Start speculating! LA Time sitting on scandal... [Archive]

View Full Version : Start speculating! LA Time sitting on scandal...

OceanMachine7

11-01-2007, 07:10 AM

http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/ronrosenbaum/2007/10/29/shocking_inside_dc_scandal_rum.php

Meatwasp

11-01-2007, 07:48 AM

My theory would be it is about Rudy, Fred or Mitt. They don't want that to come out as it will help Ron Paul get further to the top. Just my guess

OceanMachine7

11-01-2007, 07:57 AM

My theory would be it is about Rudy, Fred or Mitt. They don't want that to come out as it will help Ron Paul get further to the top. Just my guess

I thought that at first, but the media's been jumping at chances to blow the cover on Republicans lately, and besides, getting rid of a Republican would help to consolidate the neocon vote. If it's a Democrat, the fact that Fox News hasn't come out with it, to me, seems to point to Hillary (remember, that's who Murdoch's been donating his money to).

apropos

11-01-2007, 08:10 AM

It's probably Hillary or Obama. Those are about the only two candidates a major newspaper would wring their hands over like this. The media has spent a long time crafting narratives about those two, and they don't want to see it ruined with a real news story.

Meatwasp

11-01-2007, 08:13 AM

Could be Hillary . Might be some new evidence on Vince Foster. Hope so.

Mortikhi

11-01-2007, 08:14 AM

If its big, it will leak.

Cyclone177

11-01-2007, 08:20 AM

I heard something about Edwards cheating on his cancer stricken wife. I thought the Natl Enq. had run the story, but my guess is that is what it is about.

kylejack

11-01-2007, 08:23 AM

If they're concerned about the ethics....I'm thinking maybe closet homosexual? Reporting adultery would be a cinch, right? But reporting homosexuality is more complicated.

Meatwasp

11-01-2007, 08:25 AM

I heard something about Edwards cheating on his cancer stricken wife. I thought the Natl Enq. had run the story, but my guess is that is what it is about.

That is old news probably won't fly

angelatc

11-01-2007, 08:25 AM

They said it wasn't the Edwards rumor. Maybe Drudge cab dig it out. He's the guy who brought the Lewinski dress out, right?

Green Mountain Boy

11-01-2007, 08:29 AM

It is Hillary w/ another woman most likely.

Ncturnal

11-01-2007, 08:37 AM

That's a neo-con site and not a credible source for anything. We should block links to that site from here. :rolleyes:

Ncturnal

11-01-2007, 08:38 AM

It is Hillary w/ another woman most likely.

I thought she is openly married to another woman. :confused: :D

freelance

11-01-2007, 08:46 AM

It is Hillary w/ another woman most likely.

Well, I was hoping they might leave something like that for Imus... when he comes back in December. :D

I've always suspected that she had a hand in getting him fired since he calls her SATAN!

Just the fact that this article will make its way around the Internet at lightening speed has brightened my day. Some campaign camp is sweating bullets today, and I'm sure it's not our camp!

OceanMachine7

11-01-2007, 08:58 AM

Well, I was hoping they might leave something like that for Imus... when he comes back in December. :D

I've always suspected that she had a hand in getting him fired since he calls her SATAN!

Just the fact that this article will make its way around the Internet at lightening speed has brightened my day. Some campaign camp is sweating bullets today, and I'm sure it's not our camp!

Exactly, that's why I posted it :D

Pete

11-01-2007, 08:58 AM

Hillary gal-pal Huma Abedin?

http://pds.exblog.jp/pds/1/200708/04/99/a0060199_0322476.jpg

Green Mountain Boy

11-01-2007, 09:00 AM

Hillary gal-pal Huma Abedin?

http://pds.exblog.jp/pds/1/200708/04/99/a0060199_0322476.jpg

I'd like to be pals with her.:D

OceanMachine7

11-01-2007, 09:04 AM

Hillary gal-pal Huma Abedin?

http://pds.exblog.jp/pds/1/200708/04/99/a0060199_0322476.jpg

Interesting, I just found this shamelessly speculative article:

http://lukeford.net/blog/?p=1031

Captain Shays

11-01-2007, 09:26 AM

Rudy had a homosexual threesome with Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson.

I'm running with it!

ItsTime

11-01-2007, 09:28 AM

Is the same one Larry Flint has?

Captain Shays

11-01-2007, 09:29 AM

If I was a lesbian I would go for Huma

Dustancostine

11-01-2007, 09:32 AM

If the media is so perplexed by it, then I bet it is Obama. Right now he is everyone's darling, the future Mr. Perfect. If it was him, then it would smash a lot of peoples faith. But they need to hurry up and run the thing and get it over with.

conner_condor

11-01-2007, 01:35 PM

If I was a lesbian I would go for Huma

I am a lesbian trapped in a mans body.

reaver

11-01-2007, 01:49 PM

I am a lesbian trapped in a mans body.

...you girly man... :p

Probably a lie if you ask me.

Man from La Mancha

11-01-2007, 01:57 PM

If one can not uphold the most sacred oath of their life to one's best friend and mate how can they be trusted for presidency?
.

ConstitutionGal

11-01-2007, 02:02 PM

If one can not uphold the most sacred oath of their life to one's best friend and mate how can they be trusted for presidency?
.

We could ask Bill Clinton.....wait.....no...........aawww...never mind :D

RP4ME

11-01-2007, 03:37 PM

That is old news probably won't fly

Whn did that leak out - where am I? Was taht rumor or was it in teh news?

RP4ME

11-01-2007, 03:38 PM

I say it will be Hillary is a lesbian or Guliani is gay....what do u think? What woudl they say about obama? Is he gay too?

ItsTime

11-01-2007, 03:40 PM

I think the first part... but you got me thinking about Obama, did you see him dance on Ellen?

I say it will be Hillary is a lesbian or Guliani is gay....what do u think? What woudl they say about obama? Is he gay too?

werdd

11-01-2007, 04:07 PM

Im betting its something about billary

Syren123

11-01-2007, 04:13 PM

Okay I can't get passed the first three lines because my eyes are watering from laughing so hard!

Let me get this straight. The Los Angeles Times has an ETHICS DILEMMA?! About a PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE?! OMG please!

'kay. I'll finish the rest of the piece when I can stop laughing.

Syren123

11-01-2007, 04:16 PM

Could be Hillary . Might be some new evidence on Vince Foster. Hope so.

Like he didn't shoot himself in the back of the head then drive to the park? No way.

Syren123

11-01-2007, 04:18 PM

I am a lesbian trapped in a mans body.

There's a lot of that around. Don't feel bad.

Pete

11-01-2007, 06:46 PM

Interesting, I just found this shamelessly speculative article:

http://lukeford.net/blog/?p=1031

Jokes about Hillary having a taste for Indian carpets keep coming to mind. :)

RP4ME

11-01-2007, 07:21 PM

Jokes about Hillary having a taste for Indian carpets keep coming to mind. :)

eeeeeewwwwwwwwwwwwwww stop

kill the banks

11-01-2007, 07:39 PM

" i've NEVER had sex with that woman " , hillary clinton

kill the banks

CJLauderdale4

11-01-2007, 09:51 PM

I don't see how sex is a scandal anymore for the Democrats. If Hillary was cheating on Bill, wouldn't the nation say, "Well, that bastard deserved it for what he put her through." And if any of the other Democrats had a lover on the side, would anyone really be surprised enough to care or change their primary vote, already being registered a Democrat??

MSM wouldn't sit on a Democrat sex scandal - who cares. It MUST be a Republican scandal, and it must be top-tier. The DC elite would love to knock out Tancredo, Paul, and Huckabee in a heartbeat. However, even McCain wouldn't surprise me too much, and the only reason DC would sit on a McCain story would be out of courtesy to a longtime friend (before shooting him down like a dog).

Conclusion: it must be Guiliani, Romney, or Thompson, which in my mind would be AWESOME!!!

BW4Paul

11-01-2007, 10:14 PM

Yes, I know that this kind of rumor mongering is beneath me-- but boy is it juicy! :D

Pursuant to the "LA Times Scandal" thread below, I did a little more internet digging and have found a fairly thorough (albeit entirely speculative) blog article detailing what is known and what is theorized about the relationship between Hillary and her assistant, Huma Abedin. Here it is, for your enjoyment:
http://lukeford.net/blog/?p=1031

werdd

11-01-2007, 10:19 PM

i had suspected it was a billary thing, they wouldnt dare destroy the annointed one though

Original_Intent

11-01-2007, 10:41 PM

Hillary smoked Bill's cigars?

Vince Foster had Hillary's love child?

If there is a story and "everybody knows" it will be on the internet tomorrow. if it isn't already.

Original_Intent

11-01-2007, 10:43 PM

werdd

11-01-2007, 10:45 PM

Mike Gravel did 9 prostitutes on the campaign trail?

RP4ME

11-01-2007, 10:46 PM

well maybe they are hoping it will leak out and be out an dthen the can leak their story.......she is being a very naughty muslim......

This is gross is its true an dmore examples of teh hypocrisy and lies in Washington - if your gonna be gay then just do it....dont lie!

BW4Paul

11-01-2007, 11:35 PM

i had suspected it was a billary thing, they wouldnt dare destroy the annointed one though

If any part of this is true, I'm sure that Matt Drudge would be up to the challenge. ;)

american.swan

11-02-2007, 01:17 AM

This is not surprising in the least bit. Bill is off chasing every bimbo he can find, what does Hillary do? Doesn't really matter. I am not voting for her any way.

RonPaulCentral

11-02-2007, 03:18 AM

I would almost be willing to be serious money on this matter.

Based on a conversation with someone that claimed to be in college with Hillary she was an "active lesbian".

I would bet the farm on the guess that "Hillary has had an ongoing lesbian affair with someone close to her." I honesty think the Bill / Hillary marriage was nothing but for show -- the kid was a part of the cover.

Based on the fact this involves a "leading candidate" according to the source I would say by their definitions it would narrow the field to "Hillary, Obama, Rudy or Mitt".

My money is on Hillary. If I had to pick a second it would be cross dresser Rudy having a transexual hooker experience. :rolleyes:

Captain Shays

11-02-2007, 06:27 AM

This is from a very reliable source (wink wink)

Rudy Ghoulaini was regularily involved in gay threesome and orgies while mayor of NYC. and fixed the parking tickets, bought clothes, cars and jewlery for his gay lovers out of the city treasury.

freedominnumbers

11-02-2007, 06:40 AM

I bet I know. I bet Obama personally recommended that abusive official from Oprah's African school.

Either that or he's opening his own and bought slaves to run it.

werdd

11-02-2007, 08:14 AM

Hook

11-02-2007, 09:28 AM

I think there is nothing and this guy just wants some traffic to his blog. That is the Occam's razor explanation.

OceanMachine7

11-02-2007, 09:30 AM

I think there is nothing and this guy just wants some traffic to his blog. That is the Occam's razor explanation.

Are you sure? Remember this is politics and it is the Clinton's...;)

Lois

11-02-2007, 12:59 PM

From a woman's poiint of view--

I can just tell that Hillary is Asexual. All she cares about is Money and Power. I also don't go for all the gay/lesbian speculation. I say Obama had an affair.

conner_condor

11-02-2007, 01:05 PM

I say Obama had an affair.

With hillary!!!:D

unklejman

11-02-2007, 03:43 PM

http://216.158.100.11/xpress/ronrosenbaum/2007/10/29/shocking_inside_dc_scandal_rum.php

So I was down in DC this past weekend and happened to run into a well-connected media person, who told me flatly, unequivocally that “everyone knows” The LA Times was sitting on a story, all wrapped up and ready to go about what is a potentially devastating sexual scandal involving a leading Presidential candidate. “Everyone knows” meaning everyone in the DC mainstream media political reporting world. “Sitting on it” because the paper couldn’t decide the complex ethics of whether and when to run it. The way I heard it they’d had it for a while but don’t know what to do. The person who told me )not an LAT person) knows I write and didn’t say “don’t write about this”.

If it’s true, I don’t envy the LAT. I respect their hesitation, their dilemma, deciding to run or not to run it raises a lot of difficult journalism ethics questions and they’re likely to be attacked, when it comes out—the story or their suppression of the story—whatever they do.

I’ve been sensing hints that something’s going on, something’s going unspoken in certain insider coverage of the campaign (and by the way this rumor the LA Times is supposedly sitting on is one I never heard in this specific form before. By the way, t’s not the Edwards rumor, it’s something else.

And when my source said “everyone in Washington”, knows about it he means everyone in the elite Mainstream media, not just the LA Times, but everyone regularly writing about the Presdidential campaign knows about it and doesn’t know what to do with it. And I must admit it really is was juicy if true. But I don’t know if it’s true and I can’t decide if I think it’s relevant. But the fact that “everyone” in the elite media knew about it and was keeping silent about it, is, itself, news. But you can’t report the “news” without reporting the thing itself. Troubling!

It raises all sorts of ethical questions. What about private sexual behavior is relevant? What about a marriage belongs in the coverage of a presidential campaign? Does it go to the judgment of the candidate in question? Didn’t we all have a national nervous breakdown over these questions nearly a decade ago?

Now, as I say it’s a rumor; I haven’t seen the supporting evidence. But the person who told me said it offhandedly as if everyone in his world knew about it. And if you look close enough you can find hints of something impending, something potentially derailing to this candidate in the reporting of the campaign. Which could mean that something unspoken, unwritten about is influencing what is written, what we read.

Why are well wired media elite keeping silent about it? Because they think we can’t handle the truth? Because they think it’s substantively irrelevant? What standards of judgment are they using? Are they afraid that to print it will bring on opprobrium. Are they afraid not printing it will bring on opprobrium? Or both?

But alas if it leaks out from less “responsible” sources. then all their contextual protectiveness of us will have been wasted.

And what about timing? They, meaning the DC elite media, must know if it comes out before the parties select their primary winners and eventual nominees, voters would have the ability to decide how important they felt it to the narrative of the candidate in question. Aren’t they, in delaying and not letting the pieces fall where they potentially may, not refusing to act but acting in a different way—taking it upon themselves to decide the Presidential election by their silence?

If they waited until the nominees were chosen wouldn’t that be unfair because, arguably, it could sink the candidacy of one of the potential nominees after the nomination was finalized? And doesn’t the fact that they “all” know something’s there but can’t say affect their campaign coverage in a subterranean, subconscious way that their readers are excluded from?

I just don’t know the answer. I’m glad in a situation like this, if there is in fact truth to it, that I wouldn’t have to be the “decider”. I wouldn’t want to be in a position of having to make that choice. But it’s a choice that may well decide a crucial turning point in history. Or maybe not: Maybe voters will decide they don’t think it’s important, however juicy. But should it be their choice or the choice of the media elites? It illustrates the fact that there are still two cultures at war within our political culture, insiders and outsiders. As a relative outsider I have to admit I was shocked not just by this but by several other things “everyone” down there knows.

There seem to be two conflicting imperatives here. The new media, Web 2.0 anti-elitist preference for transparency and immediacy and the traditional elitist preference for reflection, judgment and standards—their reflection, their small-group judgment and standards. Their civic duty to “protect” us from knowing too much.

I feel a little uneasy reporting this. No matter how well “nailed” they think they have it, it may turn out to be untrue. What I’m really reporting on is the unreported persistence of a schism between the DC media elites and their inside knowlede and the public that is kept in the dark. For their own good? Maybe they’d dismiss it as irrelevant, but shouldn’t they know?

I don’t know.

What do you guys think about that?

constituent

11-02-2007, 03:47 PM

i think they can piss off with it whoever the candidate may be, even if revealing it would help our cause.

everyone needs to mind their own business, here is the perfect
chance for LA Times to set a good example.

JenHarris

11-02-2007, 03:49 PM

i think there is already a thread on this

VoteRonPaul2008

11-02-2007, 04:11 PM

Who??????? Obama? Giulaini? who could it be?

ladyliberty

11-02-2007, 04:36 PM

Who??????? Obama? Giulaini? who could it be?

Ummm, politics DO make strange bedfellows! :D :eek:
This is LA we are talking about right?

RJB

11-02-2007, 04:41 PM

All of the "front runners" in both parties have enough dirt on them to bury an elephant-- from corruption and lying to aldultery. I don't think anyone will be harmed unless the media is purposefully out to get this individual.

EvilEngineer

11-02-2007, 04:44 PM

Sadly, Dr Paul has a very high probability of some disgruntled former patient from coming back and accusing Dr. Paul of misconduct.

cjhowe

11-02-2007, 05:17 PM

Sadly, Dr Paul has a very high probability of some disgruntled former patient from coming back and accusing Dr. Paul of misconduct.

With the opposition Dr Paul has faced from the two parties in his Congressional races, I'm pretty sure it would have popped up before.

Man from La Mancha

11-02-2007, 05:22 PM

With the opposition Dr Paul has faced from the two parties in his Congressional races, I'm pretty sure it would have popped up before.
Maybe people that are alive today because he talked their mothers out an abortion. Could be devastating to the dems.:)

.

V-rod

11-02-2007, 06:42 PM

The LA times piece is most likely about Obama. If it was a Republican candidate, they would of released the story by now. Though I am still hopeful it is about Giulani, Romney, or Thompson :(

VoteRonPaul2008

11-02-2007, 07:00 PM

I bet it's either Obama or Giulaini.. but LA times and it already ruled out Edwards. I bet Obama... but this whole situation is so unfair.. people spread false info about our candidate, and won't report real info on the main ones.. RIDICULOUS.. i say we start returning the favor.. lol :cool:

terlinguatx

11-02-2007, 08:09 PM

...

newmedia4ron

11-02-2007, 08:15 PM

What sucks is that this is going to take attention away from Ron Paul.

Syren123

11-02-2007, 11:31 PM

everyone needs to mind their own business, here is the perfect chance for LA Times to set a good example.
Don't hold your breath for that to happen. If it's a Republican scandal, it's in the paper immediately. If it's that Hillary is gay,
a) that's not news, and
b) they'll never ever print it even though her stock would rise in L.A. if they did.

Syren123

11-02-2007, 11:32 PM

The LA times piece is most likely about Obama. If it was a Republican candidate, they would of released the story by now. Though I am still hopeful it is about Giulani, Romney, or Thompson :(

I agree with this. It's Obama.

Man from La Mancha

11-03-2007, 08:41 AM

It appears by the amount of money donated, the manipulation of the puppet masters to get Hilary to be a state senator of a state she is not even from, and that those controllers also control most of the press. I would say it's Hillary. IMO

.