And to clarify, I have no ill feeling toward prostitutes nor do I condemn the gay man.
Thanks for clearing that up.
And to clarify, I have no ill feeling toward prostitutes nor do I condemn the gay man.
What is the story.
The 60 Minutes interview last night with the prostitute subject and the gay male reporter who was weaned on his trust fund has no place in objective journalism, IMHO.
I dont think him being gay is relevant as this wasnt a story about gay rights or a gay person. However, interviewing a Porn Star because she had sex with the president 12 years ago seems crazy to me. I have no issue reporting the affair but seriously 60 minutes spending time with her to get her side of the story is crazy. The old pros from 60 Minutes who have have passed away, are probably turning in their graves. What is the story. She had an affair Trump and had sex 12 years ago. She was paid to shut up and accepted the money and now feels because Trump didnt sign the paperwork that she is now entitled to either sell her story and make more money or two, she feels as a porn actress that the world needs to know the true story. And of course someone who she has no idea who they are, threatened her life and assumes it must be Trump people. The fact that 60 Minutes got their hands dirty with this is disgusting.
Is paying someone to not reveal a sexual affair illegal? If not, there is no issue. However threatening someone with a disclosure if they dont pay up money is illegal. Not saying she did that.Perhaps the "story" is that the hush money was paid 10 days before the election, not that she spanked him with a magazine 12 years before.
Yes but they interviewed the Clintons, that is the difference.I dont think him being gay is relevant as this wasnt a story about gay rights or a gay person. However, interviewing a Porn Star because she had sex with the president 12 years ago seems crazy to me. I have no issue reporting the affair but seriously 60 minutes spending time with her to get her side of the story is crazy. The old pros from 60 Minutes who have have passed away, are probably turning in their graves. What is the story. She had an affair Trump and had sex 12 years ago. She was paid to shut up and accepted the money and now feels because Trump didnt sign the paperwork that she is now entitled to either sell her story and make more money or two, she feels as a porn actress that the world needs to know the true story. And of course someone who she has no idea who they are, threatened her life and assumes it must be Trump people. The fact that 60 Minutes got their hands dirty with this is disgusting.
It's been 26 years since Bill and Hilary sat under the hot lights in the top post-Super Bowl time slot and had the "old pros from 60 Minutes" asking questions about a presidential hopeful's extramarital affair. This sort of thing has been news for a long time.
They spoke at length with a former head of the federal elections commission. His feeling is they have a better case against the Trump lawyer than they did with Edwards.I don't know if questions were pointed in that direction
They interviewed Clinton for the affair he had with an intern while he was in office, not for the affairs he had prior to being POTUS.Yes but they interviewed the Clintons, that is the difference.I dont think him being gay is relevant as this wasnt a story about gay rights or a gay person. However, interviewing a Porn Star because she had sex with the president 12 years ago seems crazy to me. I have no issue reporting the affair but seriously 60 minutes spending time with her to get her side of the story is crazy. The old pros from 60 Minutes who have have passed away, are probably turning in their graves. What is the story. She had an affair Trump and had sex 12 years ago. She was paid to shut up and accepted the money and now feels because Trump didnt sign the paperwork that she is now entitled to either sell her story and make more money or two, she feels as a porn actress that the world needs to know the true story. And of course someone who she has no idea who they are, threatened her life and assumes it must be Trump people. The fact that 60 Minutes got their hands dirty with this is disgusting.
It's been 26 years since Bill and Hilary sat under the hot lights in the top post-Super Bowl time slot and had the "old pros from 60 Minutes" asking questions about a presidential hopeful's extramarital affair. This sort of thing has been news for a long time.
I actually think Anderson Cooper does a decent job of remaining impartial, at least in comparison to the affected histrionics you see from the likes of Jim Acosta, Jake Tapper, or Chris Cuomo.
Dont call me ShirleyYour question is not one that has relevance here, because it twists the point. Translation: I'm not taking the bait, sorry. I will say thatIf a reporter being gay disqualifies them from being objective, what about all the reporters who are gay that you don't know are gay?The 60 Minutes interview last night with the prostitute subject and the gay male reporter who was weaned on his trust fund has no place in objective journalism, IMHO.
taking a minority group (someone practicing the profession of prostitution) and have that person interviewed by another minority group (gay males, and in this one who has been sucking on a silver spoon since birth), does detract from the objectivity of the interview.
And to clarify, I have no ill feeling toward prostitutes nor do I condemn the gay man. That is all the response you will get from me on your inquiry.
Shirley, you can't be serious.
Is paying someone to not reveal a sexual affair illegal? If not, there is no issue. However threatening someone with a disclosure if they dont pay up money is illegal. Not saying she did that.
Yes, i heard about it being called a undisclosed campaign contribution. Like John Edwards, it is really a reach just to hurt Trump although if true, it is probably a problemIs paying someone to not reveal a sexual affair illegal? If not, there is no issue. However threatening someone with a disclosure if they dont pay up money is illegal. Not saying she did that.
I haven't heard anyone say that it was illegal for Candidate Trump's personal attorney to pay an adult film actress $130k days before the 2016 election in fulfillment of a signed non-disclosure agreement concerning her relationship with Donald Trump. I have heard, just Friday as a matter of fact on Bret Baier's Special Report, that the payment might be construed as an undisclosed campaign contribution. Therein lies the rub.
Read the case against John Edwards. Very similar. Payment to paramour during the campaign by a third party.
They interviewed Clinton for the affair he had with an intern while he was in office, not for the affairs he had prior to being POTUS.
Yes, i heard about it being called a undisclosed campaign contribution. Like John Edwards, it is really a reach just to hurt Trump although if true, it is probably a problem