She said she spanked the man who would be president — with a magazine that had him on the cover. She said he told her he and Melania slept in separate bedrooms.
And she became the second woman in a matter of days to say he compared her to his gold standard for women, his daughter Ivanka: "He was like, 'Wow, you — you are special. You remind me of my daughter.'"
Donald Trump wants an incestuous relationship with his daughter.
"And she became the second woman in a matter of days to say he compared her to his gold standard for women, his daughter Ivanka: 'He was like, 'Wow, you — you are special. You remind me of my daughter.'"
Stormy Daniels Gets Best ’60 Minutes’ Ratings In a Decade
Stormy Daniels’ 60 Minutes interview with Anderson Cooper looks to be the newsmagazine’s best since Steve Kroft’s interview with Barack and Michelle Obama in November of 2008, shortly after he was elected president, according to the Hollywood Reporter.
Trump rips 'so much fake news' after Stormy Daniels interview
The Hill Mallory Shelbourne 2 hrs ago
President Trump on Monday ripped "so much fake news" in a tweet following the highly anticipated "60 Minutes" interview with adult film star Stormy Daniels.
"So much Fake News. Never been more voluminous or more inaccurate," Trump wrote on Twitter. "But through it all, our country is doing great!"
Daniels claims she had an affair with Trump before he was president and was paid a sum of money before the 2016 election to keep quiet. A lawyer for Trump has denied the alleged affair.
Michael Avenatti, a lawyer for Daniels, on Monday questioned why Trump is not tweeting about his client.
"Isn't it interesting that we have a president that will tweet about the most mundane matters, but he won't tweet about my client, the affair, the agreement or the $130,000 payment?" Avenatti told "CBS This Morning.
"You know why he won't tweet about it? Because it's true. It's 100 percent true." Trump earlier Monday tweeted about the economy, saying it is "looking really good." ____________________ We all know it's 100 per cent true. But it is great entertainment for him to keep denying it. And denying... And denying... And...
I have never admitted anything remotely like that. ;-) _____________________ Note, however, that Trump in that tweet did not actually deny his tryst with Daniels.
Is he perhaps worried about that picture cd her lawyer says exists?
Donald Trump wants an incestuous relationship with his daughter.
interesting allegation rog.
btw, i have it on excellent authority that you've resorted to prostituting your mail order bride amongst the homeless encampments in and around LA to support your opioid habit.
if true that sounds terribly tragic, but probably does explain her frequent visits to the medicaid ER.
James - having someone give you an erotic spanking is not against the law, nor is it all that unusual. Having sex with prepubescent girls is against the law, and sort of sick.
Sounds like Trump is the one "infatuated with incest"... Just can't stop making lewd comments about Ivanka. ______________
C.H. Truth said... James - having someone give you an erotic spanking is not against the law, nor is it all that unusual. Having sex with prepubescent girls is against the law, and sort of sick. _______________
My question was, Did Trump do both? The girl in question, I now understand, was 13 years old, not 15. Whether she was pre- or post-pubescent is not certain. Probably post. But that sort of thing is not only "sort of" sick. It's REALLY sick. But we have a Trump statement about Epstein indicating that Trump did not consider such behavior reprehensible. He *wink *wink *nod *nod appeared to approve. ___________
So you enjoy "having someone give you an erotic spanking," Ch? Interesting. Does your wife enjoy doing that?
There has been a temptation throughout the program's history for some people to suppose that their FICA payroll taxes entitle them to a benefit in a legal, contractual sense. That is to say, if a person makes FICA contributions over a number of years, Congress cannot, according to this reasoning, change the rules in such a way that deprives a contributor of a promised future benefit. Under this reasoning, benefits under Social Security could probably only be increased, never decreased, if the Act could be amended at all. Congress clearly had no such limitation in mind when crafting the law. Section 1104 of the 1935 Act, entitled "RESERVATION OF POWER," specifically said: "The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to the Congress." Even so, some have thought that this reservation was in some way unconstitutional. This is the issue finally settled by Flemming v. Nestor.
No, both of us condemn incest. The real creeper is the Creep in the White House. ___________
Trump Stays Silent on Stormy Daniels
“After sixty-one weeks in the White House, President Trump has found two people he won’t attack on Twitter: Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal,” the New York Times reports.
“The verbose commander-in-chief has posted more than 2,900 times on Twitter since taking office, using the term ‘FAKE NEWS’ to describe everything from the Russia probe and allegations of chaos in the White House to harassment accusations, the size of his inaugural crowds and heated arguments with world leaders.
“But he has been uncharacteristically silent in recent days — to the relief of his advisers — as a pornographic film star and a Playboy model described intimate details of sexual encounters with Mr. Trump. Stormy Daniels, the porn star, said Sunday night on CBS’s 60 Minutes that she once spanked the president with a copy of Forbes magazine bearing his face on the cover.” __________________
Why is he silent about that? Why not tweet abut it? Does he fear a photo exists of it?
Stormy Daniels’ Legal Strategy Suggests She Has Photos
Daily Beast: “First, it’s chiefly concerned with ‘certain still images and/or text messages.’ Yes, later in the agreement, the ‘confidential information’ at issue is expansively defined, to include absolutely anything, tangible or intangible, that Daniels might know about Trump, including, of course, whether she spanked him with a magazine or not.
“But far more ink is spilled discussing what Daniels is supposed to do with those texts and images: give copies to Cohen and destroy the originals.
“Now the strategy starts to make sense. This dispute isn’t about the affair: it’s about those pictures or texts. As viewers of Daniels’ 60 Minutes interview surely noticed, the only question Daniels refused to answer was about whether she’s got more evidence of the affair. Avenatti suggested the answer is yes: he tweeted a photo of a DVD inside a safe.” ________________
The attorney for Ms. Daniels has aggressively argued that his client is not bound by the nondisclosure agreement she signed, in part because Mr. Trump himself never signed the document. Michael Avenatti, the lawyer, has repeatedly used Trump-like insinuations to suggest that Ms. Daniels has digital evidence of the intercourse.
“We have a litany of more evidence in this case, and it’s going to be disclosed, and it’s going to be laid bare for the American public,” Mr. Avenatti said in an interview Monday morning on Good Morning America.
Last week, Mr. Avenatti tweeted a picture of a CD or DVD with the suggestive caption: “If a picture is worth a thousand words, how many words is this worth???? #60minutes #pleasedenyit #basta.”
Even that has not prompted a presidential retort — yet. _________________
“We have a litany of more evidence in this case, and it’s going to be disclosed, and it’s going to be laid bare for the American public,” Mr. Avenatti said in an interview Monday morning on Good Morning America. ___________
RAT-FINK: how much you want to bet the pederast is looking for pics of daniels' DAUGHTER? _________
LOL Rat is confused. "Pederasts" like little boys.
You guys have hit the bottom of the barrel, haven't you.
There are no photos of me, no accusations of me. No girls or boys or parents or women or prostitutes or porn stars or people of either gender have ever accused me of anything.
Report: Democrats would need huge wave to win US House
A report released Monday suggests Democrats might have to temper their enthusiasm about climbing back to power during this year’s midterm elections.
To win a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, Democrats would need a tremendous electoral wave not seen in more than 40 years to overcome Republican advantages from gerrymandered districts in key states, according to an analysis from the Brennan Center for Justice.
The report projects that Democrats would need to win the national popular vote for congressional districts by a nearly 11 percentage point margin over Republicans to gain more than the roughly two dozen seats they need to flip control of the Republican-led chamber.
That would take more than the typical Democratic wave that history suggests would occur for the party out of power during a midterm election.
“It would be the equivalent of a tsunami,” said Michael Li, a senior counsel who heads up redistricting work for the center, which is based at New York University School of Law. “Democrats would have to win larger than any sort of recent midterm wave — almost double what they got in 2006 — in order to win a narrow majority.”
________________________
Last 5 RCP polls show Democrats up only 5,5,3,6 and 6. Well short of what the 11 they need.
for chrissakes, when even an NBC flunkie is on to your bullshit...
Guthrie asked Avenatti why Daniels does not just turn over the evidence, which would allegedly prove that she had an affair with Trump. The TODAY show interview comes one day after Daniels’ interview with “60 Minutes.”
“You were here almost three weeks ago, and I asked if there was any evidence, documentary evidence, text messages, photo evidence that verified that Stormy Daniels had the affair that she claims she had. You said to me, ‘that’s a question Ms. Daniels will have to ultimately answer.’ Cut to last night, she’s asked directly about this on “60 Minutes” and she says my attorney has instructed me not to answer. So does this or doesn’t she have the evidence?” Guthrie asked Avenatti.
Stormy’s attorney responded by saying it is not the right time to release all of the evidence, saying they are in the “early stages of this case.”
“Again, we’re not going to get into the details of everything we have at this time and there’s a reason for that. We’re in the early stages of this case. we understand the American people want all the information right now immediately. It would make no sense for us to play our hand, as to this issue, and we’re not going to do it right now,” Avenatti responded.
“Why not? This is the very moment you need to do it, she has denied it three times. She has stated this affair didn’t happen. Isn’t this the very moment she should come forward and as you might say, put up or shut up, if she has this evidence?” Guthrie continued.
Avenatti clearly was not happy with the question, defending Daniels by saying she sat down with “a major journalist” and answered “some very tough questions” the night before on television.
“Put up or shut up? She sat down with a major journalist and answered some very tough questions. Where is Mr. Cohen? Is he coming on after me, I don’t think so? Where is President Trump? Is he coming on after me? She’s answered some very difficult questions. We’re not going to play our hand right now, and the reason is cause we have a case to win,” Avenatti said.
Guthrie, said Avenatti was “being coy” and that it seems like he was “playing games.”
Why does she not release the evidence of her affair? Because Trump's legal team wants to crucify her. The only good that "evidence" does her right now is leverage, and that's gone if she releases it into the public.
Bigger question is why should we care about an alleged affair? They're both grown-ups, and that is a personal issue ... and we already know how Trump behaves.
Why does she not release the evidence of her affair? Because Trump's legal team wants to crucify her. The only good that "evidence" does her right now is leverage, and that's gone if she releases it into the public.
If don't see where the evidence is particularly relevant in any of the current legal proceedings involving the NDA. She's already broke it by doing the interview. Trump's legal team can and will crucify her with it.
Looks more like an opening negotiation for a big book/movie deal.
indeed. she admitted that she's been making a ton more $$$ since this charade began. there's a pot of gold at the end of this for her as long as her little scuzzball lawyer can gather it all up without fucking it all up.
she admitted that she's been making a ton more $$$ since this charade began
Good for her....it's the only thing a women can sell and still own it afterwards....Trump again proves he is a lecherous prick and is paying the price for fucking around while married...Wonder if malodorous sleeps in the same room as donnie....I'm sure she was pleased he only did her once!!!!! BTW, I really don't give a fuck who he does or when, but bullying around his accusers with lawsuits is a talent he developed being a slum lord in NY....
the NDA. She's already broke it by doing the interview.
That's being hotly disputed. Just because Trump's lawyers say a thing, doesn't make it true.
When someone is threatening to go after you for $20 million, and you'd better believe that they have other tricks in mind as well, you're not going to say "well, the NDA is already broken any ... so I might as well ..."
"Surrounded by students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, Wasserman Schultz said, “Unlike firearm purchases, someone who wants to go into a store that sells ammunition can buy as much ammunition as they want without so much as being asked their first name.”
She added, “This is just such a gaping and grave and dangerous loophole that I could not wrap my mind around it when I was told that that was the case.”.
You evidently don't even know the legal arguments being made, and you assume in your ignorance that your assumptions are obvious.
For just a couple, she argues that Cohen broke the NDA agreement, and she has only spoken to resist defamation. There are many other legal reasons for her to conform to the agreement while she has it in litigation, which I'm not going to explain to someone with that attitude.
wp, i think the whole thing is bullshit anyway. for chrissakes, the left absolutely worships bill clinton as he raped and sexually assaulted his way through the 70's, 80's and 90's. now we're supposed to fall for some concern trolling over CONSENSUAL sex?
this thing reeks of someone trying to manipulate daniels at the 11th hour to fuck up trump's election effort. it reminds me of the discovery of W's DUI conviction at the last minute.
this broad pocketed $130 large and signed an NDA. that should've been the end of it. now someone has convinced her it's worth a whole lot more. probably her greaseball democrat operative attorney.
btw, the mystical trump muscle in vegas? nice touch. straight from a dime store mob novel. good grief. strive to do better and be a little creative when concocting a bullshit story. the old "nice ( ) you have there. it would be a shame if anything happened to it." line is as cliche' as it comes.
now we're supposed to fall for some concern trolling over CONSENSUAL sex?
I don't know what you're "supposed to fall for". I'm concerned about the underhanded legal tactics employed by a Candidate and later President, beginning with that NDA itself.
"btw, the mystical trump muscle in vegas? nice touch. straight from a dime store mob novel" - I have no idea what you're talking about.
the last reference was to the supposed threat she received in a parking lot in vegas.
Oh that - I don't doubt her on that, but it's nothing. You can hire bottom-feeding lawyers anywhere, who specialize in intimidating people with implied threats. You ignore it, or mock them if you feel like a laugh.
"and no concern for her violating the NDA." - I don't know that she did. I haven't examined that contract, and I don't know whether it's even a legal and enforceable contract. But for the sake of your question let's assume that it is all of that. Her silence and the monetary penalties are contractual arrangements between herself and whoever else is legally a party to it. As such, the performance of someone else's contract, particularly of a personal nature, does not particularly concern me one way or the other.
However, the use of predatory legal practices, especially by someone in a position of power, does concern me.
Blogger Commonsense said...I am aware of her lawyer's legal arguments and they are horseshit.
Do you know how to enforce an arbitration ruling in court? Are you knowledgeable about how to defeat an arbitration agreement, not just a casual reading of the Arbitration Act, but the ways and circumstances in which those clauses are actually defeated or upheld, and why? I doubt that you do, and if not you have no idea what her lawyers are arguing. You don't even know the context of their arguments, let alone enough to evaluate them.
The NDA doesn't bind Cohen from speaking about any alleged affair, just Daniels.
I have now had a chance to briefly look at the Complaint for Declaratory Relief filed by Stephanie Clifford aka Daniels, and Exhibit 1 which is the "Hush Agreement".
There are a lot of implications and technical nuances that would take some time to fully evaluate so I won't comment on those. However, to your claim above, paragraph 2.4 of the NDA expressly provide that BOTH parties expect the "confidential information" to remain confidential. While Trump does gain "copyright" ownership of all such information, when he or his lawyer exposes that information it can be plausibly argued that it is no longer "confidential" according to the definitions contained in "4.1 Definition of Confidential Information."
So the sound-bite answer, that you probably got ultimately from Trump's lawyers, is not as simple as you probably believe.
i think it's safe to assume that cohen drafted an enforceable NDA. i mean, they are boilerplate but i've executed dozens and they are meant to be followed. and enforced by penalty of law if they're not.
i'm curious as to your outsized concern for her and no concern for trump. two parties to a legally binding contract should be treated equally.
i'll give you credit for one thing - at least in this case you've explicitly chosen sides.
It's anything but boilerplate, RRB. I've never seen such a tortured version of an NDA, which looks more than anything else like cut and paste out of an IP agreement with some paragraphs saying, in effect, "all of this actually applies to the personal information, which is basically everything she knows."
She's going to loose Trump's performance of his side, the $130K. Trump may lose the performance of Clifford's side. That's what happens with contracts, when there is a dispute. I don't give a rat's ass about either of them.
That NDA itself exemplifies a legal team taking advantage. The Arbitration clause is part of it, the (unenforceable) penalty, the over-broad definitions, all of it is reprehensible. From a slum lord, or a businessman operating just a cut above the crime bosses, yeah you'd expect that sort of thing. From a major candidate on the eve of his election, it's more than a red flag. Hush your critics if you can, sure, but this kind of crap is crossing the line.
I just hate to see people falling for it, when the sleaziest of lawyers air arguments out in public that they probably won't ever attempt in court, just to damage the public credibility of someone.
well, trump could just take a page out of the clinton playbook and stormy could be found in fort marcy park having committed suicide with 5 shots to the head.
seriously, if you wanted to be a little more objective you could just have a little more empathy and understanding for a candidate trying to defend himself against a salacious liar trying to smear him at the worst possible time, coached all along by her democrat operative lawyer.
there's more to this than meets the eye on HER side, wp.
March 27 “While Republicans have been bracing for months for a punishing election in November, they are increasingly alarmed that their losses may be even worse than feared because the midterm campaign appears destined to turn more on the behavior of the man in the White House than any other in decades,” the New York Times reports.
“As much as gun control, immigration, the sweeping tax overhaul and other issues are mobilizing voters on the left and the right, the seamy sex allegations and Mr. Trump’s erratic style could end up alienating crucial blocs of suburban voters and politically moderate women who might be drawn to some Republican policies but find the president’s purported sex antics to be reprehensible.”
Earlier you stated that you were concerned with Trump using predatory legal practices (or something to that degree)... then a few comments later you suggest that you don't care one way or the other for either of them?
For someone apparently using the "I don't know and neither to you" stance that you do when someone presses for details... on the broad scale, you certainly assume Trump and his lawyers are guilty of something...
Which of course, is what we can always count on as your knee jerk position on any debate involving Trump. That he simply must be guilty, wrong, and likely lying.
Trump's approval according to RCP averages is the highest it's been since May of 2017. Heck, even Quinnipiac has him at 40% and they . I didn't check your link, but I am guessing it's either PPP or some other partisan poll that RCP won't use.
you could just have a little more empathy and understanding for a candidate trying to defend himself against a salacious liar
That's a difficult ask from someone who has made his own bed, and used expensive lawyers to keep from lying in it.
Also I seriously doubt that Clifford is lying, considering the types of "property" listed in the NDA. Defending yourself from the truth? I have a real hard time emphasizing with that.
Earlier you stated that you were concerned with Trump using predatory legal practices (or something to that degree)... then a few comments later you suggest that you don't care one way or the other for either of them?
Not caring about the particular performance of their contract is something totally different than concern about the legal and extra-legal practices. Why are you conflicted about that?
"For someone apparently using the "I don't know and neither to you" stance that you do when someone presses for details... "
I only say that when someone is assuming facts not in evidence.
on the broad scale, you certainly assume Trump and his lawyers are guilty of something...
I have observed that his lawyers have made allegations in the press. I know that they have threatened to enforce some $20 million in damages. I know that Trump's lawyers seek to remove the complaint into private arbitration. I have observed comments in the press which I would consider defamatory. These are facts, not assumptions.
My only assumption regarding Trump in this legal process is that I assume that he did hire his lawyers, and has directed them to pursue these strategies, at least in broad strokes. Therefore you have misrepresented my writings in this regard.
Also under your heading. ."The Kansas idiot used a Constitutional argument about the roll of the police in demonstrations. Really fucking stupid." Opie Adicted HB
Yep, I am terrible to use actual case law, USSC Decided Constitutional information to throat punch alky.
Also I seriously doubt that Clifford is lying, considering the types of "property" listed in the NDA.
really?
if luca brasi had surprised ME in a parking lot with my infant child and implied a threat, the very first thing i would've done when he left was file a police report in case something DID happen.
i can see where you're going with this though. you couldn't care less about the truth but you sure are interested in nailing trump on some sort of a 'process' crime.
I have observed comments in the press which I would consider defamatory. These are facts, not assumptions.
Wouldn't something you "consider" defamatory actually be a matter of opinion, rather than a matter of fact? Different people will "observe" a whole lot of stuff and come out with a variety of opinions about what it means.
oh yeah. the TDS is strong. i work with a couple of folks under its spell and when you go "there" with them, blood oozes from their eyes and they shake so uncontrollably that if i actually gave a shit about them i'd consider calling 911.
Wouldn't something you "consider" defamatory actually be a matter of opinion, rather than a matter of fact? Different people will "observe" a whole lot of stuff and come out with a variety of opinions about what it means.
The comments in the press are a matter of fact. Whether *anything* is defamatory is a matter of opinion. As I said, I have observed the comments in the press (fact) which I consider defamatory. My opinions are based on fact, not *assumptions* "that Trump is guilty" as you incorrectly alleged.
110 comments:
She said she spanked the man who would be president — with a magazine that had him on the cover. She said he told her he and Melania slept in separate bedrooms.
And she became the second woman in a matter of days to say he compared her to his gold standard for women, his daughter Ivanka: "He was like, 'Wow, you — you are special. You remind me of my daughter.'"
Donald Trump wants an incestuous relationship with his daughter.
https://youtu.be/IV3V3FsA1I0
How true and inspiring.
I will pay it forward and let someone else make my bed.
When I get back from Washington and my awesome march.
"Donald Trump wants an incestuous relationship with his daughter."
Will you be spamming every thread with the same damn thing FIVE more times today?
Only someone with a diseased mind would even think such a thing.
Get help, sicko.
Trump is the sicko who needs help.
Help him out of the Oval Office, for one.
He's dangerous there.
Another sicko chimes in.
Getting spanked was never something it ever occurred to me to want.
LOL lol LOL lol LOL
If only Trump would start making up his bed all our troubles would go away.
"Getting spanked was never something it ever occurred to me to want."
Prepubescent teenagers on the other hand...
No. It's Trump who did that.
Wonder if he made her spank him.
"And she became the second woman in a matter of days to say he compared her to his gold standard for women, his daughter Ivanka: 'He was like, 'Wow, you — you are special. You remind me of my daughter.'"
Has he ever tried to get Ivanka to spank him?
Sorry sicko...
Your own words are blazened on CHT to see.
Yep. I said I was attracted to postpubescent young women.
How horrible, horrible, horrible.
But I never once thought of asking any female of any age to spank me.
;-)
Stormy Daniels Gets Best ’60 Minutes’ Ratings In a Decade
Stormy Daniels’ 60 Minutes interview with Anderson Cooper looks to be the newsmagazine’s best since Steve Kroft’s interview with Barack and Michelle Obama in November of 2008, shortly after he was elected president, according to the Hollywood Reporter.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile and admits it.
Trump rips 'so much fake news' after Stormy Daniels interview
The Hill
Mallory Shelbourne
2 hrs ago
President Trump on Monday ripped "so much fake news" in a tweet following the highly anticipated "60 Minutes" interview with adult film star Stormy Daniels.
"So much Fake News. Never been more voluminous or more inaccurate," Trump wrote on Twitter.
"But through it all, our country is doing great!"
Daniels claims she had an affair with Trump before he was president and was paid a sum of money before the 2016 election to keep quiet. A lawyer for Trump has denied the alleged affair.
Michael Avenatti, a lawyer for Daniels, on Monday questioned why Trump is not tweeting about his client.
"Isn't it interesting that we have a president that will tweet about the most mundane matters, but he won't tweet about my client, the affair, the agreement or the $130,000 payment?" Avenatti told "CBS This Morning.
"You know why he won't tweet about it? Because it's true. It's 100 percent true."
Trump earlier Monday tweeted about the economy, saying it is "looking really good."
____________________
We all know it's 100 per cent true. But it is great entertainment for him to keep denying it. And denying... And denying... And...
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile and admits it.
I have never admitted anything remotely like that. ;-)
_____________________
Note, however, that Trump in that tweet did not actually deny his tryst with Daniels.
Is he perhaps worried about that picture cd her lawyer says exists?
Donald Trump wants an incestuous relationship with his daughter.
interesting allegation rog.
btw, i have it on excellent authority that you've resorted to prostituting your mail order bride amongst the homeless encampments in and around LA to support your opioid habit.
if true that sounds terribly tragic, but probably does explain her frequent visits to the medicaid ER.
"Yep. I said I was attracted to postpubescent young women."
Which is girls generally aged 11–14.
James - having someone give you an erotic spanking is not against the law, nor is it all that unusual. Having sex with prepubescent girls is against the law, and sort of sick.
You didn't like reality
"You didn't like reality"
No healthy minded father makes comments such as yours...
You even have a daughter.
Makes me go hmmmm.
RED CHINA contacts DC to talk trade, blinking.
IF, your kiddo at age 17 went on national media and Fucked, the fucking, fuck. What would be your reaction?
Will you be spamming every thread with the same damn thing FIVE more times today? " Ette
YEP.
I would bet that most of the men here have gently spanked a lovely lady on her ass.
60 minutes and the Democrats have now officially jumped the shark.
"I would bet that most of the men here have gently spanked a lovely lady on her ass."
YOU and James are infatuated with incest...
"Donald Trump wants an incestuous relationship with his daughter."
Sickos.
Sounds like Trump is the one "infatuated with incest"... Just can't stop making lewd comments about Ivanka.
______________
C.H. Truth said...
James - having someone give you an erotic spanking is not against the law, nor is it all that unusual. Having sex with prepubescent girls is against the law, and sort of sick.
_______________
My question was, Did Trump do both? The girl in question, I now understand, was 13 years old, not 15. Whether she was pre- or post-pubescent is not certain. Probably post. But that sort of thing is not only "sort of" sick. It's REALLY sick. But we have a Trump statement about Epstein indicating that Trump did not consider such behavior reprehensible. He *wink *wink *nod *nod appeared to approve.
___________
So you enjoy "having someone give you an erotic spanking," Ch?
Interesting. Does your wife enjoy doing that?
But that sort of thing is not only "sort of" sick. It's REALLY sick.
ADDENDUM:
Not to mention illegal.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois finds 11-14 years old children sexy.
LOL Not at all. Older than that, yes.
"Yep. I said I was attracted to postpubescent young women."
Which is girls generally aged 11–14.
russia, russia, russia must be over, over, over." RRB
President Trump has been taking Putin to the woodshed.
Expelling 60 diplomats and 265 family members from the USA. They have 7 days to get the fuck out.
The irony here...
An old creeper who creeps after young girls in their tight exercise clothing...
...and an admitted creeper who creeps after 11-14 years old children- - -
Both fantasize about incest.
No one else.
Just them.
Exactly
There has been a temptation throughout the program's history for some people to suppose that their FICA payroll taxes entitle them to a benefit in a legal, contractual sense. That is to say, if a person makes FICA contributions over a number of years, Congress cannot, according to this reasoning, change the rules in such a way that deprives a contributor of a promised future benefit. Under this reasoning, benefits under Social Security could probably only be increased, never decreased, if the Act could be amended at all. Congress clearly had no such limitation in mind when crafting the law. Section 1104 of the 1935 Act, entitled "RESERVATION OF POWER," specifically said: "The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to the Congress." Even so, some have thought that this reservation was in some way unconstitutional. This is the issue finally settled by Flemming v. Nestor.
LIAR-etta: "Both fantasize about incest."
No, both of us condemn incest.
The real creeper is the Creep in the White House.
___________
Trump Stays Silent on Stormy Daniels
“After sixty-one weeks in the White House, President Trump has found two people he won’t attack on Twitter: Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal,” the New York Times reports.
“The verbose commander-in-chief has posted more than 2,900 times on Twitter since taking office, using the term ‘FAKE NEWS’ to describe everything from the Russia probe and allegations of chaos in the White House to harassment accusations, the size of his inaugural crowds and heated arguments with world leaders.
“But he has been uncharacteristically silent in recent days — to the relief of his advisers — as a pornographic film star and a Playboy model described intimate details of sexual encounters with Mr. Trump. Stormy Daniels, the porn star, said Sunday night on CBS’s 60 Minutes that she once spanked the president with a copy of Forbes magazine bearing his face on the cover.”
__________________
Why is he silent about that?
Why not tweet abut it?
Does he fear a photo exists of it?
Stormy Daniels’ Legal Strategy Suggests She Has Photos
Daily Beast: “First, it’s chiefly concerned with ‘certain still images and/or text messages.’ Yes, later in the agreement, the ‘confidential information’ at issue is expansively defined, to include absolutely anything, tangible or intangible, that Daniels might know about Trump, including, of course, whether she spanked him with a magazine or not.
“But far more ink is spilled discussing what Daniels is supposed to do with those texts and images: give copies to Cohen and destroy the originals.
“Now the strategy starts to make sense. This dispute isn’t about the affair: it’s about those pictures or texts. As viewers of Daniels’ 60 Minutes interview surely noticed, the only question Daniels refused to answer was about whether she’s got more evidence of the affair. Avenatti suggested the answer is yes: he tweeted a photo of a DVD inside a safe.”
________________
Trump trembles?
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile and admits it.
The irony here...
An old creeper who creeps after young girls in their tight exercise clothing...
...and an admitted creeper who creeps after 11-14 years old children- - -
Both fantasize about incest.
No one else.
Just them.
Both fantasize about incest.
No one else.
Just them.".
The coked out Daniels was a bust.
Next?
https://politicalwire.com/2018/03/26/trump-stays-silent-on-stormy-daniels/
The attorney for Ms. Daniels has aggressively argued that his client is not bound by the nondisclosure agreement she signed, in part because Mr. Trump himself never signed the document. Michael Avenatti, the lawyer, has repeatedly used Trump-like insinuations to suggest that Ms. Daniels has digital evidence of the intercourse.
“We have a litany of more evidence in this case, and it’s going to be disclosed, and it’s going to be laid bare for the American public,” Mr. Avenatti said in an interview Monday morning on Good Morning America.
Last week, Mr. Avenatti tweeted a picture of a CD or DVD with the suggestive caption: “If a picture is worth a thousand words, how many words is this worth???? #60minutes #pleasedenyit #basta.”
Even that has not prompted a presidential retort — yet.
_________________
Trump trembles.
"The coked out Daniels was a bust.
Next?"
You have to wonder why a supposed "Christian" would be scouring the internet for photos, eh.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile and admits it.
You have to wonder why a supposed "Christian" would be scouring the internet for photos, eh.
maybe he can hire christopher steele and fusion gps to find them.
I'm not looking for them anywhere.
I, like the rest of America,
am just waiting for them to be released,
if, that is, they are.
For apparently they DO exist.
“We have a litany of more evidence in this case, and it’s going to be disclosed, and it’s going to be laid bare for the American public,” Mr. Avenatti said in an interview Monday morning on Good Morning America.
___________
Trump trembles.
Pathetic OLD creeper...
Obsessing over an old porn star.
Perhaps you can find the pictures you're craving on your standby site, gaystarporn.com.
You have to wonder why a supposed "Christian" would be scouring the internet for photos, eh.
how much you want to bet the pederast is looking for pics of daniels' daughter?
avenatti's a greasy little shitstain who worked for rahm. that pretty much says it all.
RAT-FINK:
how much you want to bet the pederast is looking for pics of daniels' DAUGHTER?
_________
LOL
Rat is confused. "Pederasts" like little boys.
You guys have hit the bottom of the barrel, haven't you.
There are no photos of me, no accusations of me.
No girls or boys or parents or women or prostitutes or porn stars
or people of either gender have ever accused me of anything.
Trump on the other hand...
"how much you want to bet the pederast is looking for pics of daniels' daughter?"
Wouldn't bet against it.
He likes them young, so he says.
"avenatti's a greasy little shitstain who worked for rahm. that pretty much says it all."
And groping Joe.
Why james is so desperate
Report: Democrats would need huge wave to win US House
A report released Monday suggests Democrats might have to temper their enthusiasm about climbing back to power during this year’s midterm elections.
To win a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, Democrats would need a tremendous electoral wave not seen in more than 40 years to overcome Republican advantages from gerrymandered districts in key states, according to an analysis from the Brennan Center for Justice.
The report projects that Democrats would need to win the national popular vote for congressional districts by a nearly 11 percentage point margin over Republicans to gain more than the roughly two dozen seats they need to flip control of the Republican-led chamber.
That would take more than the typical Democratic wave that history suggests would occur for the party out of power during a midterm election.
“It would be the equivalent of a tsunami,” said Michael Li, a senior counsel who heads up redistricting work for the center, which is based at New York University School of Law. “Democrats would have to win larger than any sort of recent midterm wave — almost double what they got in 2006 — in order to win a narrow majority.”
________________________
Last 5 RCP polls show Democrats up only 5,5,3,6 and 6. Well short of what the 11 they need.
https://apnews.com/b2318b42727449bf93eda01883f717fa/Report:-Democrats-would-need-huge-wave-to-win-US-House
"Yep. I said I was attracted to postpubescent young women." James Boswell of Normal, Illinois.
Ages 11 to 14.
More popcorn PLEAZE
"Why james is so desperate"
There's no telling what diseases he has...
for chrissakes, when even an NBC flunkie is on to your bullshit...
Guthrie asked Avenatti why Daniels does not just turn over the evidence, which would allegedly prove that she had an affair with Trump. The TODAY show interview comes one day after Daniels’ interview with “60 Minutes.”
“You were here almost three weeks ago, and I asked if there was any evidence, documentary evidence, text messages, photo evidence that verified that Stormy Daniels had the affair that she claims she had. You said to me, ‘that’s a question Ms. Daniels will have to ultimately answer.’ Cut to last night, she’s asked directly about this on “60 Minutes” and she says my attorney has instructed me not to answer. So does this or doesn’t she have the evidence?” Guthrie asked Avenatti.
Stormy’s attorney responded by saying it is not the right time to release all of the evidence, saying they are in the “early stages of this case.”
“Again, we’re not going to get into the details of everything we have at this time and there’s a reason for that. We’re in the early stages of this case. we understand the American people want all the information right now immediately. It would make no sense for us to play our hand, as to this issue, and we’re not going to do it right now,” Avenatti responded.
“Why not? This is the very moment you need to do it, she has denied it three times. She has stated this affair didn’t happen. Isn’t this the very moment she should come forward and as you might say, put up or shut up, if she has this evidence?” Guthrie continued.
Avenatti clearly was not happy with the question, defending Daniels by saying she sat down with “a major journalist” and answered “some very tough questions” the night before on television.
“Put up or shut up? She sat down with a major journalist and answered some very tough questions. Where is Mr. Cohen? Is he coming on after me, I don’t think so? Where is President Trump? Is he coming on after me? She’s answered some very difficult questions. We’re not going to play our hand right now, and the reason is cause we have a case to win,” Avenatti said.
Guthrie, said Avenatti was “being coy” and that it seems like he was “playing games.”
http://dailycaller.com/2018/03/26/savannah-guthrie-stormy-daniels-lawyer/
"for chrissakes, when even an NBC flunkie is on to your bullshit..."
But, but, but James and Roger want it to be about incest...
James wants to watch.
Why does she not release the evidence of her affair? Because Trump's legal team wants to crucify her. The only good that "evidence" does her right now is leverage, and that's gone if she releases it into the public.
Bigger question is why should we care about an alleged affair? They're both grown-ups, and that is a personal issue ... and we already know how Trump behaves.
Makes me go hmmmm.
Chewing gum makes you go hmmmmm.....
Bigger question is why should we care about an alleged affair?
for the same reason we need to care about mueller and russia. because trump must be removed from office at all costs and by any means necessary.
Why does she not release the evidence of her affair? Because Trump's legal team wants to crucify her. The only good that "evidence" does her right now is leverage, and that's gone if she releases it into the public.
If don't see where the evidence is particularly relevant in any of the current legal proceedings involving the NDA. She's already broke it by doing the interview. Trump's legal team can and will crucify her with it.
Looks more like an opening negotiation for a big book/movie deal.
indeed. she admitted that she's been making a ton more $$$ since this charade began. there's a pot of gold at the end of this for her as long as her little scuzzball lawyer can gather it all up without fucking it all up.
so the FBI fucks up AGAIN:
Court Docs: Father Of ISIS Terrorist In Pulse Shooting Was … An FBI Informant? Update: FBI Knew Of Omar’s Threats
https://hotair.com/archives/2018/03/26/court-docs-father-isis-terrorist-pulse-shooting-fbi-informant/
she admitted that she's been making a ton more $$$ since this charade began
Good for her....it's the only thing a women can sell and still own it afterwards....Trump again proves he is a lecherous prick and is paying the price for fucking around while married...Wonder if malodorous sleeps in the same room as donnie....I'm sure she was pleased he only did her once!!!!! BTW, I really don't give a fuck who he does or when, but bullying around his accusers with lawsuits is a talent he developed being a slum lord in NY....
the NDA. She's already broke it by doing the interview.
That's being hotly disputed. Just because Trump's lawyers say a thing, doesn't make it true.
When someone is threatening to go after you for $20 million, and you'd better believe that they have other tricks in mind as well, you're not going to say "well, the NDA is already broken any ... so I might as well ..."
You have to wonder why a supposed "Christian" would be scouring the internet for photos, eh."
Jane is a old perv, like his butt buddy Alky.
HB admitted he lust after the yoga pant wearing Asian high schoolers .
That's being hotly disputed.
Sigh, this is like saying the sun rises in the east is a matter of opinion.
She broke her NDA. She's just hoping to judge will set it aside after the fact.
That is the consensus of everyone with a cognitive function greater than a gnat.
A YUGE thank you is in order to the foul mouth snowflakes of the Parkland Puppets.
They did a very good job for new NRA Membership Drive.
Over Playing a weak hand. Debbie Wasaman-Schultz
"Surrounded by students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, Wasserman Schultz said, “Unlike firearm purchases, someone who wants to go into a store that sells ammunition can buy as much ammunition as they want without so much as being asked their first name.”
She added, “This is just such a gaping and grave and dangerous loophole that I could not wrap my mind around it when I was told that that was the case.”.
Trump Says Stormy Daniels Is Not His Type
https://politicalwire.com/2018/03/26/trump-says-stormy-daniels-is-not-his-type/
Knee slapping funny. He should have thought of that sooner.
Got that last in the wrong thread.
BTW, hasn't America's largest manufacturer of guns just gone bankrupt?
No, I didn't.
I'm a fucking loser and a pedophile.
You evidently don't even know the legal arguments being made, and you assume in your ignorance that your assumptions are obvious.
For just a couple, she argues that Cohen broke the NDA agreement, and she has only spoken to resist defamation. There are many other legal reasons for her to conform to the agreement while she has it in litigation, which I'm not going to explain to someone with that attitude.
i'd like to see her start by providing some evidence other than her spoken "testimony" to anderson vanderbilt.
so far i am less than impressed.
and it's so nice to see our "objective" CNN journalists posing for photos with the subjects of their investigative interviews:
https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/status/971868310886379523/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pacificpundit.com%2F2018%2F03%2F26%2Funbiased-anderson-cooper-poses-with-stormy-daniels-and-michael-avenatti%2F
You won't see any evidence if Trump succeeds in eliminating her right to seek redress in US courts.
wp, i think the whole thing is bullshit anyway. for chrissakes, the left absolutely worships bill clinton as he raped and sexually assaulted his way through the 70's, 80's and 90's. now we're supposed to fall for some concern trolling over CONSENSUAL sex?
this thing reeks of someone trying to manipulate daniels at the 11th hour to fuck up trump's election effort. it reminds me of the discovery of W's DUI conviction at the last minute.
this broad pocketed $130 large and signed an NDA. that should've been the end of it. now someone has convinced her it's worth a whole lot more. probably her greaseball democrat operative attorney.
btw, the mystical trump muscle in vegas? nice touch. straight from a dime store mob novel. good grief. strive to do better and be a little creative when concocting a bullshit story. the old "nice ( ) you have there. it would be a shame if anything happened to it." line is as cliche' as it comes.
You evidently don't even know the legal arguments being made
I am aware of her lawyer's legal arguments and they are horseshit.
And that's my opinion, unlike the incontrovertible fact that she broke her NDA.
For just a couple, she argues that Cohen broke the NDA agreement, and she has only spoken to resist defamation.
The NDA doesn't bind Cohen from speaking about any alleged affair, just Daniels.
That being said, plain commons sense would prevent Cohen for saying anything unless Daniels was already in grevious breach of her NDA.
If the courts uphold the validity of the NDA, she's in deep shit.
now we're supposed to fall for some concern trolling over CONSENSUAL sex?
I don't know what you're "supposed to fall for". I'm concerned about the underhanded legal tactics employed by a Candidate and later President, beginning with that NDA itself.
"btw, the mystical trump muscle in vegas? nice touch. straight from a dime store mob novel" - I have no idea what you're talking about.
I'm concerned about the underhanded legal tactics employed by a Candidate and later President, beginning with that NDA itself.
and no concern for her violating the NDA.
ok.
the last reference was to the supposed threat she received in a parking lot in vegas.
funny coincidence, i've been to vegas a bunch of times and every time i was there i received one of those threats too. tough town, vegas.
the last reference was to the supposed threat she received in a parking lot in vegas.
Oh that - I don't doubt her on that, but it's nothing. You can hire bottom-feeding lawyers anywhere, who specialize in intimidating people with implied threats. You ignore it, or mock them if you feel like a laugh.
"and no concern for her violating the NDA." - I don't know that she did. I haven't examined that contract, and I don't know whether it's even a legal and enforceable contract. But for the sake of your question let's assume that it is all of that. Her silence and the monetary penalties are contractual arrangements between herself and whoever else is legally a party to it. As such, the performance of someone else's contract, particularly of a personal nature, does not particularly concern me one way or the other.
However, the use of predatory legal practices, especially by someone in a position of power, does concern me.
Blogger Commonsense said...I am aware of her lawyer's legal arguments and they are horseshit.
Do you know how to enforce an arbitration ruling in court? Are you knowledgeable about how to defeat an arbitration agreement, not just a casual reading of the Arbitration Act, but the ways and circumstances in which those clauses are actually defeated or upheld, and why? I doubt that you do, and if not you have no idea what her lawyers are arguing. You don't even know the context of their arguments, let alone enough to evaluate them.
The NDA doesn't bind Cohen from speaking about any alleged affair, just Daniels.
I have now had a chance to briefly look at the Complaint for Declaratory Relief filed by Stephanie Clifford aka Daniels, and Exhibit 1 which is the "Hush Agreement".
There are a lot of implications and technical nuances that would take some time to fully evaluate so I won't comment on those. However, to your claim above, paragraph 2.4 of the NDA expressly provide that BOTH parties expect the "confidential information" to remain confidential. While Trump does gain "copyright" ownership of all such information, when he or his lawyer exposes that information it can be plausibly argued that it is no longer "confidential" according to the definitions contained in "4.1 Definition of Confidential Information."
So the sound-bite answer, that you probably got ultimately from Trump's lawyers, is not as simple as you probably believe.
i think it's safe to assume that cohen drafted an enforceable NDA. i mean, they are boilerplate but i've executed dozens and they are meant to be followed. and enforced by penalty of law if they're not.
i'm curious as to your outsized concern for her and no concern for trump. two parties to a legally binding contract should be treated equally.
i'll give you credit for one thing - at least in this case you've explicitly chosen sides.
It's anything but boilerplate, RRB. I've never seen such a tortured version of an NDA, which looks more than anything else like cut and paste out of an IP agreement with some paragraphs saying, in effect, "all of this actually applies to the personal information, which is basically everything she knows."
She's going to loose Trump's performance of his side, the $130K. Trump may lose the performance of Clifford's side. That's what happens with contracts, when there is a dispute. I don't give a rat's ass about either of them.
That NDA itself exemplifies a legal team taking advantage. The Arbitration clause is part of it, the (unenforceable) penalty, the over-broad definitions, all of it is reprehensible. From a slum lord, or a businessman operating just a cut above the crime bosses, yeah you'd expect that sort of thing. From a major candidate on the eve of his election, it's more than a red flag. Hush your critics if you can, sure, but this kind of crap is crossing the line.
I just hate to see people falling for it, when the sleaziest of lawyers air arguments out in public that they probably won't ever attempt in court, just to damage the public credibility of someone.
well, trump could just take a page out of the clinton playbook and stormy could be found in fort marcy park having committed suicide with 5 shots to the head.
seriously, if you wanted to be a little more objective you could just have a little more empathy and understanding for a candidate trying to defend himself against a salacious liar trying to smear him at the worst possible time, coached all along by her democrat operative lawyer.
there's more to this than meets the eye on HER side, wp.
If her side has photos they can release, a lot more may meet the eye.
Republicans Fear Trump Will Sink Them
March 27 “While Republicans have been bracing for months for a punishing election in November, they are increasingly alarmed that their losses may be even worse than feared because the midterm campaign appears destined to turn more on the behavior of the man in the White House than any other in decades,” the New York Times reports.
“As much as gun control, immigration, the sweeping tax overhaul and other issues are mobilizing voters on the left and the right, the seamy sex allegations and Mr. Trump’s erratic style could end up alienating crucial blocs of suburban voters and politically moderate women who might be drawn to some Republican policies but find the president’s purported sex antics to be reprehensible.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/poll-trumps-job-performance-rating-drops/ar-BBKM6Bj?ocid=spartandhp
POLL: Trump's approval level drops to lowest level in months
WP...
Earlier you stated that you were concerned with Trump using predatory legal practices (or something to that degree)... then a few comments later you suggest that you don't care one way or the other for either of them?
For someone apparently using the "I don't know and neither to you" stance that you do when someone presses for details... on the broad scale, you certainly assume Trump and his lawyers are guilty of something...
Which of course, is what we can always count on as your knee jerk position on any debate involving Trump. That he simply must be guilty, wrong, and likely lying.
POLL: Trump's approval level drops to lowest level in months
PPP a left leaning poll. James, if you're going to quote a poll at least be honest about it.
James,
Trump's approval according to RCP averages is the highest it's been since May of 2017. Heck, even Quinnipiac has him at 40% and they . I didn't check your link, but I am guessing it's either PPP or some other partisan poll that RCP won't use.
Even CNN has him up
you could just have a little more empathy and understanding for a candidate trying to defend himself against a salacious liar
That's a difficult ask from someone who has made his own bed, and used expensive lawyers to keep from lying in it.
Also I seriously doubt that Clifford is lying, considering the types of "property" listed in the NDA. Defending yourself from the truth? I have a real hard time emphasizing with that.
File under you can't make this shit up
Al Sharpton’s Half-Brother Charged With Murder In Shooting One Day After Participating In Gun March
http://dailycaller.com/2018/03/27/al-sharpton-half-brother-charged-with-murder/?utm_source=site-share
Earlier you stated that you were concerned with Trump using predatory legal practices (or something to that degree)... then a few comments later you suggest that you don't care one way or the other for either of them?
Not caring about the particular performance of their contract is something totally different than concern about the legal and extra-legal practices. Why are you conflicted about that?
"For someone apparently using the "I don't know and neither to you" stance that you do when someone presses for details... "
I only say that when someone is assuming facts not in evidence.
on the broad scale, you certainly assume Trump and his lawyers are guilty of something...
I have observed that his lawyers have made allegations in the press. I know that they have threatened to enforce some $20 million in damages. I know that Trump's lawyers seek to remove the complaint into private arbitration. I have observed comments in the press which I would consider defamatory. These are facts, not assumptions.
My only assumption regarding Trump in this legal process is that I assume that he did hire his lawyers, and has directed them to pursue these strategies, at least in broad strokes. Therefore you have misrepresented my writings in this regard.
Cowardly King, great link. Ty.
Also under your heading.
."The Kansas idiot used a Constitutional argument about the roll of the police in demonstrations. Really fucking stupid." Opie Adicted HB
Yep, I am terrible to use actual case law, USSC Decided Constitutional information to throat punch alky.
Also I seriously doubt that Clifford is lying, considering the types of "property" listed in the NDA.
really?
if luca brasi had surprised ME in a parking lot with my infant child and implied a threat, the very first thing i would've done when he left was file a police report in case something DID happen.
i can see where you're going with this though. you couldn't care less about the truth but you sure are interested in nailing trump on some sort of a 'process' crime.
I have observed comments in the press which I would consider defamatory. These are facts, not assumptions.
Wouldn't something you "consider" defamatory actually be a matter of opinion, rather than a matter of fact? Different people will "observe" a whole lot of stuff and come out with a variety of opinions about what it means.
I have observed comments in the press which I would consider defamatory.
what a coincidence. i observed comments on 60 minutes that were not only defamatory, they were lies.
a worn out 39 year old skank is in the twilight of her career and needs a retirement payday. that's what really seems to be going on here.
Rat -
I don't believe that the concept that the Porn Star is fabricating anything to make a buck... even is a consideration for people like Roger and WP.
Pretty much anything alleged against Trump is considered a fact.
oh yeah. the TDS is strong. i work with a couple of folks under its spell and when you go "there" with them, blood oozes from their eyes and they shake so uncontrollably that if i actually gave a shit about them i'd consider calling 911.
Wouldn't something you "consider" defamatory actually be a matter of opinion, rather than a matter of fact? Different people will "observe" a whole lot of stuff and come out with a variety of opinions about what it means.
The comments in the press are a matter of fact. Whether *anything* is defamatory is a matter of opinion. As I said, I have observed the comments in the press (fact) which I consider defamatory. My opinions are based on fact, not *assumptions* "that Trump is guilty" as you incorrectly alleged.
Post a Comment