Opinion: NOM’s Brian Brown Is Lying About The Anti-Gay Regnerus Study
NOM, the National Organization For Marriage,Â recently admitted to guilt in 18 counts of California state campaign finance law violations.
For breaking the law eighteen times, NOM in California had to pay a $49,000 fine.
That fine is less that the tens of millions that NOM spends — and/or organizes towards spending — for its allegedly “Christian” mission of blocking gay people from civil rights — at a time when there over 600,000 homeless in the United States.
The $49,000 fine also is less than the $55,000 “planning grant” that NOM-related officials, as part of the Witherspoon Institute, arranged for a study booby trapped to make gay parents look bad.
The study, by Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas at Austin, features a cherry picked control group compared to a test group loaded up with variables.
All of Regnerus’s control group respondents were raised by continuously-married heterosexual couples.
By contrast, Regnerus’s test group respondents, improperly labeled as having “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers,” had suffered such variables as 1) one parent dying prematurely; 2)Â a single parent disabled in an accident; 3)Â a mother who divorced an abusive father to get her children to safety.
Regnerus tells a ridiculous lie to explain why he had no choice but to make the booby trapped comparison.
He says he simply could not find enough young adult children raised by gay couples.
Yet, Michael Rosenfeld’s 2009 study Nontraditional Families and Childhood Progress through SchoolÂ studied 3,502 children of gay couples who had been together for at least five years.
If Regnerus as a professional sociologist truly intended to study children raised by “lesbian mothers” or “gay fathers,” then he had a scientific obligation to develop and to implement a study plan that would actually allow him to interview children raised by lesbian mothers or gay fathers.
Instead, by his dishonest and unscientific means, and in collusion with his anti-gay-rights funders, Regnerus alleges to have proven a correlation between gay parents and bad child outcomes, though his “study” proves no such correlation.
This is one of the chief fallacies of the Regnerus study: Regnerus alleges to have found a correlation between gay parents and bad child outcomes; but in documentable reality, Regnerus found no such thing.
His test group was loaded up with variables, hence, he has no way of knowing which — if any — of the variables correlates to the perceived “bad” child outcomes, for those in his test group who had “bad” outcomes; not all did, by a long shot. And, not all children of heterosexual parents had good outcomes in the Regnerus study, either.
Yet, NOM officials certainly are getting their money’s worth of gay-bashing hate-and-fear mongering out of the Regnerus “study;” in NOM blog comments on the Brown/Savage event, for example, somebody wrote: “I wonder if the poor kid will have [sic] experience the horrific outcome of same sex parenting that Regenerus found in his research.”
National Organization for Marriage officials, moreover, have been heavily involved in lyingÂ about the study since before it was even published.
Here is a sampling of NOM’s Brian Brown’s lies about the Regnerus study:
1) NOM’s BRIAN BROWN LIES ABOUT THE REGNERUS STUDY HAVING BEEN PEER REVIEWED
During aÂ debate with Dan Savage, NOM’s Brian Brown alleged that the Regnerus study was published through the normal procedures followed by Social Science Research (SSR), the journal that published the deliberately booby-trapped, anti-gay Regnerus “study.”
However, SSR did not follow its published Peer Review Policy in processing the Regnerus submission for publication.
Ethical and appropriate, professional peer review is a sine qua non of scientific publishing. There are no exceptions. Without ethical and appropriate, professional peer review, a submission to a scientific journal should never be published. Publishing a submission to a scientific journal without putting it through ethical and appropriate professional peer review undermines trust in science, just as violating campaign finance laws 18 timesÂ tends to destroyÂ trust in the organization — NOM — engaging in such contemptuous breaking of campaign finance laws.
Now, according to SSR’s Peer Review Policy, peer reviewers “are matched to papers according to their expertise.”
No gay parenting topic experts peer reviewed the Regnerus submission.
You do not ask a brain surgeon to peer review a podiatry study. You do not ask a podiatrist to to peer review a study on brain surgery. The right topic experts for a study on gay parenting, are gay parenting topic experts.
Additionally, SSR’s Peer Review PolicyÂ states that typically, it takes 2 to 3 months for a submission to be peer reviewed “but substantially longer review times are not uncommon, especially for papers on esoteric topics where finding qualified referees can itself take months.”
By contrast to that, Regnerus submitted his paper on February 1, 2012 and then SSR editor-in-chief James Wright approved it for publication just 41 days later, without a single topic expert having been involved in the peer review.
To repeat those facts for emphasis: SSR’s Peer Review Policy says that normally, it takes months just to find qualified peer reviewers. Yet, dismayingly, without being peer reviewed by any topic experts, the Regnerus submission was accepted for publication in just 41 days.
Additionally, some of the peer reviewers were paid consultants for the Regnerus study design. What that means, is that the same people paid to booby trap the study design against gay parents also had the power to green-light the study for publication.
That not only violates SSR’s Peer Review Policy, it violates all ethics of scientific publishing.Â Â Vanderbilt University Sociologist Tony N. Brown, Editor of the American Sociological Associationâ€™sÂ American Sociological Review, has said: â€œjournal editors shouldÂ alwaysÂ seek knowledgeable reviewers who do not haveÂ anyÂ conflict of interest regarding the submitted author or the studyâ€™s funder.â€Â (Bolding added).
While it is true that 1) an SSR editorial board member used 2) the same false words NOM’s Brian Brown used about 3) none of SSR’s policies having been violated, that board member also, obviouslyÂ 4)Â is lying, as a comparison of SSR’s Peer Review Policy and the facts of the case demonstrate.
The Regnerus study did not receive ethical and appropriate professional peer review.
NOM’s Brian Brown is lying when he says it did.
Science advances when experiments and studies are replicated and produce the same results. The Regnerus study as published would never survive ethical and appropriate professional peer review; thus, the Regnerus study as published can not possibly be replicated, produce the same results, and be approved as valid by ethical and appropriate professional peer reviewers.
After all, the study features a cherry picked control group compared to a test group loaded up with variables.
Cherry picking a control group is dishonest, a form of lying.
The necessity for eliminating lurking variables — to say nothing of glaring variables — Â is taught in every Sociology 101 course and every Statistics 101 course.
2) NOM’s BRIAN BROWN LIES ABOUT HOW MANY PEOPLE REGNERUS INTERVIEWED
In a June 15, 2012 NOM blog post with the comically dubious title of The Big Mo for Marriage, NOM’s Brian Brown lied by saying “The researchers interviewed more than 15,000 people.” (Bolding added).
As a glance at Regnerus’s Codebook shows, Regnerus screened 15,058 people, but only actually interviewed a total of Â 2,988 survey participants.
In a sociological study, screening consists of asking people a few questions to see whether they qualify for you to interview them. Interviewing them consists of having them answer all the questions in your full study survey.
Screening and interviewing are two completely different sociological activities.
Brown’s misrepresentation of how many people Regnerus interviewed fits a pattern of Witherspoon/NOM/Regnerus lies that seek to impress the public by representing Regnerus’s study as having been larger than it in fact was.
Here is why this is so important a matter.
Regnerus alleges that his study results are statistically accurate for the entire US population. That is to say, were Regnerus telling the truth, whatever his findings show as percent findings for any group, would consistently be the percent findings for that group throughout the country.
However, Regnerus only surveyed a total of 248 children of “gay” parents. At that, his labeling of study subjects’ parents as “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers” was unscientific and unethical.
Leaving aside Regnerus’s labeling ethics, what about his numbers? Can one produce a statistically reliable study with only 248 children of gay parents?
Dr. Steven Nock, an expert in large random sampling survey studies, was asked by the Canadian Attorney General to submit an affidavit in Halpern v. Canada.
According to Dr. Nock’s affidavit, for a gay parenting study to be statistically valid, a minimum of 800 gay parents would have to be included in the study. Nock estimates that to find 800 gay parents to interview, a researcher would have to screenÂ at least 40,000 people. And, Nock said that screening 40,000 people is “not a particularly large screening task.”
Yet, there is the NOM shill Regnerus, alleging that he carried out an unprecedentedly enormous study, and his NOM co-conspirator Brian Brown lying about how many people the Regnerus study interviewed.
To clarify — NOM’s Brian Brown is boasting that Regnerus “interviewed” 15,000 people yet could not find people actually raised by gay parents. NOM’s Brian Brown talks about the 15,000 Regnerus screened, as though Regnerus had carried out some unimaginably huge task. Yet the expert Dr. Steven Nock says that in order to find enough gay parents for a study, one would have to screen at least 40,000 people. Regnerus screened 25,000 people too few, to meet Dr. Nock’s estimated minimum of people who had to be screened, for enough gay parents to be represented in a valid gay parenting study based on a large random sampling.
Now, by way of comparison, let’s look at how many people were interviewed for actual large studies.
In 2011, the Pew Research Center conducted a large national random sample survey of Muslims living in the United States. Pew interviewedÂ — not screened — interviewed — 55,000 people, of which 1,050 were Muslims in the United States.
55,000 people, of which 1,050 were the study’s test group, Muslims living in the US.
By contrast, Regnerus interviewed:
onlyÂ 2,988 people, of whichÂ 248Â were the study’s test group, children of “same-sex” parents.
Another comparison with an actual large study:
In 2005, a large random sample surveyÂ was done in India on theÂ prevalence of major neurologicalÂ disorders in Kolkata.
Indian researchersÂ interviewed: Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 52,377 people
Regnerus interviewed: Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 2,988 people
Another comparison with an actual large study:
A study on tobacco smokers in Brazil interviewed — not screened — interviewed 8589 people.
Brazilian researchers interviewed: 8589 people.
Regnerus interviewed: Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 2,988 people.
Whereas Regnerus only interviewed 2,988 people, NOM’s Brian Brown lies by saying that Regnerus interviewed “over 15,000 people.”
These things matter. If Regnerus needed more money from his NOM-linked funders in order to be able to interview an adequate number of children of actual same-sex parents, then Regnerus should have insisted on more money from his NOM-linked funders.
Whereas his NOM-linked funders are said to have given Regnerus $785,000 for his booby-trapped study, they are spending Â — and/or involved in the arrangements for spending — tens upon tens of millions attacking gay people, their families and their rights in the 2012 elections.
It is not that Regnerus’s NOM-linked funders could not have come up with enough money for a study that would interview adequate numbers of children raised by same-sex couples.
It is, rather, that NOM officials wanted an anti-gay demonizing weapon for the 2012 election season.
The matter of the number of persons Regnerus interviewed is related to another of Brian Brown’s lies about the Regnerus study, namely:
3) NOM’s BRIAN BROWN LIES ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE REGNERUS STUDY TO OTHER GAY PARENTING STUDIES
The Regnerus study was twinned in publication in Social Science ResearchÂ to another study by the professional gay-basher Loren Marks. Marks’s bachelor’s and master’s degrees were earned from Brigham Young University, a school with an “honor code” that forbids school community members from “promoting” homosexual relations as being morally acceptable.
Previously, when NOM attempted to use Marks as an “expert witness” in a Proposition 8 case, Marks’s “expert” testimony was barred from the courtroom after Marks was questioned, and admitted that he had not read studies from which he quoted, and that he did not know anything about gay-led families.
The Marks paper — twinned in publication to the Regnerus paper — argues that all prior studies on same-sex parents’ child outcomes were based on small samplings that are not statistically generalizable to the whole population.
Conspicuously, the Marks paper was twinned in publication with the Regnerus paper, to bolster the fraudulent propaganda claims that the Regnerus study actually consists of a large enough sampling to be statistically generalizable to the whole population.
To put the argument in its most simple terms, Marks says “Small studies bad, big studies good.” In his Big Mo post, Brian Brown exploits the Marks study to beat the “Small studies bad, big studies good” horse, in an attempt to delude the public into believing that the Regnerus study was large enough to give meaningful results about children raised by gay parents.
But the Regnerus study was not large enough to give meaningful results about children raised by gay parents.
When NOM’s Brian Brown trots out the Marks paper to propagandize about the Regnerus study being large enough, when the Regnerus study was not large enough, NOM’s Brian Brown is lying about the scientific significance of the number of study subjects Regnerus interviewed.
Remember: Regnerus only interviewed 2,988 total people. The study of Brazilian smokers interviewed 8,589 people. The study of the prevalence of neurological disorders in India interviewedÂ 52,377Â people.Â The Pew study of Muslims living in the US interviewed 55,000 people.
To carry out a valid study of gay parents’ child outcomes, Regnerus needed to screen and then interview a lot more people than he did.
All of NOM’s Brian Brown’s statements that the Regnerus study was large enough are lies.
4) NOM’s BRIAN BROWN LIES ABOUT WHETHER REGNERUS’S STUDY SUBJECTS LIVED WITH “LESBIAN MOTHERS”
In his “Big Mo” NOM blog post, Brian Brown says this:
“91 percent lived with their mothers while she had this” same-sex “romantic relationship. But most of these relationships turned out to be fleeting.”
In truth, the Regnerus study methodology did not allow Regnerus to determine whether his study respondents’ parents ever actually had a “same sex romantic relationship.”
Eight major professional associations including the American Medical Association filed a Golinski-DOMA brief.
Writing in that brief, the AMA noted that Regnerus’s “data does not show whether the perceived” same-sex “romantic relationship ever inÂ fact occurred.”
When a group of over 200 Ph.D.s and M.D.s sent a letter to Social Science Research, complaining about the Regnerus study’s lack of intellectual integrity, they said “We have substantial concerns about the merits of this paper and question whether it actually uses methods and instruments that answer the research questions posed in the paper.”
Who are you going to believe on science? Eight major professional associations including the AMA, and over 200 Ph.D.s and M.D.s, or NOM’s lying anti-gay president Brian Brown, whose organization’s leaders arranged for the funding of the Regnerus study and are promoting it heavily in anti-gay-rights political contexts?
Given that Regnerus’sÂ “data does not show whether the perceived romantic relationship ever inÂ fact occurred,” Brian Brown is lying when he says that 91 percent of Regnerus’s study respondents “lived with their mothers while she had this” same-sex “romantic relationship.”
In promoting the Regnerus study in anti-gay-rights political contexts, Regnerus and NOM rely heavily on public ignorance about sociology. One false notion they especially push, is that gosh darn it, it’s just too difficult to ask meaningful questions towards determining the actual sexual orientation of a study subject’s parent. Regnerus could not possibly have done a more scientific job determining his respondents’ parents’ sexual orientation, because nobody knows how to do that! The whole field of studying gay parents is in too early a stage!
Yet, in 2009, the Williams Institute published its study titledÂ Best Practices for Asking Questions about Sexual Orientation on Surveys. Regnerus worked as though in ignorance of that document.
5) NOM’s BRIAN BROWN LIES ABOUT HAVING RESPECT FOR SCIENCE
After saying that he is not a social scientist, Brian Brown saysÂ “I respect the scientific enterprise enough to wish for open, robust scientific debate.”
Notice what Brown is doing with this particular lie; he is creating a false impression that there are scientific grounds for debatingÂ whether a parent’s sexual orientation, Â heterosexual or homosexual, per se, correlates to or causes a good or bad child outcome.
There currently is no scientific debate about whether a parent’s sexual orientation, Â heterosexual or homosexual, per se, correlates to or causes a good or bad child outcome.
All available scientific evidence shows that nothing about a parent’s sexual orientation, per se, impacts child outcomes.
That means, it can be legitimate to suggest that more studies might be done to examine whetherÂ a parent’s sexual orientation, Â heterosexual or homosexual, per se, correlates to or causes a good or bad child outcome.
But, there is no scientific basis for debating whetherÂ a parent’s sexual orientation, Â heterosexual or homosexual, per se, correlates to or causes a good or bad child outcome. And that is because, there is no scientific evidence that a parent’s sexual orientation, per se, correlates to or causes a child outcome good or bad.
Genuine scientific debate does not — and could not possibly — occur as a result of NOM/Witherspoon’s Robert George getting a $55,000 “planning grant” for Mark Regnerus, with Mark Regnerus then presenting a booby trapped study design to Robert George in order to get green-lighted for $785,000 of study funding. Distortions of the scientific record never are involved in legitimate, actual scientific debate over scientific interpretation of study findings.
Even NOM’s Brian Brown admits there is no scientific basis for saying that a parent’s sexual orientation correlates to or causes a child outcome good or bad. Look what Brown said in his Big Mo post:
“Does this new study prove gay parents harm their children? No. Â . . . We still can’t say that from scientific evidence because we don’t have good data.”
Yet immediately, Brown goes on to say that the Marks and Regnerus studies “show us the claim that science has disproven and ruled out of court the idea that children need a mom and dad is just bogus.”
Much like Maggie Gallagher, NOM’s Brian Brown lies through his teeth while talking out both sides of his gay-bashing bigot mouth. First he admits that the Regnerus study did not prove that gay parents harm children, then he says that all children “need” heterosexual parents. He has no explanation for why an adopted child, for example, would “need” abusive heterosexual parents but not loving gay parents.
And why are so many children up for adoption? In many cases, children are up for adoption because their heterosexual parents neglected, abused or abandoned them.
If NOM’s Brian Brown had respect for science, he would not base any of his gay-bashing newsletters on “findings” from a booby trapped study that had loaded up its test group with variables.
To specify what is meant: if a person was raised by a single lesbian mother, who also was paralyzed from the waist down and in a wheelchair, and who was living in poverty, that mother’s child’s “bad” outcomes could as well correlate to the mother’s poverty, or to her being a single disabled mother, as to her being lesbian. When a test group is loaded up with variables, there simply is no way of knowing which of the variables might correlate to — or have caused — the “bad” outcomes.
6) NOM’s BRIAN BROWN IS LYING WHEN HE SAYS HE IS CONCERNED WITH CHILD WELFARE
NOM is interested in political gay-bashing and restricting gay people’s rights, and not in the least in child welfare.
For one example that that is so: most children in the foster care system are there because irresponsible heterosexual parents neglected, abused or abandoned them.
And, many children have been rescued from the foster care system by gay adoptive parents who have given them safe and loving families and homes.
Yet, NOM’s lying anti-gay bigots want those gay-headed families stigmatized and legally disadvantaged — no matter the harm that NOM”s gay-bashing bigotry inflicts on the children the gay parents are raising.
Here is a second example of NOM not giving a damn about child welfare. A 2-year-old boy lost his heterosexual parents to an accident. His gay uncle and the uncle’s male spouse were at the hospital the day the baby was born, and love him very much. His parents had named the married gay uncles as the boy’s guardians, should anything happen to them. Now, that boy is being raised by his loving uncles, instead of having to be placed in an orphanage or in the foster care system.
Who but a malicious anti-gay bigot would say that that boy and his family should be stigmatized and legally disadvantaged?
To read the gay-bashing NOM pledge signed by Mitt Romney that would stigmatize and legally disadvantage that family, go here.
And remember:Â The National Organization for MarriageÂ recently admitted toÂ guiltÂ in 18 counts of California state campaign finance law violations.
For breaking the law eighteen times,Â NOM in CaliforniaÂ had to pay a $49,000 fine.
That NOM authorities have to commission a booby trapped “study” and then promote the booby-trapped study with lie after lie after lie — in their attempts to perpetuate the sexual orientation apartheid system — shows that NOM is losing the argument. Bigots have used distortions of the scientific record as weapons against minorities in the American past, yet all such past American minority victims wound up gaining their civil rights on a national level.
The lying, malicious, campaign-finance-law-breaking anti-gay bigots of NOM will not prevent LGBTers from achieving equality.
New York City-based novelist and freelance writerÂ Scott Roseâ€™s LGBT-interest by-line has appeared on Advocate.com, PoliticusUSA.com, The New York Blade, Queerty.com, Girlfriends and in numerous additional venues. Among his other interests are the arts, boating and yachting, wine and food, travel, poker and dogs. His â€œMr. David Cooperâ€™s Happy Suicideâ€ is about aÂ New York City advertising executive assigned to aÂ condom account.
Enjoy this piece?
… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.
NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.
Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.
‘Like Al Capone Complaining About Organized Crime’: Jim Jordan Slammed for Demanding Manhattan DA Testify
House Republican Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan is under fire after sending notice to Alvin Bragg on Monday demanding the Manhattan District Attorney currently investigating Donald Trump’s possibly unlawful payoff to Stormy Daniels testify before Congress to explain the ongoing case.
Legal experts have said Jordan’s letter, which was also signed by the powerful House Oversight Chair Jim Comer, could be considered obstruction of justice.
Late Tuesday morning Jordan took to Twitter to defend his actions, which many see as an attempt to intimidate the Manhattan DA and interfere with the potential prosecution of the ex-president.
“Democrats think it’s ok for them to examine and defund local police,” Jordan said. “But not ok for Republicans to examine a local prosecutor in Manhattan abusing his power to take down a political opponent.”
READ MORE: Trump’s Lawyer in Stormy Daniels Case Back in 2018 Called Hush Money Payoff ‘Illegal’: Report
The Judiciary Chair, who has a law degree from Capital University in Ohio, appeared to not understand that he does not have oversight authority over a duly-elected county district attorney.
Attorney Ron Filipkowski, a Republican turned Democrat, slammed Jordan’s remarks.
“This makes literally no sense whatsoever. Local police are funded locally. Democrats aren’t seeking to haul local prosecutors in front of Congress for anything. This is a naked abuse of federal power over something Congress has no jurisdiction over.”
Former federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner, now an NBC News and MSNBC Legal Analyst, called Jordan’s and Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s actions “a dramatic and transparent abuse of power.”
READ MORE: Republicans Are ‘Obstructing Justice’ and ‘Becoming Accessories’ to Trump’s ‘Crimes’: Former Prosecutor
Aaron Fritschner, Deputy Chief of Staff for U.S. Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA) called Jordan’s letter, “stupid and embarrassing” three times, and, called Jordan’s attempt at oversight of a county DA “is invalid, unconstitutional, inappropriate, stupidly pretextual and political.”
District Attorney Bragg, Fritscher continued, “will be on rock solid legal ground if he should decide to use their letter to kill insects or remove avian waste, but in the meantime we who have seen and written legitimate oversight letters in the past imo should mock Jordan, Comer et al for their hilarious incompetence.”
Others on Capitol Hill also mocked Jordan.
“A kangaroo investigation has been opened by Jim Jordan and the House GOP into the Manhattan DA, Alvin Bragg,” U.S. Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY) tweeted. “Republicans complaining about the weaponization of government is like Al Capone complaining about organized crime.”
'DOESN'T PASS THE STRAIGHT FACE TEST'
Trump’s Lawyer in Stormy Daniels Case Back in 2018 Called Hush Money Payoff ‘Illegal’: Report
Joe Tacopina, billed as a “powerhouse attorney” and “one of the country’s top trial attorneys” when Donald Trump hired him in January to sue a former prosecutor, back in 2018 weighed in on Trump’s $130,000 hush money payoff to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, calling the payment “illegal,” and “a potential campaign finance issue.”
According to a March 15, 2018 CNN transcript, and video (below) unearthed by Twitter user Acyn, Tacopina said the $130,000 hush money payoff to Stormy Daniels is “fair game” for prosecutors.
Tacopina told host Don Lemon,”if there is an issue with that payment to Stormy Daniels being — that it was made on behalf of the candidate, OK, and it was not declared, that is fair game, unfortunately, if that is the case.”
READ MORE: ‘All-Out War’: Trump’s Attorney Tells Kimberly Guilfoyle Ex-President Will Be ‘Loud and Proud’ When Showing Up for Indictment
He went on to discredit the defense some now appear to be making, at least in the court of public opinion, that Michael Cohen paid Stormy Daniels on his own, without Trump knowing.
“And you know, quite frankly, you know, Michael Cohen, again has made statements that would give rise to suspicion for any prosecutor to say, that doesn’t make sense that a lawyer took out a home equity loan with his own money, paid somebody that he didn’t even know on behalf of a client who, by the way, had the where with all the money to afford $130,000, and by the way, didn’t tell the client about the settlement agreement,” Tacopina said. “It’s an illegal agreement. It’s a fraud. If that’s in fact is the case, it doesn’t make sense,” he added.
— Acyn (@Acyn) March 21, 2023
“Doesn’t pass the straight face test. And quite frankly, if that is what happened we have a potential campaign finance issue.”
— Acyn (@Acyn) March 21, 2023
Less than two months later, in May of 2018, NPR reported Trump admitted to authorizing the payoff.
The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake Tuesday morning adds: “Per a CNN transcript, now-Trump lawyer Joe Tacopina in 2018 said the Stormy Daniels hush-money payment was ‘illegal, by the way.'”
Per a CNN transcript, now-Trump lawyer Joe Tacopina in 2018 said the Stormy Daniels hush-money payment was “illegal, by the way.” pic.twitter.com/0ZQZ2eZFpW
— Aaron Blake (@AaronBlake) March 21, 2023
READ MORE: Republicans Are ‘Obstructing Justice’ and ‘Becoming Accessories’ to Trump’s ‘Crimes’: Former Prosecutor
Trump is expected to be indicted this week or next, on what some experts believe could be charges related to falsification of business records and campaign finance related issues.
Watch the videos and see the transcript above or at this link.
Image via Shutterstock
RIGHT WING EXTREMISM
Powerful GOP Committee Chair Admits He Can’t Control Marjorie Taylor Greene
Rep. James Comer (R-KY), who’s leading Republican investigations into President Joe Biden and his family, compared firebrand Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) to NBA superstar Lebron James.
The Kentucky Republican chairs the House Oversight and Accountability Committee, where he’s been tasked by GOP leadership and his constituents to investigate wild claims about the president, his son Hunter Biden and other Democrats, reported the New York Times.
“You know, the customer’s always right,” Comer said, referring to the conspiracy theories presented to him by constituents. “I say, ‘Let me see it,’ because I want to see where the source is. They don’t know that it’s QAnon, but it’s QAnon stuff.”
Greene, one of the Republicans who serves on his committee, has expressed support for QAnon conspiracies herself, but Comer admitted that he had little authority to rein in the influence she holds within the GOP caucus after a little more than two years in Congress.
DON’T MISS: C-SPAN caller blows off Trump’s Stormy Daniels payment: ‘He’s our salvation!’
“It’s hard for a coach to tell LeBron James what he’s doing wrong,” Comer said.
In addition to her history of spouting QAnon conspiracy theories, Greene has also questioned whether the Pentagon was really attacked during the 9/11 terrorist attacks, has called multiple school shootings “false flag” operations staged by the American government, and has even suggested that the Rothschild family is funding giant space lasers that are starting forest fires in California.
- RIGHT WING EXTREMISM3 days ago
Experts Warn Trump Is Encouraging Violence One Day After He Announces Rally at Waco on 30th Anniversary of Siege
- RIGHT WING EXTREMISM2 days ago
‘Reacting to a Cult Leader’: Trump Supporters Organizing to ‘Stock Up on Weaponry’ Says GOP Adviser
- News1 day ago
‘This Man Is a Criminal’: George Conway Busts GOP’s ‘Completely Ridiculous’ Trump Defense
- BREAKING NEWS1 day ago
Jim Jordan Waging ‘Purely Political Attack’: Demands Bragg Testify Before Congress Over Expected Trump Indictment
- News1 day ago
‘RICO’: Trump Could Be Facing Racketeering and Conspiracy Charges Used to Prosecute Organized Crime
- BREAKING NEWS1 day ago
Trump Files Sweeping Legal Motion to Try to Block Georgia Grand Jury Findings and District Attorney Fani Willis
- News23 hours ago
Republicans Are ‘Obstructing Justice’ and ‘Becoming Accessories’ to Trump’s ‘Crimes’: Former Prosecutor
- News20 hours ago
‘All-Out War’: Trump’s Attorney Tells Kimberly Guilfoyle Ex-President Will Be ‘Loud and Proud’ When Showing Up for Indictment