Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 26, 2024 0:03:50 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2016 2:32:08 GMT
link
I was watching Rachel Maddow show tonight and she had this story involving the DC Madam from 2007-08. In 2007 a woman by the name Deborah Jeane Palfrey was arrested for running an escort service in DC. At the time she claimed she didn't have names of her customers but only had phone numbers which she released to ABC news. She hoped they could put a name to the number and therefore Palfrey would have a pool of potential men who could testify for her. A couple of names did surface but her plan didn't work and she was convicted for racketeering. She committed suicide in 2008. The information with the numbers etc was sealed by a gag order. In January of this year her attorney at the time has decided there is information contained in those records that should be released to public as they have a right to hear it before they vote in state primaries and the Democratic and Republican conventions. He went to court to get the gag order removed and the lower court denied his request. Now he has gone to the Supreme Court stating time is of the essence as the information is relevant to the presidential race. And if the Supreme Court won't lift the gag order he will release the information anyway because of how important it is to the Presidential Election. There are only 5 candidates left. Who could it be and what is this information? How crazy is this?
|
|
|
Post by MorellisCupcake on Mar 30, 2016 2:43:48 GMT
It feels more like a reality TV show than a presidential election!
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Mar 30, 2016 2:48:42 GMT
I dislike people trying to skirt the law and do it anyway (lawyer). I do wonder why there was a gag ordered issued.
And again, I don't care who someone was tapping nor whether they paid for it or not almost a decade ago.
Unless it was Hillary. That would just take it to a new level of conservative head explosions.
|
|
|
Post by pierkiss on Mar 30, 2016 2:58:35 GMT
I highly doubt it was Cruz or Rubio. They weren't around when all this shit originally went down.
|
|
raindancer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,095
Jun 26, 2014 20:10:29 GMT
|
Post by raindancer on Mar 30, 2016 3:06:11 GMT
I highly doubt it was Cruz or Rubio. They weren't around when all this shit originally went down. What do you mean?
|
|
|
Post by mom on Mar 30, 2016 3:24:23 GMT
I highly doubt it was Cruz or Rubio. They weren't around when all this shit originally went down. Cruz was. He worked for the DOJ, FTC and was a policy advisor to GWB. That would have been around 2000 or so.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Mar 30, 2016 7:45:06 GMT
I watched Rachel, too. She has just been full of sex scandals this week. They are last on my list of interesting scandals but whatever.
I will admit to thinking it's got to be either Cruz or Sanders. Or either of the Clintons. Or I guess it could have been Kasich. I think Trump is clear on this one, but who knows?
|
|
|
Post by miominmio on Mar 30, 2016 10:49:44 GMT
In France, whoever it is would probably have been guaranteed to win the election. Anyone remember Mitterand?
|
|
|
Post by pierkiss on Mar 30, 2016 11:01:44 GMT
I highly doubt it was Cruz or Rubio. They weren't around when all this shit originally went down. Cruz was. He worked for the DOJ, FTC and was a policy advisor to GWB. That would have been around 2000 or so. Interesting! I thought he was relatively new to the political scene.
|
|
|
Post by gar on Mar 30, 2016 13:06:21 GMT
In France, whoever it is would probably have been guaranteed to win the election. Anyone remember Mitterand? Berlusconi anyone?
|
|
|
Post by mom on Mar 30, 2016 13:23:34 GMT
Well, my guess is that it is Cruz or Bill Clinton. But Cruz is my first choice.
I think there could be some merit to the National Enquirer allegations that they have accused him of. For being a sleazy reporting agency, they have been right before.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Mar 30, 2016 13:44:50 GMT
Can I have "Useless Bets for $1000 please?" If it's The Donald, no one would be surprised or care. The Donald has already tried to smear Cruz with alleged sex scandals that boggle the imagination too much already. Kasich..... hmm.... he's only going somewhere in his own imagination. Hardly worth the effort. Sanders..... who would care? So, if it's crucial to the election, my bet is Hillary. There were a lot of rumors of her sexual "experiences" circulating back in the day. So....... those of us who remember won't have the same shock as it coming from out of the blue. And considering the ice her husband already publicly broke about their something on the side kind of sex life.... All in all, I think the whole thing is futile. Unless it turns up a video of Hillary Clinton holding a smoking gun over Vince Foster's body. Then it might be worth the trouble. I give it a big yawn.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Mar 30, 2016 13:49:18 GMT
Well, my guess is that it is Cruz or Bill Clinton. But Cruz is my first choice. I think there could be some merit to the National Enquirer allegations that they have accused him of. For being a sleazy reporting agency, they have been right before. They were right before so they must be right now? But nothing about Hillary over 20+ years is worth believing.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 26, 2024 0:03:50 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2016 13:52:40 GMT
If it is Bill Clinton we already know that! It could be the Donald or Ted. The others are irrelevant.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 26, 2024 0:03:50 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2016 13:57:56 GMT
Well, my guess is that it is Cruz or Bill Clinton. But Cruz is my first choice. I think there could be some merit to the National Enquirer allegations that they have accused him of. For being a sleazy reporting agency, they have been right before. They were right before so they must be right now? But nothing about Hillary over 20+ years is worth believing. They've also been wrong before. leftturnonly, I'll see your yawn and raise you a little nap.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Mar 31, 2016 0:42:25 GMT
Well, I forgot that Rachel later said this attorney is something of a loose cannon. So maybe it IS nothing but a big yawn.
And if it's not a big yawn, my bet is on Cruz.
|
|
zztop11
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,510
Oct 10, 2014 0:54:51 GMT
|
Post by zztop11 on Mar 31, 2016 0:51:04 GMT
Maybe it was Hillary? (That's a modern answer.) But in all honesty, we may have a right to know who it is but does it really matter? On the one hand, a person might say that they wouldn't vote for a person who broke the law, but going to a prostitute. I think I consider that the same as smoking pot years ago. Lots of people did it and they didn't hurt anyone. Does it really make a difference if a presidential candidate saw a prostitute?
|
|
|
Post by refugeepea on Mar 31, 2016 1:10:17 GMT
I just can't.
|
|
|
Post by refugeepea on Mar 31, 2016 1:16:22 GMT
Maybe it was Hillary? (That's a modern answer.) But in all honesty, we may have a right to know who it is but does it really matter? On the one hand, a person might say that they wouldn't vote for a person who broke the law, but going to a prostitute. I think I consider that the same as smoking pot years ago. Lots of people did it and they didn't hurt anyone. Does it really make a difference if a presidential candidate saw a prostitute? If it does get out, I can see the other candidates making it a human trafficking issue.
|
|
|
Post by lovetodigi on Mar 31, 2016 1:46:01 GMT
My guess would be Cruz or possibly Sanders. Sadly, if it were Trump, it would probably endear him to his followers even more. Nothing seem to stick with him. There is already some question regarding Cruz and prostitutes, so he seems the most likely.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Mar 31, 2016 1:52:24 GMT
My guess would be Cruz or possibly Sanders. Sadly, if it were Trump, it would probably endear him to his followers even more. Nothing seem to stick with him. There is already some question regarding Cruz and prostitutes, so he seems the most likely. That's what I was thinking, too.
|
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_green.png)
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Mar 31, 2016 1:52:44 GMT
Maybe it was Hillary? (That's a modern answer.) But in all honesty, we may have a right to know who it is but does it really matter? On the one hand, a person might say that they wouldn't vote for a person who broke the law, but going to a prostitute. I think I consider that the same as smoking pot years ago. Lots of people did it and they didn't hurt anyone. Does it really make a difference if a presidential candidate saw a prostitute? I think it would to me, because it's evidence of poor moral judgment, lack of integrity, no respect for the law, and if they were married at the time, disrespect of their vows. For me, that's a pretty good evidence of character. I know people can change, but sometimes they don't.
I'll be shocked if it's not Trump.
On the other hand, would he have gone to such lengths to protect his privacy? I can see him throwing it all to the wind and not caring who knew or not.
|
|
|
Post by bothmykidsrbrats on Mar 31, 2016 2:15:37 GMT
Maybe Hillary was moonlighting as a hooker and had a 3 way with Trump and Cruz. ![](http://i1168.photobucket.com/albums/r481/2peasrefugees/Smilies/happy-dance.gif)
|
|
|
Post by lovetodigi on Mar 31, 2016 2:16:37 GMT
There is this story going around which could fit. Whether there is any bearing on the story or not, it happened in 2005 so is close to the same timeline. Something had Cruz's wife really upset if the police report is true. Police find Ted Cruz's wife
|
|
|
Post by tidegirl on Mar 31, 2016 2:42:44 GMT
Maybe Hillary was moonlighting as a hooker and had a 3 way with Trump and Cruz. ![](http://i1168.photobucket.com/albums/r481/2peasrefugees/Smilies/happy-dance.gif) For the win! ...maybe we should allow the 4 (Clinton, Sanders, Trump and Cruz) of them move into the White House and see who is standing come November.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Mar 31, 2016 3:03:08 GMT
My guess would be Cruz or possibly Sanders. Sadly, if it were Trump, it would probably endear him to his followers even more. Nothing seem to stick with him. There is already some question regarding Cruz and prostitutes, so he seems the most likely. Isn't it crazy that nothing seems to stick to Trump!!! I sit here laughing at how ridiculous it's going!
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Mar 31, 2016 3:07:35 GMT
There is this story going around which could fit. Whether there is any bearing on the story or not, it happened in 2005 so is close to the same timeline. Something had Cruz's wife really upset if the police report is true. Police find Ted Cruz's wifeCruz was in Texas during this time frame - he was Solicitor General of Texas from 2003 to 2008. I don't care for Cruz - and have no issue with anyone reflecting on his personal behavior - or potential three-somes with other candidates. I do however think spouses and children should be off limits. I do not know or care to speculate on why Heidi Cruz was depressed in 2005 - but think it's particularly distasteful to use her in this manner. ETA and for the record, if any politician's family member is also a politician - they don't receive the same hands off treatment.
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Mar 31, 2016 11:23:55 GMT
Unless it turns up a video of Hillary Clinton holding a smoking gun over Vince Foster's body. Then it might be worth the trouble. I give it a big yawn. That's the one conspiracy theory I've always sort of thought possible. Maybe I even believe it, at least I would not have put it past her.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 26, 2024 0:03:50 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2016 2:01:09 GMT
So an update of sorts.
Rachel Maddow had news involving these mysterious phone numbers that if released could change how folks vote.
First the lawyer has now set up a "dead man's switch" that if tripped would send information to multiple reporters telling them where they could find these phone numbers. It would be tripped if this clock or whatever it is doesn't get reset within 72 hours. The lawyer resets the clock every 24 hours and if nothing happens for 72 hours the information will be released to reporters.
Second the Supreme Court has put his request on the docket. It seems Roberts will review the request and decide if the court will take up the case. The lawyer has said he won't do anything, like release the phone numbers without an ok from the courts, until Roberts decides if the court will take the case or not.
Still watching Rachel. Rubio is out of the race. Alaska was getting ready to give his delegates away. When Rubio got wind of this and promptly sent a letter to Alaska and basically said not so fast. While he may be out of the race he wants to hold on to his delegates. Later a spokesperson said he is holding on to his delegates to give the people a chance to stop Trump. I'm surprised he can even keep the delegates now that he is out of the race.
Last little bit of news from Rachel. When Eric Cantor was still in Congress he set it up that instead of the Feds paying for the Democratic and Republican Conventions corporations would pay for the conventions. Problem is the Republicans are having a hard time getting any corporations to commit. It appears the corporations are afraid to have their names all over a convention that could go south real fast with this stop Trump agenda and Trump all but inviting his supporters to protest/riot if the nomination is taken away from him.
This election just keeps getting crazier by the day.
|
|
|
Post by lovetodigi on Apr 3, 2016 2:51:22 GMT
So an update of sorts. Rachel Maddow had news involving these mysterious phone numbers that if released could change how folks vote. First the lawyer has now set up a "dead man's switch" that if tripped would send information to multiple reporters telling them where they could find these phone numbers. It would be tripped if this clock or whatever it is doesn't get reset within 72 hours. The lawyer resets the clock every 24 hours and if nothing happens for 72 hours the information will be released to reporters. Second the Supreme Court has put his request on the docket. It seems Roberts will review the request and decide if the court will take up the case. The lawyer has said he won't do anything, like release the phone numbers without an ok from the courts, until Roberts decides if the court will take the case or not. Still watching Rachel. Rubio is out of the race. Alaska was getting ready to give his delegates away. When Rubio got wind of this and promptly sent a letter to Alaska and basically said not so fast. While he may be out of the race he wants to hold on to his delegates. Later a spokesperson said he is holding on to his delegates to give the people a chance to stop Trump. I'm surprised he can even keep the delegates now that he is out of the race. Last little bit of news from Rachel. When Eric Cantor was still in Congress he set it up that instead of the Feds paying for the Democratic and Republican Conventions corporations would pay for the conventions. Problem is the Republicans are having a hard time getting any corporations to commit. It appears the corporations are afraid to have their names all over a convention that could go south real fast with this stop Trump agenda and Trump all but inviting his supporters to protest/riot if the nomination is taken away from him. This election just keeps getting crazier by the day. This is floating around on Twitter and FB If true, it looks as though the list of phone numbers has been found and it is Cruz.
|
|