mentioned before....

1. He did this when he was a civilian.
2. He could have been ad hearing to a confidentiality agreement.

Now am I upset that he just doesn't own up to it now that the catch is really out of the bag... Yep. But again this all happened before he had any political party and was between two consenting adults. It was one who was trying to "further" her career on a TV show. She admitted she wasn't attracted to him but yet decided to sleep with him. She admitted he DIDN'T say anything like... "sleep with me and I will get you on the show". So it was two consenting adults sleeping with each other. Yes an affair is wrong. But they happen.

Also you bring up Monica and Bill...... one was the sitting president of the USA the other was an intern. Even though Monica and Bill was consenting adults. In the real world people get fired over that on situation. HUGE difference than what president Trump did. If you cant see the difference they you do have blinders on.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Chuck....I should have clarified Clinton.....not Monica Lewinski. I was talking about his fooling around before he was president like Trumps situation. Paula Jones and Jennifer Flowers.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

KEN W said:


> Chuck....I should have clarified Clinton.....not Monica Lewinski. I was talking about his fooling around before he was president like Trumps situation. Paula Jones and Jennifer Flowers.


Yes that's almost the same. Clinton it sounds like was forceful. Then there is the lady he bit and roughed up. I can't remember her name right now. Hmmm I think Anita Broadwick.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

*LYING is NOT a crime *

"The U.S. Supreme Court deemed lying about military service or medals a matter of free speech when in 2012 it struck down the Stolen Valor Act of 2005, signed into law by President George W. Bush.

Intentionally lying about, embellishing or fabricating one's military service, medals or awards was protected speech under the First Amendment, the court ruled. But in 2013, President Barack Obama signed a revised version of the Stolen Valor Act that defined the violation as relating to fraudulent claims about military service "with intent to obtain money, property, or other tangible benefit."

*You can google this for more detail*


----------

