MomentsofSanity
Lifer
- Jan 25, 2011
- 16,590
- 8,673
- 146
My Twitter pic for a while...My how the hypocrisy exudes from this mess. Republicans should change their party symbol to pedobear.
My Twitter pic for a while...My how the hypocrisy exudes from this mess. Republicans should change their party symbol to pedobear.
looks like Stormy's lawyer is claiming they have a DVD of evidence
http://start.att.net/news/read/arti...warning_shot_with_myst-rfoxnews/category/news
Oh my bad. Clinton was impeached for lying about getting a hummer. Shit, I am so fucking goddamn sorry. I totally forgot that republicans weren't as petty as I thought they were.
The vapors!
Trump shouldn't be the only one raking in the cash now that he's president now should he?Do we know who's paying Stormy? She want's to return the hush money and break the NDA, I assume that's because there are greater profits in telling the story. Who's offering and how much?
Well, in this aspect she's a dirty whore and should be shamed for profiting in a capitalist environment. Trump's da man for hittin' dat...and should get dat money for moving on her like a bitch.Trump shouldn't be the only one raking in the cash now that he's president now should he?
looks like Stormy's lawyer is claiming they have a DVD of evidence
http://start.att.net/news/read/arti...warning_shot_with_myst-rfoxnews/category/news
It'd be hilarious if this picture caused Trump to panic and try to get in front of it and apologize like a buffoon, but the DVD ended up being blank.
There is no doubt Trump did it.Why is Stormy Daniels doing it? Maybe he gave her something with that unwrapped baby carrot of his, and this is vengeance both personal and patriotic. Or it could be fame and money. Who knows, who cares, the issue is who is telling the truth. Being a serial lair with no credibility, it doesn't look good for Trump. He is every bit the stranger fucker she is too, in fact it's the only real claim to populism he has - his ability to fuck the sheer majority of taxpayers by being in office. I bet he opened those pass through accounts for his business profits with a smile on his face, good thing we let him give himself several tax breaks.
There is no doubt Trump did it.
Stormy is trying to break the NDA because someone offered her a bucket of cash for her story. There is no doubt about that either.
Ineffectual. The fact there's a NDA and a payoff is all you really need to know.There is no doubt Trump did it.
Stormy is trying to break the NDA because someone offered her a bucket of cash for her story. There is no doubt about that either.
Let me remind everyone Trump is the guy who brought Bills Mistresses to the debate. This is an important point in this discussion.
Why? There is nothing illegal about an NDA and a payoff, unless it was done under duress, then it could become extortion.Ineffectual. The fact there's a NDA and a payoff is all you really need to know.
Why? There is nothing illegal about an NDA and a payoff, unless it was done under duress, then it could become extortion.
I totally missed that using campaign funds was the issue. Suddenly it all makes sense. Though I thought the rules were written in such a way as to allow almost anything to be charged against one's campaign. Is that not the case?Agreed but we’ve yet to get accounting for it (it’s illegal to use campaign funds) I wouldn’t put it past Mr. Krabbs to pay his lawyer with those funds.
Regarding the NDA every legal expert I’ve heard agrees it’s a very sloppy arrangement I’m no even going to touch if we want future Presidents issuing NDAs to everyone they’ve ever interacted with.
I totally missed that using campaign funds was the issue. Suddenly it all makes sense. Though I thought the rules were written in such a way as to allow almost anything to be charged against one's campaign. Is that not the case?
To my understanding that is not correct.
Using campaign funds to pay off chicks is what Gary Heart(?) got in trouble doing. He may have had jail time but I can’t remember
Huh? Wuh? Google is your friend.I totally missed that using campaign funds was the issue. Suddenly it all makes sense. Though I thought the rules were written in such a way as to allow almost anything to be charged against one's campaign. Is that not the case?