Stormy Daniel was truthful and Trump lied

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You mean a billionaire mogul slept with porn stars and playboy models? I’m shocked, shocked I tell you. Honestly a majority of America doesn’t give a $hit. Who he slept with as a private citizen isn’t my business. All that took place before the Presidency and last I checked it’s not illegal to have sex with people who were both willing participants.

Who cares about his sex life - not me. But by taking this attitude you Republicans have forever lost your voice to opine on the sex lives of others whether Democratic politicians or everyday Americans. No more governing based on supposed biblical principles. Get your laws out of our bedrooms and off our bodies.

What’s at stake here are the standards of ethics for our politicians. Trump is destroying the rule of law and democratic ideals. You are excusing his breaking of laws, thereby showing us your acceptance of a thug as your leader.

That you can say the bolded with a straight face is amazing. A KKK member, a man who literally killed a woman, a rapist, a woman who gave Pakistanis access to our classified info, a man who paid off a terrorist organization, a woman who laundered millions through her foundation. Look in the mirror

Oh lordy, you really want to go into the challenge of which party has the least ethics? Shall we parade out all the Republican hall of shame politicians for you?

You can if you choose. I just think it's hilarious that suddenly the 'rule of law' is important to liberals. Did you see that Zuckerberg hired Eric Holder's law firm to police 'hate speech' on Facebook? LOL. He's appointed himself 'head liberal good guy". Oh, he's also planning to take over on-line dating through Facebook but neglects to mention that one of his employees used personal and private Facebook information to stalk women.

You're bringing up Zuckerberg? He's a businessman, not a politician. I thought you conservatives were pro-business. He can do what he wants with his business, right? If you don't like his business, don't use it. I personally give no f's about him or his business as long as he's not breaking the law.

To the other point, if I hear you correctly, it seems you are saying that "rule of law" is not important to anyone in this country. So that's where we're at. Lawlessness. And you're fine with it.

A businessman who has thrown himself heavily into politics and is using his company as a political bully pulpit. And my guess? Given his arrogance, he will soon go too far and find himself in legal hot water. Given his employee had access to users personal proprietary information and used it in a criminal way, he's already on thin ice.

I find it hilarious that you are talking about the 'rule of law', while liberals constantly want laws broken, when those laws suit them. You did not hear me correctly; you heard your own party shouting in your ear. I suggest you learn about the psychological term 'projection'.

"businessman" - you mean an organized crime money launderer.

His business went away in the 1990's.

Everything since is vaporware.

[Anonymous]

Rudy and Trump seemed to be focused on where the money came from.

The issue is not whether money came FROM the campaign. It’s whether the payment to silence Stormy amounted to a secret contribution TO the campaign.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:4 pages and no one's defending Trump? What time is it in Russia?

Oh I think the poster on the last page who called this a "nothingburger" was a feeble attempt to defend 45. Just not very articulate.

Structuring payments to be under $10k is a money laundering violation. It's business as usual for Trump.

+1 look at how many times Trump was indicted for this kind of stuff. It's pretty lengthy:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/donald-trump-scandals/474726/

[Anonymous]

"Imagine if that came out on October 15, 2016, in the middle of the last debate with Hillary Clinton."

- Rudy Giuliani


So Rudy himself tied this to the campaign.

So much winning.

[Anonymous]

Trump just literally tweeted that he did reimburse Cohen to execute the NDA, via a “monthly retainer” that was “not” with campaign monies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Rudy and Trump seemed to be focused on where the money came from.

The issue is not whether money came FROM the campaign. It’s whether the payment to silence Stormy amounted to a secret contribution TO the campaign.

The absurd claim is that it of course was Trump’s money because he is free to contribute to his own campaign.

It’s probably the lies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump just literally tweeted that he did reimburse Cohen to execute the NDA, via a “monthly retainer” that was “not” with campaign monies.

Tantrump tweets:

Mr. Cohen, an attorney, received a monthly retainer, not from the campaign and having nothing to do with the campaign, from which he entered into, through reimbursement, a private contract between two parties, known as a non-disclosure agreement, or NDA. These agreements are.....

...very common among celebrities and people of wealth. In this case it is in full force and effect and will be used in Arbitration for damages against Ms. Clifford (Daniels). The agreement was used to stop the false and extortionist accusations made by her about an affair,......

...despite already having signed a detailed letter admitting that there was no affair. Prior to its violation by Ms. Clifford and her attorney, this was a private agreement. Money from the campaign, or campaign contributions, played no roll in this transaction.

Is he exploding or this is some brilliant strategy.

Will his trumpkins follow him to ditch to believe that they paid any accuser $130K for just falsely claim that she had affair with the orange one? Is he that weak? Apparently he does not settle. If he did this why did he claim he did not know about this? What about Karen McDuggal? Was that also a harasser?

My head is spinning with all the lies and cover-ups. But then I guess I am not as smart as trumpkins to digest all these burned truth.

[Anonymous]

This is what we've come to folks - a porn star is more honest and has more integrity than the POTUS. This country has really fallen far. It's not abortion or gays that have brought this country down, but the people who put Trump in office.

[Anonymous]

It seems nobody associated with Trump knows what a retainer is in actuality. Can’t wait to see (1) the retainer agreement; (2) whether the funds were laundered through a client trust account or Cohen’s operating account (assuming he had one); and (3) whether Cohen sent month statements or accountings of the fees and expenses incurred on behalf of his “client.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is what we've come to folks - a porn star is more honest and has more integrity than the POTUS. This country has really fallen far. It's not abortion or gays that have brought this country down, but the people who put Trump in office.

It is so crazy! We all believe the porn star. She is credible and honest. And Trump is, ummm, not. And he supporters are such stupid people. Murica!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump just literally tweeted that he did reimburse Cohen to execute the NDA, via a “monthly retainer” that was “not” with campaign monies.

Tantrump tweets:

Mr. Cohen, an attorney, received a monthly retainer, not from the campaign and having nothing to do with the campaign, from which he entered into, through reimbursement, a private contract between two parties, known as a non-disclosure agreement, or NDA. These agreements are.....

...very common among celebrities and people of wealth. In this case it is in full force and effect and will be used in Arbitration for damages against Ms. Clifford (Daniels). The agreement was used to stop the false and extortionist accusations made by her about an affair,......

...despite already having signed a detailed letter admitting that there was no affair. Prior to its violation by Ms. Clifford and her attorney, this was a private agreement. Money from the campaign, or campaign contributions, played no roll in this transaction.

Is he exploding or this is some brilliant strategy.

Will his trumpkins follow him to ditch to believe that they paid any accuser $130K for just falsely claim that she had affair with the orange one? Is he that weak? Apparently he does not settle. If he did this why did he claim he did not know about this? What about Karen McDuggal? Was that also a harasser?

My head is spinning with all the lies and cover-ups. But then I guess I am not as smart as trumpkins to digest all these burned truth.

They don’t care about marital fidelity, morality or honesty. None of it matters except Hillary.

[Anonymous]

Guliani really backed Trump into a corner with Stormy payments. This is all very seedy and mob-like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For as bad as the Hannity interview was, this Washington Post follow on was actually worse

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/transcript-giuliani-interview-with-the-washington-post/2018/05/03/a35c4a3c-4e9b-11e8-af46-b1d6dc0d9bfe_story.html

And yet, somehow, both Rudy and Trump think this is winning.

Cohen is totally under the bus.

My head hurts reading this interview.

Either Rudy is crazy or he is trying to make all of crazy by this nonsensical talks. Are our laws completely irrelevant? Rudy says he wants to punch Comey on the nose? Can he be sued for promoting violence against a citizen? What happens if Comey is attacked by a trumpster?

Rudy says Trump did not know about any of these until Rudy told trump? What? Rudy also says these payments tarted in 2017 or 2018 - he does not know. This WP interview is completely incoherent - I hope SDNY lawyers are competent and can bring this administration down.

Currently our government looks worse than a 3rd world countries corrupt government that Americans love to belittle.

[Anonymous]

According to the GOP, yes, our laws are irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

My understanding is that NY does not permit an attorney to enter into a “non-refundable” retainer agreement.