Hookers LIE?....Who Knew?

[Pogo]

[

When a woman (or man, whichever) accepts money for performing a sex act with another, then, by definition, they are a whore.

Does this really fly over anyone’s head?

Okay, but here's the thing.

We wouldn't have whores if we didn't have people willing to pay them.

Now, personally, I think we should legalize prostitution and make it like any other profession. Why should selling sex be less shameful than selling your creativity or physical labor.

In the case of Ms. Daniels, she's someone who is attractive enough where people want to watch her have sex and pay to have sex with her. Good for her, I guess.

Meanwhile, Trump has all this fame, all this popularity, is married to a super-model, and he STILL has to pay to get some, and then pay more to keep her quiet about it.

I have often advocated for legal prostitution.

That does not, nor would it change the fact they would remain whores, and their credibility questionable

What it doesn't "change" is the fact that you can't defend that conclusion.

But we already know that. Apparently you think saying so makes it so, and that's all you need.
Fortunately that doesn't suffice for most of us. Kind of amusing that it does for you.

 

[jc456]

I read the link, I’m not going to play silly games, prostitution is illegal, and if you think she isn’t, then you are a really stupid. Talent agency, escort, massage therapist,
Okay you are dishonest, show that ad to anyone with a brain and they will tell you it is an ad for sex but you are going to believe what you need to believe because the truth would now make you look really, really stupid.

DOOD.

I just quoted YOUR OWN LINK back to you --- and you're gonna sit here and deny that it says what it says?
After you just regurgitated it up here to try to tell us it said something completely different?

Just because you wish it had said something different, therefore you're gonna sit here and pretend it does? Like some kind of four year old?

And then you want to claim you're "not going to play silly games"?

Dishonest HACK.

Guy it says what it has to, to appear legal, if they mentioned sex they would be busted, take this to your local police station, go into the vice squad and they will tell you exactly what it is. Believe what you need to cupcake, it is just fun to see you defend your hooker.

You must be literally a Mongoloid Idiot.

Me: "Prove your claim"
You: "Okay, here's a link"
Me: "Your link doesn't say what you claimed at all. Matter of fact it specifically says the opposite"
Then I quote your own post, verbatim, PROVING exactly that.
You: "ummm... .ummm.... it means the opposite of what it says, because 'everybody knows' and shit.
Yeah that's it. That's the ticket. "

You FAILED dood. I asked for a link proving an irrelevant point, and you gave one that not only doesn't prove it -- it specifically rules it out.

And here you are desperately flailing around with "it really means something else -- when they say "no sex" they mean "sex".

You're twisting yourself into a pretzel to try to "prove" a claim that NOBODY ANYWHERE says is even involved here. Meaning even if you *could* prove it, it would have nowhere to go anyway. And then in that pointless quest you trotted out a link that specifically refutes that irrelevant claim.

This is where dishonest hackery takes you. Into a hole.

Lol! Continue to support the hookers, the left loves exploiting women to serve their end.

I'm not aware of any "hookers" here. This is where we started --- the challenge was to prove their existence among the characters. You were the latest to try to strap that on, and you FAILED. No such "hookers" have been documented AT ALL.

Prove me wrong.

And when I say "prove" I don't mean "trot out a talent agency web page and claim it means the opposite of what it says". K?

Did she receive money? It’s a yes or no question

 

[jc456]

[

When a woman (or man, whichever) accepts money for performing a sex act with another, then, by definition, they are a whore.

Does this really fly over anyone’s head?

Okay, but here's the thing.

We wouldn't have whores if we didn't have people willing to pay them.

Now, personally, I think we should legalize prostitution and make it like any other profession. Why should selling sex be less shameful than selling your creativity or physical labor.

In the case of Ms. Daniels, she's someone who is attractive enough where people want to watch her have sex and pay to have sex with her. Good for her, I guess.

Meanwhile, Trump has all this fame, all this popularity, is married to a super-model, and he STILL has to pay to get some, and then pay more to keep her quiet about it.

I have often advocated for legal prostitution.

That does not, nor would it change the fact they would remain whores, and their credibility questionable

What it doesn't "change" is the fact that you can't defend that conclusion.

But we already know that. Apparently you think saying so makes it so, and that's all you need.
Fortunately that doesn't suffice for most of us. Kind of amusing that it does for you.

Did she take money?

 

[Pogo]

DOOD.

I just quoted YOUR OWN LINK back to you --- and you're gonna sit here and deny that it says what it says?
After you just regurgitated it up here to try to tell us it said something completely different?

Just because you wish it had said something different, therefore you're gonna sit here and pretend it does? Like some kind of four year old?

And then you want to claim you're "not going to play silly games"?

Dishonest HACK.

Guy it says what it has to, to appear legal, if they mentioned sex they would be busted, take this to your local police station, go into the vice squad and they will tell you exactly what it is. Believe what you need to cupcake, it is just fun to see you defend your hooker.

You must be literally a Mongoloid Idiot.

Me: "Prove your claim"
You: "Okay, here's a link"
Me: "Your link doesn't say what you claimed at all. Matter of fact it specifically says the opposite"
Then I quote your own post, verbatim, PROVING exactly that.
You: "ummm... .ummm.... it means the opposite of what it says, because 'everybody knows' and shit.
Yeah that's it. That's the ticket. "

You FAILED dood. I asked for a link proving an irrelevant point, and you gave one that not only doesn't prove it -- it specifically rules it out.

And here you are desperately flailing around with "it really means something else -- when they say "no sex" they mean "sex".

You're twisting yourself into a pretzel to try to "prove" a claim that NOBODY ANYWHERE says is even involved here. Meaning even if you *could* prove it, it would have nowhere to go anyway. And then in that pointless quest you trotted out a link that specifically refutes that irrelevant claim.

This is where dishonest hackery takes you. Into a hole.

Lol! Continue to support the hookers, the left loves exploiting women to serve their end.

I'm not aware of any "hookers" here. This is where we started --- the challenge was to prove their existence among the characters. You were the latest to try to strap that on, and you FAILED. No such "hookers" have been documented AT ALL.

Prove me wrong.

And when I say "prove" I don't mean "trot out a talent agency web page and claim it means the opposite of what it says". K?

Did she receive money? It’s a yes or no question

It is indeed a yes-or-no question. And the answer is "no".

Matter of fact from her description, which is all we have, she was worried that he WAS going to try to pay her. As anyone who's actually worked for Rump knows, usually the worry is the opposite.

Apparently he did try to pay Karen MacDougal, and she was none too happy about that. That's another story, but between these two stories combined we have come up with zero prostitutes.

 

[JoeB131]

You realize you took a giant leap, right?

Not really. Every day, Sarah Sanders gets outthere and tells us that Trump really didn't mean what he just said.

 

[jc456]

[

When a woman (or man, whichever) accepts money for performing a sex act with another, then, by definition, they are a whore.

Does this really fly over anyone’s head?

Okay, but here's the thing.

We wouldn't have whores if we didn't have people willing to pay them.

Now, personally, I think we should legalize prostitution and make it like any other profession. Why should selling sex be less shameful than selling your creativity or physical labor.

In the case of Ms. Daniels, she's someone who is attractive enough where people want to watch her have sex and pay to have sex with her. Good for her, I guess.

Meanwhile, Trump has all this fame, all this popularity, is married to a super-model, and he STILL has to pay to get some, and then pay more to keep her quiet about it.

I have often advocated for legal prostitution.

That does not, nor would it change the fact they would remain whores, and their credibility questionable

What it doesn't "change" is the fact that you can't defend that conclusion.

But we already know that. Apparently you think saying so makes it so, and that's all you need.
Fortunately that doesn't suffice for most of us. Kind of amusing that it does for you.

Did she take money?

Guy it says what it has to, to appear legal, if they mentioned sex they would be busted, take this to your local police station, go into the vice squad and they will tell you exactly what it is. Believe what you need to cupcake, it is just fun to see you defend your hooker.

You must be literally a Mongoloid Idiot.

Me: "Prove your claim"
You: "Okay, here's a link"
Me: "Your link doesn't say what you claimed at all. Matter of fact it specifically says the opposite"
Then I quote your own post, verbatim, PROVING exactly that.
You: "ummm... .ummm.... it means the opposite of what it says, because 'everybody knows' and shit.
Yeah that's it. That's the ticket. "

You FAILED dood. I asked for a link proving an irrelevant point, and you gave one that not only doesn't prove it -- it specifically rules it out.

And here you are desperately flailing around with "it really means something else -- when they say "no sex" they mean "sex".

You're twisting yourself into a pretzel to try to "prove" a claim that NOBODY ANYWHERE says is even involved here. Meaning even if you *could* prove it, it would have nowhere to go anyway. And then in that pointless quest you trotted out a link that specifically refutes that irrelevant claim.

This is where dishonest hackery takes you. Into a hole.

Lol! Continue to support the hookers, the left loves exploiting women to serve their end.

I'm not aware of any "hookers" here. This is where we started --- the challenge was to prove their existence among the characters. You were the latest to try to strap that on, and you FAILED. No such "hookers" have been documented AT ALL.

Prove me wrong.

And when I say "prove" I don't mean "trot out a talent agency web page and claim it means the opposite of what it says". K?

Did she receive money? It’s a yes or no question

It is indeed a yes-or-no question. And the answer is "no".

Matter of fact from her description, which is all we have, she was worried that he WAS going to try to pay her. As anyone who's actually worked for Rump knows, usually the worry is the opposite.

Apparently he did try to pay Karen MacDougal, and she was none too happy about that. That's another story, but between these two stories combined we have come up with zero prostitutes.

I swear she took 130k for a sex act. Hmm why the 60 minute gig then?

 

[Pogo]

You realize you took a giant leap, right?

Not really. Every day, Sarah Sanders gets outthere and tells us that Trump really didn't mean what he just said.

Papageorgio could do that job.

Not convincingly, but that wouldn't stop him.

 

[Pogo]

[

When a woman (or man, whichever) accepts money for performing a sex act with another, then, by definition, they are a whore.

Does this really fly over anyone’s head?

Okay, but here's the thing.

We wouldn't have whores if we didn't have people willing to pay them.

Now, personally, I think we should legalize prostitution and make it like any other profession. Why should selling sex be less shameful than selling your creativity or physical labor.

In the case of Ms. Daniels, she's someone who is attractive enough where people want to watch her have sex and pay to have sex with her. Good for her, I guess.

Meanwhile, Trump has all this fame, all this popularity, is married to a super-model, and he STILL has to pay to get some, and then pay more to keep her quiet about it.

I have often advocated for legal prostitution.

That does not, nor would it change the fact they would remain whores, and their credibility questionable

What it doesn't "change" is the fact that you can't defend that conclusion.

But we already know that. Apparently you think saying so makes it so, and that's all you need.
Fortunately that doesn't suffice for most of us. Kind of amusing that it does for you.

Did she take money?

You must be literally a Mongoloid Idiot.

Me: "Prove your claim"
You: "Okay, here's a link"
Me: "Your link doesn't say what you claimed at all. Matter of fact it specifically says the opposite"
Then I quote your own post, verbatim, PROVING exactly that.
You: "ummm... .ummm.... it means the opposite of what it says, because 'everybody knows' and shit.
Yeah that's it. That's the ticket. "

You FAILED dood. I asked for a link proving an irrelevant point, and you gave one that not only doesn't prove it -- it specifically rules it out.

And here you are desperately flailing around with "it really means something else -- when they say "no sex" they mean "sex".

You're twisting yourself into a pretzel to try to "prove" a claim that NOBODY ANYWHERE says is even involved here. Meaning even if you *could* prove it, it would have nowhere to go anyway. And then in that pointless quest you trotted out a link that specifically refutes that irrelevant claim.

This is where dishonest hackery takes you. Into a hole.

Lol! Continue to support the hookers, the left loves exploiting women to serve their end.

I'm not aware of any "hookers" here. This is where we started --- the challenge was to prove their existence among the characters. You were the latest to try to strap that on, and you FAILED. No such "hookers" have been documented AT ALL.

Prove me wrong.

And when I say "prove" I don't mean "trot out a talent agency web page and claim it means the opposite of what it says". K?

Did she receive money? It’s a yes or no question

It is indeed a yes-or-no question. And the answer is "no".

Matter of fact from her description, which is all we have, she was worried that he WAS going to try to pay her. As anyone who's actually worked for Rump knows, usually the worry is the opposite.

Apparently he did try to pay Karen MacDougal, and she was none too happy about that. That's another story, but between these two stories combined we have come up with zero prostitutes.

I swear she took 130k for a sex act. Hmm why the 60 minute gig then?

You can swear all you like. You even have a sailor suit.
But no, she took $130k to not-talk about something. Right before election day so it wouldn't get out there.

The fascinating thing about that is, the event she was supposed to not-talk about is one that the other party involved says, never happened. If that's the case it would mean there's nothing to not-talk about. And if it's not the case it means that other party is lying.

What a great position to be in huh? No wonder his casinos crumbled.

Why the 60 Minute gig?

First of all it's not a 'gig' except for Anderson Cooper and whoever's involved in production for CBS. It's an interview. As far as 'why the interview', because it has ominous implications on campaign finance laws, and the breaking thereof.

 

[jc456]

Okay, but here's the thing.

We wouldn't have whores if we didn't have people willing to pay them.

Now, personally, I think we should legalize prostitution and make it like any other profession. Why should selling sex be less shameful than selling your creativity or physical labor.

In the case of Ms. Daniels, she's someone who is attractive enough where people want to watch her have sex and pay to have sex with her. Good for her, I guess.

Meanwhile, Trump has all this fame, all this popularity, is married to a super-model, and he STILL has to pay to get some, and then pay more to keep her quiet about it.

I have often advocated for legal prostitution.

That does not, nor would it change the fact they would remain whores, and their credibility questionable

What it doesn't "change" is the fact that you can't defend that conclusion.

But we already know that. Apparently you think saying so makes it so, and that's all you need.
Fortunately that doesn't suffice for most of us. Kind of amusing that it does for you.

Did she take money?

Lol! Continue to support the hookers, the left loves exploiting women to serve their end.

I'm not aware of any "hookers" here. This is where we started --- the challenge was to prove their existence among the characters. You were the latest to try to strap that on, and you FAILED. No such "hookers" have been documented AT ALL.

Prove me wrong.

And when I say "prove" I don't mean "trot out a talent agency web page and claim it means the opposite of what it says". K?

Did she receive money? It’s a yes or no question

It is indeed a yes-or-no question. And the answer is "no".

Matter of fact from her description, which is all we have, she was worried that he WAS going to try to pay her. As anyone who's actually worked for Rump knows, usually the worry is the opposite.

Apparently he did try to pay Karen MacDougal, and she was none too happy about that. That's another story, but between these two stories combined we have come up with zero prostitutes.

I swear she took 130k for a sex act. Hmm why the 60 minute gig then?

You can swear all you like. You even have a sailor suit.
But no, she took $130k to not-talk about something. Right before election day so it wouldn't get out there.

The fascinating thing about that is, the event she was supposed to not-talk about is one that the other party involved says, never happened. If that's the case it would mean there's nothing to not-talk about. And if it's not the case it means that other party is lying.

What a great position to be in huh? No wonder his casinos crumbled.

Why the 60 Minute gig?

First of all it's not a 'gig' except for Anderson Cooper and whoever's involved in production for CBS. It's an interview. As far as 'why the interview', because it has ominous implications on campaign finance laws, and the breaking thereof.

What was that something?

 

[Pogo]

I have often advocated for legal prostitution.

That does not, nor would it change the fact they would remain whores, and their credibility questionable

What it doesn't "change" is the fact that you can't defend that conclusion.

But we already know that. Apparently you think saying so makes it so, and that's all you need.
Fortunately that doesn't suffice for most of us. Kind of amusing that it does for you.

Did she take money?

I'm not aware of any "hookers" here. This is where we started --- the challenge was to prove their existence among the characters. You were the latest to try to strap that on, and you FAILED. No such "hookers" have been documented AT ALL.

Prove me wrong.

And when I say "prove" I don't mean "trot out a talent agency web page and claim it means the opposite of what it says". K?

Did she receive money? It’s a yes or no question

It is indeed a yes-or-no question. And the answer is "no".

Matter of fact from her description, which is all we have, she was worried that he WAS going to try to pay her. As anyone who's actually worked for Rump knows, usually the worry is the opposite.

Apparently he did try to pay Karen MacDougal, and she was none too happy about that. That's another story, but between these two stories combined we have come up with zero prostitutes.

I swear she took 130k for a sex act. Hmm why the 60 minute gig then?

You can swear all you like. You even have a sailor suit.
But no, she took $130k to not-talk about something. Right before election day so it wouldn't get out there.

The fascinating thing about that is, the event she was supposed to not-talk about is one that the other party involved says, never happened. If that's the case it would mean there's nothing to not-talk about. And if it's not the case it means that other party is lying.

What a great position to be in huh? No wonder his casinos crumbled.

Why the 60 Minute gig?

First of all it's not a 'gig' except for Anderson Cooper and whoever's involved in production for CBS. It's an interview. As far as 'why the interview', because it has ominous implications on campaign finance laws, and the breaking thereof.

What was that something?

"What" indeed. Ask Rump. He says that something doesn't exist. Which paints him into a corner.

If indeed no 'something' exists as he claims --- then there can be no NDA. You can't not-disclose something that does not exist.

If the NDA does exist, then there has to be an event for it to relate to. And that means Rump is lying and that there is indeed 'something'.

So that's a question for Rump. Rotsa ruck getting a straight answer.

How all that legal wrangling about how the NDA works or doesn't work, that's not our problem. It's between those two parties to settle. What it means for us is the question of Rump's credibility since he's either lying about there being no event, or lying that there is an NDA. Both cannot be true.

The hilariousest part of that is that we have wags here, right in this thread, who desperately try to claim that SHE is the party lacking credibility --- in spite of the corner HE painted himself into.

Orwell called that "Doublethink". I call it "mass self-delusionary idiocy".

And they seem to think that credibility-shift somehow is a product of sexual promiscuity, although none of them are able to explain HOW it should be so. And perhaps they're reluctant to even attempt it since it means that that standard would then be turned on Rump, which would make him even less credible than he already is.

This is why I love watching pretzels make themselves. It's so funny.

 

[bripat9643]

I don't think it works that way. If you pay a prostitute, it's for sex. That's it.
Plus, while I couldn't guess what the going rate is, I'm pretty sure no prostitute anywhere goes for $130,000.

I believe discretion would be part of the equation, if she blabbers about it I don’t think she’d have customers. Maybe I’m wrong but would you want a prostitute to go blabbing about you paying her for sex?

She worked for an escort agency, whether Trump hired her or not I wouldn’t know or care. I have as much interest in her as I did with Lewiensky

The prostitute in this scenario has no particular reason to discuss clients outside that client. It serves no purpose. Her client similarly has no reason to expect she would, for the same reason. Therefore there's no implicit NDA involved since it's simply not a factor. David Vitter for example wasn't exposed because some hooker brought it up --- his name appeared on a list of clients law enforcement got hold of. Obviously it doesn't serve either hooker or client to have that name come out --- it's bad for business. Vitter could have paid extra as hush money if he feared the exposure, but it would have served him no purpose since law enforcement would not be bound by it, and it isn't in the hooker service's interest to do so anyway.

That's a different situation from this though. Stormy isn't a hooker and the tryst was not a prostitution. It was simply consensual sexual encounter, not a purchase, public knowledge of which the male desired to keep quiet, enter the $130,000. Why that figure? Apparently he must have figured it was worth that to buy the silence.

So two completely different scenaria but only in the latter one is anyone "paid for silence". There's no reason to pay a hooker for "silence" when she has no incentive to the contrary. There is however reason to pay for silence if a politician thinks some story, whatever it is and whether legal or illegal, would work against his campaign. And that's what we have here. Not rocket surgery.

So working for an escort service is not being a hooker?

Stormy Daniels » Nexxxt Level Talent Agency

Read your own link. Number one it's a "talent agency" not an "escort service".

And number two, what it says right there on your own link's page is, and I quote:

>> Stormy is only available for bookings listed on the right. If you are interested in booking Stormy, please contact us for details and schedule. <<
.
--- and the list on the right reads, in full:

• Feature Dancing
• Lite Fetish (Non Sex)
• Store Signings
• Event Hosting
• Mainstream Work
• Print Work, and Photo Shoots

You see anything about prostitution in there?

How 'bout the phrase "non sex"? See that?

YOUR OWN LINK.


And once AGAIN --- for the umpteenth time --- none of this is relevant anyway, as *NOBODY* is claiming Stormy and Rump engaged in prostitution anyway. Summa y'all can't even deflect right.

YOUR OWN LINK.

Seriously? You are either dishonest or very stupid. If they advertised differently could they not be busted?

I think he's right on this one. I've seen escort ads, and this doesn't look like one.

 

[bripat9643]

What it doesn't "change" is the fact that you can't defend that conclusion.

But we already know that. Apparently you think saying so makes it so, and that's all you need.
Fortunately that doesn't suffice for most of us. Kind of amusing that it does for you.

Did she take money?

Did she receive money? It’s a yes or no question

It is indeed a yes-or-no question. And the answer is "no".

Matter of fact from her description, which is all we have, she was worried that he WAS going to try to pay her. As anyone who's actually worked for Rump knows, usually the worry is the opposite.

Apparently he did try to pay Karen MacDougal, and she was none too happy about that. That's another story, but between these two stories combined we have come up with zero prostitutes.

I swear she took 130k for a sex act. Hmm why the 60 minute gig then?

You can swear all you like. You even have a sailor suit.
But no, she took $130k to not-talk about something. Right before election day so it wouldn't get out there.

The fascinating thing about that is, the event she was supposed to not-talk about is one that the other party involved says, never happened. If that's the case it would mean there's nothing to not-talk about. And if it's not the case it means that other party is lying.

What a great position to be in huh? No wonder his casinos crumbled.

Why the 60 Minute gig?

First of all it's not a 'gig' except for Anderson Cooper and whoever's involved in production for CBS. It's an interview. As far as 'why the interview', because it has ominous implications on campaign finance laws, and the breaking thereof.

What was that something?

"What" indeed. Ask Rump. He says that something doesn't exist. Which paints him into a corner.

If indeed no 'something' exists as he claims --- then there can be no NDA. You can't not-disclose something that does not exist.

If the NDA does exist, then there has to be an event for it to relate to. And that means Rump is lying and that there is indeed 'something'.

So that's a question for Rump. Rotsa ruck getting a straight answer.

Even though it may not exist, you can still ask for it not to be disclosed in an NDA because you can't control what the other person will say. A good lawyer covers all the bases.

 

[Pogo]

Did she take money?

It is indeed a yes-or-no question. And the answer is "no".

Matter of fact from her description, which is all we have, she was worried that he WAS going to try to pay her. As anyone who's actually worked for Rump knows, usually the worry is the opposite.

Apparently he did try to pay Karen MacDougal, and she was none too happy about that. That's another story, but between these two stories combined we have come up with zero prostitutes.

I swear she took 130k for a sex act. Hmm why the 60 minute gig then?

You can swear all you like. You even have a sailor suit.
But no, she took $130k to not-talk about something. Right before election day so it wouldn't get out there.

The fascinating thing about that is, the event she was supposed to not-talk about is one that the other party involved says, never happened. If that's the case it would mean there's nothing to not-talk about. And if it's not the case it means that other party is lying.

What a great position to be in huh? No wonder his casinos crumbled.

Why the 60 Minute gig?

First of all it's not a 'gig' except for Anderson Cooper and whoever's involved in production for CBS. It's an interview. As far as 'why the interview', because it has ominous implications on campaign finance laws, and the breaking thereof.

What was that something?

"What" indeed. Ask Rump. He says that something doesn't exist. Which paints him into a corner.

If indeed no 'something' exists as he claims --- then there can be no NDA. You can't not-disclose something that does not exist.

If the NDA does exist, then there has to be an event for it to relate to. And that means Rump is lying and that there is indeed 'something'.

So that's a question for Rump. Rotsa ruck getting a straight answer.

Even though it may not exist, you can still ask for it not to be disclosed in an NDA because you can't control what the other person will say. A good lawyer covers all the bases.

See what I mean by self-delusionary idiocy? Here's a kid with jelly all over his face suggesting that you can draw up a legal document to not-disclose "nothing".

Can't write this shit.

 

[jc456]

I swear she took 130k for a sex act. Hmm why the 60 minute gig then?

You can swear all you like. You even have a sailor suit.
But no, she took $130k to not-talk about something. Right before election day so it wouldn't get out there.

The fascinating thing about that is, the event she was supposed to not-talk about is one that the other party involved says, never happened. If that's the case it would mean there's nothing to not-talk about. And if it's not the case it means that other party is lying.

What a great position to be in huh? No wonder his casinos crumbled.

Why the 60 Minute gig?

First of all it's not a 'gig' except for Anderson Cooper and whoever's involved in production for CBS. It's an interview. As far as 'why the interview', because it has ominous implications on campaign finance laws, and the breaking thereof.

What was that something?

"What" indeed. Ask Rump. He says that something doesn't exist. Which paints him into a corner.

If indeed no 'something' exists as he claims --- then there can be no NDA. You can't not-disclose something that does not exist.

If the NDA does exist, then there has to be an event for it to relate to. And that means Rump is lying and that there is indeed 'something'.

So that's a question for Rump. Rotsa ruck getting a straight answer.

Even though it may not exist, you can still ask for it not to be disclosed in an NDA because you can't control what the other person will say. A good lawyer covers all the bases.

See what I mean by self-delusionary idiocy? Here's a kid with jelly all over his face suggesting that you can draw up a legal document to not-disclose "nothing".

Can't write this shit.

What was the nothing?

 

[Papageorgio]

You realize you took a giant leap, right?

Not really. Every day, Sarah Sanders gets outthere and tells us that Trump really didn't mean what he just said.

Papageorgio could do that job.

Not convincingly, but that wouldn't stop him.

Poor thing, you still defending your hooker friends. I wouldn’t defend Trump, not interested in defending him, he slept with a hooker, I really don’t care.

At least I know I’m on the right track when you start complaining to others about me.

 

[Pogo]

You realize you took a giant leap, right?

Not really. Every day, Sarah Sanders gets outthere and tells us that Trump really didn't mean what he just said.

Papageorgio could do that job.

Not convincingly, but that wouldn't stop him.

Poor thing, you still defending your hooker friends. I wouldn’t defend Trump, not interested in defending him, he slept with a hooker, I really don’t care.

At least I know I’m on the right track when you start complaining to others about me.

Actually I don't have any hooker friends, nor are there any 'hookers' involved in this story, nor would it be relevant if there were.

But you keep tryin' little fella.

​

Enjoy your dishonesty. Maybe it'll pay off some day when reality no longer exists.

 

[bripat9643]

I swear she took 130k for a sex act. Hmm why the 60 minute gig then?

You can swear all you like. You even have a sailor suit.
But no, she took $130k to not-talk about something. Right before election day so it wouldn't get out there.

The fascinating thing about that is, the event she was supposed to not-talk about is one that the other party involved says, never happened. If that's the case it would mean there's nothing to not-talk about. And if it's not the case it means that other party is lying.

What a great position to be in huh? No wonder his casinos crumbled.

Why the 60 Minute gig?

First of all it's not a 'gig' except for Anderson Cooper and whoever's involved in production for CBS. It's an interview. As far as 'why the interview', because it has ominous implications on campaign finance laws, and the breaking thereof.

What was that something?

"What" indeed. Ask Rump. He says that something doesn't exist. Which paints him into a corner.

If indeed no 'something' exists as he claims --- then there can be no NDA. You can't not-disclose something that does not exist.

If the NDA does exist, then there has to be an event for it to relate to. And that means Rump is lying and that there is indeed 'something'.

So that's a question for Rump. Rotsa ruck getting a straight answer.

Even though it may not exist, you can still ask for it not to be disclosed in an NDA because you can't control what the other person will say. A good lawyer covers all the bases.

See what I mean by self-delusionary idiocy? Here's a kid with jelly all over his face suggesting that you can draw up a legal document to not-disclose "nothing".

Can't write this shit.

You're such an imbecile.

 

[Papageorgio]

You realize you took a giant leap, right?

Not really. Every day, Sarah Sanders gets outthere and tells us that Trump really didn't mean what he just said.

Papageorgio could do that job.

Not convincingly, but that wouldn't stop him.

Poor thing, you still defending your hooker friends. I wouldn’t defend Trump, not interested in defending him, he slept with a hooker, I really don’t care.

At least I know I’m on the right track when you start complaining to others about me.

Actually I don't have any hooker friends, nor are there any 'hookers' involved in this story, nor would it be relevant if there were.

But you keep tryin' little fella.

​

Enjoy your dishonesty. Maybe it'll pay off some day when reality no longer exists.

Play stupid, there is not many people right or left that haven’t figured out that she is a prostitute, but ignorance is bliss which explains why you are so happy about this.

 

[Pogo]

You realize you took a giant leap, right?

Not really. Every day, Sarah Sanders gets outthere and tells us that Trump really didn't mean what he just said.

Papageorgio could do that job.

Not convincingly, but that wouldn't stop him.

Poor thing, you still defending your hooker friends. I wouldn’t defend Trump, not interested in defending him, he slept with a hooker, I really don’t care.

At least I know I’m on the right track when you start complaining to others about me.

Actually I don't have any hooker friends, nor are there any 'hookers' involved in this story, nor would it be relevant if there were.

But you keep tryin' little fella.

​

Enjoy your dishonesty. Maybe it'll pay off some day when reality no longer exists.

Play stupid, there is not many people right or left that haven’t figured out that she is a prostitute.

And yet --- you can't prove it. Even trotted in a link that specifically excludes it. Maybe you should have read it before you dug deeper.

You must be on an extra-short bus to keep trying to prove a point that not only has nothing to substantiate it, but wouldn't have anywhere to go even if you could prove it. Once AGAIN --- ****NOBODY**** claims this was a prostitution event. NOBODY.

 

[jc456]

Not really. Every day, Sarah Sanders gets outthere and tells us that Trump really didn't mean what he just said.

Papageorgio could do that job.

Not convincingly, but that wouldn't stop him.

Poor thing, you still defending your hooker friends. I wouldn’t defend Trump, not interested in defending him, he slept with a hooker, I really don’t care.

At least I know I’m on the right track when you start complaining to others about me.

Actually I don't have any hooker friends, nor are there any 'hookers' involved in this story, nor would it be relevant if there were.

But you keep tryin' little fella.

​

Enjoy your dishonesty. Maybe it'll pay off some day when reality no longer exists.

Play stupid, there is not many people right or left that haven’t figured out that she is a prostitute.

And yet --- you can't prove it. Even trotted in a link that specifically excludes it. Maybe you should have read it before you dug deeper.

You must be on an extra-short bus to keep trying to prove a point that not only has nothing to substantiate it, but wouldn't have anywhere to go even if you could prove it. Once AGAIN --- ****NOBODY**** claims this was a prostitution event. NOBODY.

How you figure? She said on national tv she thought she was getting a tv role! Quid pro quo!

Prostitution