Page 1 of 2
#1 Well Here We Go -- Here's the Beans! by conservgramma 25.03.2016 22:04

avatar

Gateway Pundit via MSNBC



Zitat
Donald Trump spokesperson Katrina Pierson finally spilled the beans on Heidi Cruz.
“Her entire career has been spent working against everything Ted Cruz says he stands for.”



And that too is fact -- Goldman Sacs, CFR, the North American Union and so on.

#2 RE: Well Here We Go -- Here's the Beans! by ThirstyMan 25.03.2016 22:29

avatar

This gets sordid pretty fast. Katrina Pierson is one of the five ladies identified by the National Enquirer as a Cruz extra marital partner. She works for Donald Trump as a spokesperson but before had an affair with Ted Cruz? Oh dear! I'm pretty sure she was the one who said the NE story was "1,000% false" but what is going on???

Ugh!!! I mean it, what is going on?

We the people are going to want the real truth to come out of this pretty fast. We can't tolerate this accusatory garbage talk, back and forth for long without it bringing all parties down to defeat.

#3 RE: Well Here We Go -- Here's the Beans! by conservgramma 25.03.2016 22:48

avatar

We just need some patience TM. Truth will eventually come out with these types of stories. I remember back when NE first outed Edwards it was a slow drip drip. He denied it, then another story, he denied again, then more evidence. I really don't think NE would have ran with this if they didn't have something in their backpockets yet to release.

Could be a video they are waiting to release. For right now they've got everybody's attention waiting for the next drop.

We'll see.

#4 RE: Well Here We Go -- Here's the Beans! by ThirstyMan 25.03.2016 22:57

avatar

Quote: conservgramma wrote in post #3
We just need some patience TM. Truth will eventually come out with these types of stories. I remember back when NE first outed Edwards it was a slow drip drip. He denied it, then another story, he denied again, then more evidence. I really don't think NE would have ran with this if they didn't have something in their backpockets yet to release.

Could be a video they are waiting to release. For right now they've got everybody's attention waiting for the next drop.

We'll see.


The NE has such a stellar track record for identifying cheaters. This one will be the biggest fall of them all if true. Cruz is affiliated with conservatism, Christian faith, social causes, a constitutional originalist among others. I don't mind him losing to Trump but if we must see him go down in absolute flames, that would be very damaging collaterally to OUR cause. This is painful!

#5 RE: Well Here We Go -- Here's the Beans! by Cincinnatus 26.03.2016 00:44

avatar

FWIW

As I drove tonight I was listening to Michael Savage. He stated he has a friend who used to work for NE and this individual, the friend, contacted his sources at NE who told him the story of Cruz affairs is bogus, and cleverly designed to avoid any legal difficulties by using innuendo, qualifiers, and the like.

So make of that what you will.

#6 RE: Well Here We Go -- Here's the Beans! by ThirstyMan 26.03.2016 00:47

avatar

Cleverly Designed hey? This is a new world then. It sure looks libelous to me.

#7 RE: Well Here We Go -- Here's the Beans! by ThirstyMan 26.03.2016 00:52

avatar

Quote: Cincinnatus wrote in post #5
FWIW

As I drove tonight I was listening to Michael Savage. He stated he has a friend who used to work for NE and this individual, the friend, contacted his sources at NE who told him the story of Cruz affairs is bogus, and cleverly designed to avoid any legal difficulties by using innuendo, qualifiers, and the like.

So make of that what you will.


A cleverly designed story by the GOP elites? and Ted quickly blamed the Trump people...

read this.....
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/03/...trump-campaign/

#8 RE: Well Here We Go -- Here's the Beans! by algernonpj 26.03.2016 06:52

avatar

The Conservative Tree House source for the Gateway Pundit Story here:
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016...y-theres-video/

Detailed overview here:
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016...d-cruz-affairs/

Cruz denial and Trump response:
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016...enquirer-story/






Unfortunately the actions described are consistent with eGOP behavior.

What next ?

#9 RE: Well Here We Go -- Here's the Beans! by conservgramma 26.03.2016 07:49

avatar

I definitely don't trust the GOPe. They could be trying to get rid of both Cruz and Trump with this so they get to a brokered convention and then nominate their own guy.

#10 RE: Well Here We Go -- Here's the Beans! by algernonpj 26.03.2016 08:11

avatar

Quote: conservgramma wrote in post #9
I definitely don't trust the GOPe. They could be trying to get rid of both Cruz and Trump with this so they get to a brokered convention and then nominate their own guy.



I don't have the link, but I have seen rumors of changing the rules so there is no guarantee of being the nominee if you get the required number of delegates

#11 RE: Well Here We Go -- Here's the Beans! by Sanguine 26.03.2016 10:59

Quote: Cincinnatus wrote in post #5
FWIW

As I drove tonight I was listening to Michael Savage. He stated he has a friend who used to work for NE and this individual, the friend, contacted his sources at NE who told him the story of Cruz affairs is bogus, and cleverly designed to avoid any legal difficulties by using innuendo, qualifiers, and the like.

So make of that what you will.


Hasn't Savage been a pretty staunch DT supporter? I think I read that.

#12 RE: Well Here We Go -- Here's the Beans! by truthkeeper 26.03.2016 11:36

avatar

Okay guys, I'll come clean. Yesterday I BOUGHT the damn rag. (I know, I know...but sorry, if you want to evaluate you gotta review the evidence. That's the way it works.)

Here is my take.

IMO, the text of the article is full of a whole lot of nothing. Except for highlighting Roger Stone's observations about the rumors (and he certainly has a right to comment, as we all do), the NE lists "political operatives" and cites "rumors," "leaks," and reports from OTHER websites. I'm reading words like "supposedly," "alleged," "may have" and "according to a source." All third, fourth, and fifth party hearsay.

This is the part I find compelling...the blurred photos of the women. There are NO HEADINGS over or under their images, and NO REFERENCE TO THE PICTURES WITHIN THE ARTICLE ITSELF. In other words, the reader is left to wonder who these women are, and may logically infer (since there are 5 images) that these must be the "5 Mistresses" to which the article refers.

From what I read, I agree with Savage's friend. The NE is doing the old bob-and-weave and really dancing around the edges of libel here. True, they didn't name anyone and they blurred these images.

But what about the very reasonable expectation that these images could become "unblurred" with relative ease? Shouldn't the code of journalistic standards, such that they are, warn them that they are playing with fire? (I know...you're laughing, aren't you?)

All I can say is, based on what I saw with my own eyes, the NE must really like living dangerously.

Now having said all that, if this turns out to be a head fake, and there really is some "there" there...well, then Katie Bar the Door.

But until that day, having reviewed the "evidence"...all I can say is that is seems like one big Hit Piece to me.

#13 RE: Well Here We Go -- Here's the Beans! by truthkeeper 26.03.2016 11:42

avatar

Zitat


Hasn't Savage been a pretty staunch DT supporter? I think I read that.



He has indeed been a supporter in the past. He is also most probably bipolar and definitely a Drama Queen (but fun to listen to regardless) so I'm not sure it's really a matter of much importance.

BTW, in no way did he imply that he no longer supported DT. Just that he really hates NE tactics and wants him to come out swinging against them.

In another setting we might call that a shakedown...but that's JMO.

#14 RE: Well Here We Go -- Here's the Beans! by ThirstyMan 26.03.2016 13:24

avatar

Quote: algernonpj wrote in post #10
Quote: conservgramma wrote in post #9
I definitely don't trust the GOPe. They could be trying to get rid of both Cruz and Trump with this so they get to a brokered convention and then nominate their own guy.

I don't have the link, but I have seen rumors of changing the rules so there is no guarantee of being the nominee if you get the required number of delegates


Rule 40(b) is one mainrule that must be dropped. The GOPe wrote that rule last election cycle - 2012. It's nicknamed the Ron Paul Rule because it was introduced to thwart him and or anyone else from becoming the nominee who hadn't competed and won the support of a majority of delegates from eight different States.

In 2012 the Republican National Committee was trying to limit the visibility and power of Ron Paul at the convention. This year that rule may work against them for now it's the GOPe who appears to want to introduce a candidate who hasn't competed in the primaries.

As someone has pointed out, if they could introduce a Rule to thwart in the same election year, they can remove that Rule as well, in the same election year. They make the rules up as they see fit, and keep them only for as long as they suit their purposes!

Talk about a capricious body of lawmakers!

#15 RE: Well Here We Go -- Here's the Beans! by algernonpj 26.03.2016 13:32

avatar

Quote: ThirstyMan wrote in post #14
Quote: algernonpj wrote in post #10
Quote: conservgramma wrote in post #9
I definitely don't trust the GOPe. They could be trying to get rid of both Cruz and Trump with this so they get to a brokered convention and then nominate their own guy.

I don't have the link, but I have seen rumors of changing the rules so there is no guarantee of being the nominee if you get the required number of delegates


Rule 40(b) is one mainrule that must be dropped. The GOPe wrote that rule last election cycle - 2012. It's nicknamed the Ron Paul Rule because it was introduced to thwart him and or anyone else from becoming the nominee who hadn't competed and won the support of a majority of delegates from eight different States.

In 2012 the Republican National Committee was trying to limit the visibility and power of Ron Paul at the convention. This year that rule may work against them for now it's the GOPe who appears to want to introduce a candidate who hasn't competed in the primaries.

As someone has pointed out, if they could introduce a Rule to thwart in the same election year, they can remove that Rule as well, in the same election year. They make the rules up as they see fit, and keep them only for as long as they suit their purposes!

Talk about a capricious body of lawmakers!

Whoah ... Thanks for the info.

Xobor Create your own Forum with Xobor