No 'Facts First' With Stormy Daniels

[volsrock]

The left's brazen double standard on the Stormy Daniels story is apparent to everyone. Suddenly, claims of sexual activity with the president before he became president are relevant. In the years of President Bill Clinton, his critics were told to "grow up about sex" because "libido and leadership are linked." The public was lectured about Clinton's accusers being liars who were seeking fame and money, "trash for cash."

Meet porn star Stormy Daniels. First, she was paid $15,000 by In Touch magazine in 2011 to claim that she had sex with Donald Trump (the story wasn't published). Then, she was paid $130,000 in October 2016 to shut up and not claim to have had sex with Donald Trump. History turned to farce when Daniels appeared on "60 Minutes" to break her nondisclosure agreement and shamelessly claimed: "I have no reason to lie. You know, I'm not getting paid to be here."

The 2016 payment to Daniels is an obvious news story. (Any conservative claiming he wouldn't have demanded coverage of a Clinton crony paying off a porn star right before an election would be a liar.) But all this money also creates problems for her credibility. She is currently cashing in with strip-club gigs, and CBS cashed in with boffo ratings. CBS may not have paid for this interview, but both sides walked away with a payoff.

Before Trump was president, Daniels could demand six figures in return for her silence. After his election, she realized she could make fortunes more breaking that silence.

Liberals think the double standard here is that socially conservative people voted for Trump and now don't care about his sleazy treatment of his wives and children. They somehow missed that many socially conservative people voted for other candidates in the primaries because of his questionable behavior but ultimately supported him rather than accept the alternative -- her.

But put aside the conservative morality for a second. The media's current lamentation that we live in a "post-truth" world while they operate by the "Facts First" motto did not match the Daniels interview. These same networks refused to publish or air interviews for months when it was Clinton accusers Paula Jones or Juanita Broaddrick; they demanded claims be investigated and confirmed.

The "news" in this interview was the porn star's claim of being threatened in a parking lot in 2011. Did CBS investigate this until it was confirmed? No. Does she offer any proof? No. Can she even prove that this alleged bully allegedly worked for Trump? No. So why is it on television?

Our media also now claim to be solid members of the #MeToo movement, but everyone alive in the Clinton era knows the media didn't care about allegations of sexual harassment, or even rape, lodged against Bill Clinton.

Then we learned they didn't care about allegations of sexual harassment and assault when lodged against their own people in TV news.

It's shameless for "60 Minutes" to devote 26 minutes of airtime to a claim of consensual sex with (and alleged threats by) Donald Trump when it hasn't spared a minute since former CBS star Charlie Rose was exposed in November to discuss what he allegedly did to his female employees. And Rose did interviews on "60 Minutes" for years.

Staunch Trump-backing women appeared on CNN after the big Daniels interview to say this story is "all part of a media plot to bring down Donald Trump." That is an incontestable fact. For most journalists, political victory for liberals comes first. Facts do not.


https://townhall.com/columnists/bren...niels-n2465289


For 20 years Democrats have been teaching us that the personal life styles of our elected leaders is private and not a consideration in determining the desirability of a candidate. Are we now supposed to relearn that this hard won lesson was wrong, or did it only apply to Democrat candidates?

[floridafan]

The left's brazen double standard on the Stormy Daniels story is apparent to everyone. Suddenly, claims of sexual activity with the president before he became president are relevant. In the years of President Bill Clinton, his critics were told to "grow up about sex" because "libido and leadership are linked." The public was lectured about Clinton's accusers being liars who were seeking fame and money, "trash for cash."

Meet porn star Stormy Daniels. First, she was paid $15,000 by In Touch magazine in 2011 to claim that she had sex with Donald Trump (the story wasn't published). Then, she was paid $130,000 in October 2016 to shut up and not claim to have had sex with Donald Trump. History turned to farce when Daniels appeared on "60 Minutes" to break her nondisclosure agreement and shamelessly claimed: "I have no reason to lie. You know, I'm not getting paid to be here."

The 2016 payment to Daniels is an obvious news story. (Any conservative claiming he wouldn't have demanded coverage of a Clinton crony paying off a porn star right before an election would be a liar.) But all this money also creates problems for her credibility. She is currently cashing in with strip-club gigs, and CBS cashed in with boffo ratings. CBS may not have paid for this interview, but both sides walked away with a payoff.

Before Trump was president, Daniels could demand six figures in return for her silence. After his election, she realized she could make fortunes more breaking that silence.

Liberals think the double standard here is that socially conservative people voted for Trump and now don't care about his sleazy treatment of his wives and children. They somehow missed that many socially conservative people voted for other candidates in the primaries because of his questionable behavior but ultimately supported him rather than accept the alternative -- her.

But put aside the conservative morality for a second. The media's current lamentation that we live in a "post-truth" world while they operate by the "Facts First" motto did not match the Daniels interview. These same networks refused to publish or air interviews for months when it was Clinton accusers Paula Jones or Juanita Broaddrick; they demanded claims be investigated and confirmed.

The "news" in this interview was the porn star's claim of being threatened in a parking lot in 2011. Did CBS investigate this until it was confirmed? No. Does she offer any proof? No. Can she even prove that this alleged bully allegedly worked for Trump? No. So why is it on television?

Our media also now claim to be solid members of the #MeToo movement, but everyone alive in the Clinton era knows the media didn't care about allegations of sexual harassment, or even rape, lodged against Bill Clinton.

Then we learned they didn't care about allegations of sexual harassment and assault when lodged against their own people in TV news.

It's shameless for "60 Minutes" to devote 26 minutes of airtime to a claim of consensual sex with (and alleged threats by) Donald Trump when it hasn't spared a minute since former CBS star Charlie Rose was exposed in November to discuss what he allegedly did to his female employees. And Rose did interviews on "60 Minutes" for years.

Staunch Trump-backing women appeared on CNN after the big Daniels interview to say this story is "all part of a media plot to bring down Donald Trump." That is an incontestable fact. For most journalists, political victory for liberals comes first. Facts do not.


https://townhall.com/columnists/bren...niels-n2465289


For 20 years Democrats have been teaching us that the personal life styles of our elected leaders is private and not a consideration in determining the desirability of a candidate. Are we now supposed to relearn that this hard won lesson was wrong, or did it only apply to Democrat candidates?

You cared about Clinton affairs, you dont care about Trumps. Thats your double standard

[Bourbon]

Don't play Poker if going to show your hand before all the cards are dealt.

[Bourbon]

You cared about Clinton affairs, you dont care about Trumps. Thats your double standard

Yea ... but Billy BJ don't pay chicks $130k to keep quiet.

[Nordberg]

2 in a week. McDougal and Stormy. They are the top of the pyramid. Trump has been a serial adulterer. His lack of respect for women and his vows, tells you something about the man. He is childish, selfish and does not care if he hurts others. His attitude makes his cabinet turnover to be over 50 percent. He has trouble getting lawyers because he has no trouble cheating them, , contractors or banks. You can see how he treats women in how he treats all people. He fucks them over. He uses them and walks way.

[Truth Detector]

You cared about Clinton affairs, you dont care about Trumps. Thats your double standard

That is a LIE; no one cared about Clinton's affairs. We cared that a sitting President would have the incredibly poor judgement to bang interns in the White House and then lie their faces off about it even under oath. We also had to care when women came forward with claims he had raped them.

You pretend there is no difference which makes you a lying hypocrite and a hyper partisan dumbass on steroids.

The loony double standard is owned by you morons on the left. There is a vast difference in the claims regarding Trump, and those regarding BillyBob whom you leftist dumbfucks protected and defended while attacking these women.

That is a fascinating fact considering this new demand that men who conduct themselves improperly are now deemed unworthy, yet BillyBob was fine raping and banging interns.

[Truth Detector]

Don't play Poker if going to show your hand before all the cards are dealt.

Have another drink you dumb drunkard.

[Truth Detector]

Yea ... but Billy BJ don't pay chicks $130k to keep quiet.

When did predators like BillyBob ever pay women they raped? Or pay interns who were gullible enough to be used?

You think there is similarity here shit-for-brains? The women who alleged they slept with Trump had nothing bad to say about the man and did so willingly. BillyBob just grabbed them and used them.

You shouldn't post while drunk and stupid.

[kudzu]

The left's brazen double standard on the Stormy Daniels story is apparent to everyone. Suddenly, claims of sexual activity with the president before he became president are relevant. In the years of President Bill Clinton, his critics were told to "grow up about sex" because "libido and leadership are linked." The public was lectured about Clinton's accusers being liars who were seeking fame and money, "trash for cash."

Meet porn star Stormy Daniels. First, she was paid $15,000 by In Touch magazine in 2011 to claim that she had sex with Donald Trump (the story wasn't published). Then, she was paid $130,000 in October 2016 to shut up and not claim to have had sex with Donald Trump. History turned to farce when Daniels appeared on "60 Minutes" to break her nondisclosure agreement and shamelessly claimed: "I have no reason to lie. You know, I'm not getting paid to be here."

The 2016 payment to Daniels is an obvious news story. (Any conservative claiming he wouldn't have demanded coverage of a Clinton crony paying off a porn star right before an election would be a liar.) But all this money also creates problems for her credibility. She is currently cashing in with strip-club gigs, and CBS cashed in with boffo ratings. CBS may not have paid for this interview, but both sides walked away with a payoff.

Before Trump was president, Daniels could demand six figures in return for her silence. After his election, she realized she could make fortunes more breaking that silence.

Liberals think the double standard here is that socially conservative people voted for Trump and now don't care about his sleazy treatment of his wives and children. They somehow missed that many socially conservative people voted for other candidates in the primaries because of his questionable behavior but ultimately supported him rather than accept the alternative -- her.

But put aside the conservative morality for a second. The media's current lamentation that we live in a "post-truth" world while they operate by the "Facts First" motto did not match the Daniels interview. These same networks refused to publish or air interviews for months when it was Clinton accusers Paula Jones or Juanita Broaddrick; they demanded claims be investigated and confirmed.

The "news" in this interview was the porn star's claim of being threatened in a parking lot in 2011. Did CBS investigate this until it was confirmed? No. Does she offer any proof? No. Can she even prove that this alleged bully allegedly worked for Trump? No. So why is it on television?

Our media also now claim to be solid members of the #MeToo movement, but everyone alive in the Clinton era knows the media didn't care about allegations of sexual harassment, or even rape, lodged against Bill Clinton.

Then we learned they didn't care about allegations of sexual harassment and assault when lodged against their own people in TV news.

It's shameless for "60 Minutes" to devote 26 minutes of airtime to a claim of consensual sex with (and alleged threats by) Donald Trump when it hasn't spared a minute since former CBS star Charlie Rose was exposed in November to discuss what he allegedly did to his female employees. And Rose did interviews on "60 Minutes" for years.

Staunch Trump-backing women appeared on CNN after the big Daniels interview to say this story is "all part of a media plot to bring down Donald Trump." That is an incontestable fact. For most journalists, political victory for liberals comes first. Facts do not.


https://townhall.com/columnists/bren...niels-n2465289


For 20 years Democrats have been teaching us that the personal life styles of our elected leaders is private and not a consideration in determining the desirability of a candidate. Are we now supposed to relearn that this hard won lesson was wrong, or did it only apply to Democrat candidates?

This is pretty pathetic... The Evangelicals don't care what Trump does.. Blame Stormy... and praise Trump.

[Truth Detector]

2 in a week. McDougal and Stormy. They are the top of the pyramid. Trump has been a serial adulterer.

There you go again with the stupid. But you were okay when BillyBob did it right? ::wink wink:: By the way, did Trump do anything that was illegal?

His lack of respect for women and his vows, tells you something about the man.

How do you arrive at this massive lie. The women who allege they slept with him described a man that was very respectful. Now BillyBob? That is an entirely different scenario but you were okay with that right?

Do liberal liars like you think you can just make shit up unchallenged and at will? Dunce.

He is childish, selfish and does not care if he hurts others.

You're describing BillyBob again. You know what else is childish? The lefts massive case of TDS. But alas, you're too much of a moron to comprehend the OBVIOUS aren't you?

His attitude makes his cabinet turnover to be over 50 percent.

Link please.

He has trouble getting lawyers because he has no trouble cheating them, , contractors or banks.

This is just patently false; but then, you do have a sociopathic tendency to lie.

You can see how he treats women in how he treats all people. He fucks them over. He uses them and walks way.

Another massive fabrication due to a serious case of TDS. Most who have personally dealt with him find him likeable and fair. But we get it; you're all mad and angry that he beat the corrupt ugly harpy you wanted to see as the first woman President and now CHILDISHLY refuse to accept the results of an election. We get it.......

WARNING……America hating leftist with a serious case of Trump Derangement Syndrome.…….WARNING!

[Truth Detector]

This is pretty pathetic... The Evangelicals don't care what Trump does.. Blame Stormy... and praise Trump.

Who is blaming Stormy? Another stupid strawman. Stormy is getting SUED for breach of contract. That is all. Trump did nothing illegal and this cacophony over a porn stars desire to find a payday is laughably stupid; but consistent with the stupidity we see erupting from the left and their CHILDLIKE hatred of a man they don't think should have won and now refuse to accept an election result.

[volsrock]

You cared about Clinton affairs, you dont care about Trumps. Thats your double standard

The only thing with Clinton at the time was that he did it in the WH, thats all I cared about at the time

[Bourbon]

Donny sure is really quiet when it comes to Stormy ... I wonder why?

[floridafan]

The only thing with Clinton at the time was that he did it in the WH, thats all I cared about at the time

Bull- just another pathetic excuse.

[kudzu]

The left's brazen double standard on the Stormy Daniels story is apparent to everyone. Suddenly, claims of sexual activity with the president before he became president are relevant. In the years of President Bill Clinton, his critics were told to "grow up about sex" because "libido and leadership are linked." The public was lectured about Clinton's accusers being liars who were seeking fame and money, "trash for cash."

Meet porn star Stormy Daniels. First, she was paid $15,000 by In Touch magazine in 2011 to claim that she had sex with Donald Trump (the story wasn't published). Then, she was paid $130,000 in October 2016 to shut up and not claim to have had sex with Donald Trump. History turned to farce when Daniels appeared on "60 Minutes" to break her nondisclosure agreement and shamelessly claimed: "I have no reason to lie. You know, I'm not getting paid to be here."

The 2016 payment to Daniels is an obvious news story. (Any conservative claiming he wouldn't have demanded coverage of a Clinton crony paying off a porn star right before an election would be a liar.) But all this money also creates problems for her credibility. She is currently cashing in with strip-club gigs, and CBS cashed in with boffo ratings. CBS may not have paid for this interview, but both sides walked away with a payoff.

Before Trump was president, Daniels could demand six figures in return for her silence. After his election, she realized she could make fortunes more breaking that silence.

Liberals think the double standard here is that socially conservative people voted for Trump and now don't care about his sleazy treatment of his wives and children. They somehow missed that many socially conservative people voted for other candidates in the primaries because of his questionable behavior but ultimately supported him rather than accept the alternative -- her.

But put aside the conservative morality for a second. The media's current lamentation that we live in a "post-truth" world while they operate by the "Facts First" motto did not match the Daniels interview. These same networks refused to publish or air interviews for months when it was Clinton accusers Paula Jones or Juanita Broaddrick; they demanded claims be investigated and confirmed.

The "news" in this interview was the porn star's claim of being threatened in a parking lot in 2011. Did CBS investigate this until it was confirmed? No. Does she offer any proof? No. Can she even prove that this alleged bully allegedly worked for Trump? No. So why is it on television?

Our media also now claim to be solid members of the #MeToo movement, but everyone alive in the Clinton era knows the media didn't care about allegations of sexual harassment, or even rape, lodged against Bill Clinton.

Then we learned they didn't care about allegations of sexual harassment and assault when lodged against their own people in TV news.

It's shameless for "60 Minutes" to devote 26 minutes of airtime to a claim of consensual sex with (and alleged threats by) Donald Trump when it hasn't spared a minute since former CBS star Charlie Rose was exposed in November to discuss what he allegedly did to his female employees. And Rose did interviews on "60 Minutes" for years.

Staunch Trump-backing women appeared on CNN after the big Daniels interview to say this story is "all part of a media plot to bring down Donald Trump." That is an incontestable fact. For most journalists, political victory for liberals comes first. Facts do not.


https://townhall.com/columnists/bren...niels-n2465289


For 20 years Democrats have been teaching us that the personal life styles of our elected leaders is private and not a consideration in determining the desirability of a candidate. Are we now supposed to relearn that this hard won lesson was wrong, or did it only apply to Democrat candidates?

Do you see a problem with Evangelicals?