Mr. Cohen, an attorney, received a monthly retainer, not from the campaign and having nothing to do with the campaign, from which he entered into, through reimbursement, a private contract between two parties, known as a non-disclosure agreement, or NDA. These agreements are.....— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 3, 2018
...very common among celebrities and people of wealth. In this case it is in full force and effect and will be used in Arbitration for damages against Ms. Clifford (Daniels). The agreement was used to stop the false and extortionist accusations made by her about an affair,......— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 3, 2018
...despite already having signed a detailed letter admitting that there was no affair. Prior to its violation by Ms. Clifford and her attorney, this was a private agreement. Money from the campaign, or campaign contributions, played no roll in this transaction.— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 3, 2018
Daily Mail: Trump now says Stormy Daniels was paid $130,000 out of private monthly retainer to lawyer Cohen as a 'legal expense' but NOT from campaign funds - as Giuliani says: 'Imagine if that came out in the last debate with Hillary'
* Trump lawyer Michael Cohen gave porn star Stormy Daniels $130,000 in hush money before the 2016 election
* Daniels has claimed the money was meant to keep her from revealing an alleged affair she had with Trump over a decade ago
* Giuliani said Trump reimbursed Cohen by 'funneling' the cash through a law firm over the course of 'months'
* The former NY Mayor also dubbed Hillary Clinton a 'criminal' and called James Comey a 'pervert' and a 'disgraceful liar'
* Daniels' attorney, Michael Avenatti, said Giuliani's comments were a 'stunning revelation' and that Trump 'evidently participated in a felony'
* Now Trump has laid out his legal argument, saying on Twitter that Cohen was on a regular retainer and paid Daniels as an ordinary legal expense
* Avenatti scoffed: 'We've been playing three dimensional chess, they've been playing tic-tac-toe'
* Giuliani said on 'Fox & Friends' that Avenatti is an 'ambulance chaser' who's representing Daniels for the money
* Also claimed the payment's purpose was to save the Trump's marriage, not to save the president's campaign
* But he suggested that a bombshell claim from Daniels would have had disastrous consequences for the president's political prospects
Donald Trump claimed Thursday morning that a $130,000 hush-money payment to a porn star who claims to have been his mistress was an ordinary legal expense – part of the costs covered by a monthly retainer agreement between him and his longtime lawyer Michael Cohen.
'Mr. Cohen, an attorney, received a monthly retainer, not from the campaign and having nothing to do with the campaign, from which he entered into, through reimbursement, a private contract between two parties, known as a non-disclosure agreement, or NDA,' Trump wrote in a series of tweets.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: My gut is telling me that the President decided to go clean on this because of the raid on his personal lawyer, and maybe also because of this .... Feds tapped phones of Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, and caught one call with White House: NBC News (NBC News). Will this change anything .... here is the shocker .... not really. I have seen this media show with President Trump when he started running for the Presidency. First it was his remarks on women. Then it was collusion with Russia. Then it was obstruction of justice. And now it is his lawyer paying off his hooker from years ago so that he can save his marriage. But in all of this press coverage and punditry .... after being intensely scrutinized for almost two years .... I have yet to see anyone presenting evidence of a crime being committed by the President. That the best that they can hope for is charging him with a process crime .... if they can get him to be questioned in the Mueller fishing expedition. And in the meantime President Trump's agenda continues, and his popularity remains unchanged .... Daily Presidential Tracking Poll (Rasmussen).
Update: Watching the White House briefing right now. The press is going out of its way to claim that the Press Secretary should be investigated for lying to the press?!?!?!? My God .... the press is insane .... they are trying to invent crimes against the Press Secretary. But this is so predictable. As I had mentioned yesterday .... destroy all those who are close to the President .... A Look At How The Russia Probe Is Destroying Families (May 2, 2018).
Update #2: I am not familiar with Sean Hannity .... but he is everywhere on American news. He must be rolling on the ground with laughter from all of this attention.
15 comments:
My comment is Not about what you say editorially but rather the use of Rasmussen. I had earlier told you that Rasmussen seldom or never in line with the other major polls. You said you would look into this. Clearly continuing to use ONLY Rasmussen is to lean heavily to the right. Want eviden? Then GO HERE AND SEE THE BIAS YOU POST
No crime? Perhaps legal minds view this stuff in a different manner and see TWO CRIMES POTENTIALLY
Fred,
I have posted it before so I will do it again. But in the last Presidential election Rasmussen was .... after Investor's Business Daily and TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence collaborative poll .... the most accurate poll of the election.
http://thehill.com/media/306721-rasmussen-calls-itself-most-accurate-pollster-of-2016
Nate Silver's FiveThrityEight .... the link that you provide and who has been the Democrat pollster for a long time .... predicted this on election day .... https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
To put it bluntly .... his poll numbers were nowhere close, and they probably did great harm to the Clinton campaign making them believe that the election was a certainty when it was not.
As for committing crimes .... as I said before, this is the same old dog and pony show. Media and pundits get exercised that crimes have been committed and spend a few days and weeks talking about it. Get all those who cannot stand Trump get excited that he may be charged .... and then nothing. I just read the Vanity Fair article that you linked to .... there is a lot of speculation of crimes being committed .... but when you really dig into it .... the writer provides no evidence. Just her opinion that the President's lawyer is contradicting himself. Is that a crime? No.
the polls were wrong. granted. that does not take into account what seems other forces that got the electoral college but left the polls still right by 3 million votes
that said, you point to the election only which, by every account is an oddity...Silver is considered very objective though you state otherwise.
rasmussen cherry picks the left leaning places dislike him and the conservative places adore him
Time magazine has described Rasmussen Reports as a "conservative-leaning polling group."[86] The Washington Post called Rasmussen a "polarizing pollster."[87] John Zogby said that Scott Rasmussen has a "conservative constituency."[88] The Center for Public Integrity listed "Scott Rasmussen Inc" as a paid consultant for the 2004 George W. Bush campaign.[89] The Washington Post reported that the 2004 Bush re-election campaign had used a feature on the Rasmussen Reports website that allowed customers to program their own polls, and that Rasmussen asserted that he had not written any of the questions nor assisted Republicans.[72]
Rasmussen has received criticism over the wording in its polls.[90][91] Asking a polling question with different wording can affect the results of the poll;[92] the commentators in question allege that the questions Rasmussen ask in polls are skewed in order to favor a specific response. For instance, when Rasmussen polled whether Republican voters thought Rush Limbaugh was the leader of their party, the specific question they asked was: "Agree or Disagree: 'Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party—he says jump and they say how high.'"[91]
Talking Points Memo has questioned the methodology of Rasmussen's Presidential Approval Index, which takes into account only those who "strongly" approve or disapprove of the President's job performance. TPM noted that this inherently skews negative, and reported that multiple polling experts were critical of the concept.[43] A New York Times article claims Ramussen Reports research has a "record of relying on dubious sampling and weighting techniques."[93]
A 2017 article by Chris Cillizza for CNN raised doubts about Rasmussen's accuracy, drawing attention specifically to potential sampling biases such as the exclusion of calls to cell-phones (which, Cillizza argued, tended to exclude younger voters), and also more generally to a lack of methodological disclosure. Cillizza did, however, note in the same piece that Rasmussen was one of the more accurate polling organizations during the 2016 United States presidential election.[94]
I am the first to admit that polls are quite often used to push an agenda .... the media is doing this all the time. And they push it by skewing their sampling. Everything you have said is what I have heard from conservative pundits for years .... but their ire is directed at the main stream media and their use of polls. Same argument .... different sides of the coin.
But Rasmussen was more accurate on the 2016 election than every other poll (except one) .... and that cannot be taken away from them, though many are trying.
Yeah Fred, time to look in the mirror!
Fred there is no crime son, regardless of your wet dream wishes.
Fred,
It appears to me that you don't like Rasmussen yet you are unable to discredit them based upon merit. At this point, you resort to character assassinations to try and discredit them. They are "biased" or any other number of accusations to try and obfuscate. In fact, this appears to be a pattern for you. When you are losing an argument based upon merit, you resort to accusations to try and draw attention away from this. For example, in my case I am a "Russian troll" or you resort to cute snarky names for me such as "Boris," "Dimitri," or whatever. Perhaps the hope is if you can discredit Rasmussen or me you won't have to deal with the argument that you aren't winning based upon the merits.
"But Rasmussen was more accurate on the 2016 election than every other poll (except one)....and that cannot be taken away from them, though many are trying." If we could prove that this was an outlier and that Rasmussen polling was wrong most of the time, then perhaps we could put this in the category of "a broken clock is right twice a day" category." In this case, perhaps it could be "taken away from them." Given the repeated failures of many to try and discredit this pollster, you aren't the first who has tried it, this would not seem to be the case.
With this said, I really don't know much about polling. I will have to do more research on it. From what I can tell, it appears to be like trying to predict the weather in the Houston area of TX where I live except much, much harder to do. At least in the Houston area we know the summers will be hot and humid. Beyond this the weather is very difficult to predict. I'm not even sure polling can tell us even that much. "Inexact science would appear to be an apt descript of polling perhaps even an understatement!!
Personally I pay little attention to polling. Knowing it is used to push an agenda I find it of little value. Nevertheless this has gotten me curious. Time permitting I shall do some research on this.
Given the polls accuracy for the 2016 election, perhaps the pollsters and other "experts" you cite should be studying Rasmussen's methodology and trying to implement it!!
You mention the fact that Rasmussen worked for the Bush team. I didn't know that political consultation was a crime!! Like I said I don't know a great deal about polling and how it works. I do know politicians use "internal polling." Presumably they want to see how popular the candidate is and to find out what is important to the voting public. Bush did win two terms so it would appear his consultants did something right. If Rasmussen contributed to this, perhaps he knows how to poll.
Sorry but years before trump’s candidate I saw that Rasmussen always outlier and leaned heavily to the right
Tat is why drudge always cites them
I would prefer an aggregated poll average rather than one poll
If we set a precedent and get rid of Trump, because he may have paid a low class prostitute, then most of the people inside the Beltway will have to leave government service.
The Democrats need to keep digging. Poor dudes do not have any trench shoring.
"I would prefer an aggregated poll average rather than one poll"
Which once again shows you to be statistically inept and naive.
I would only need one poll from any side.
Good God, how many English PhD's does it take to screw in a light bulb?
Fred,
No need to be "sorry." So far you have tried to discredit them based upon alleged biases and methodology. You haven't been able to cite specific instances where they were any less accurate than others. When unable to discredit based upon merit, obfuscate or make accusations. With that said, if I were interested in polls, I agree that an aggregated poll average would be better than one poll.
I contacted a friend of mine who holds a state elected office and discussed the polling process and how it works specifically wanting to know why most of the polls missed the election outcome so badly. In a nutshell, the other pollsters employed traditional methods that appear to no longer apply whereas Rasmussen and the other accurate poll used social media and tried to ascertain the opinions of those who never voted.
Given the uncanny accuracy of Rasmussen and the other poll, dismissing their accurate result as mere is luck is problematic at best and possibly even intellectually dishonest. Furthermore when so many others got it wrong, it'd tend to suggest that their methods are horribly flawed. If only one or two got it wrong, it might more sense to dismiss this as bad luck or an unusual event.
As such, the original hypothesis that Rasmussen has superior methods and is thus a superior pollster appears to be confirmed. While I can't speak for Drudge, I would suspect they reference Rasmussen out of a desire to be accurate.
Now back to the theme of the original post by the editor, perhaps a "crime" was committed. If so and if this is how the de facto coup against a duly elected POTUS is to be justified the adverse effects to the country will likely be even worse than I thought. After all this time and all of the resources devoted to this, I would expect something of more substance.
You accuse POTUS of lying regularly yet are ubable or unwilling to cite specific examples. As the editor likes to say his "gut" tells him things. While I could be wrong, my "gut" tells me POTUS is not the same man today or when he announced his candidacy as he was 12 years ago or so when this alleged affair took place. Again, if we are going to justify a coup against a duly elected POTUS based upon this, we are in even worse trouble than I thought.
POTUS does tend to speak an tweet regularly about a large number of topics at length and off the cuff. Also, he tends to think aloud. When someone does this, they are bound to misspeak from time to time. I suppose this could be construed as "lying."
"No need to be "sorry." So far you have tried to discredit them based upon alleged biases and methodology. You haven't been able to cite specific instances"
Fred, Arch-liberal Democrat, may not have cited an instance, but he cited a method. He cited oversampling.
Rush Limbaugh often digs into the internals of a poll and compares the percentage of Democrats and Republicans sampled to the whole population. He does this for specific polls or instances.
Fred did not, so he is either spouting talking points or is flushed from reading Huffpo or WaPo.
Post a Comment