Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I looked it up. He expressed doubt in his own opinion of the law when he said, "I believe"Great, then post the law which allows that....Then why, pray tell, was Stormy Daniels paid 11 days before the election?
See post 1217
.
So you acknowledge that Stormy Daniels was paid 11 days before the election.
But it didn't have anything to do with the election, huh?
Never said it didn't have anything to do with the election, I have said it was a dual purpose expense which historically disqualifies it as a campaign expense. Judge Michael Mukasey verified that in an interview this afternoon.
.
Oh, wait …. you can't.
Feel free to look up the interview, the Judge explains it better than I.
.
What's to cite? One would have to be as brain-dead as you to not know trump denied knowledge of the $130,000 hush money payment he later admitted to reimbursing.Trump is a proven liar...
April 5th, 2018...
Q: "Did you know about the $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels?"
Trump: "No."
Q: "Do you know where he [Michael Cohen] got the money to make that payment?"
Trump: "No. I don't know, no."
May 2nd, 2018, Trump's attorney speaking with Trump's approval...
Giuliani: "Funneled it [the $130,000] through a law firm and then the president repaid it.”
Then you and Trump have a lot in common.
But I notice you didn't cite your claim, not even back to the leftist hate site that does your thinking for you.
You have the entire Marxist press to slander the President, yet you can't manage a simple link...
Obviously you have a different definition of a media junkie than others do. I've seen it at least 100 times on the news since Cohen released the tape.
Than by all means post a clip of it. If you have seen it 100 times there must be a youtube or other clip of it out there.
How much you want to bet she says the voices are dubbed, or the tape is phony or she doesn’t trust it because of CNN or something brazenly stupid like that?
Oh my, so the Inquisition is leaking shit to the press?
Criminal fucks...
Bozo doesn’t know how life works.
Because she went public with her story. That doesn't mean he did know; but does mean her story was public and he could have known. There is no basis to assume he did or did not know.Dumbfuck, now you're flat out lying. I never insisted trump knew she went public with her story. What I actually said was it is ridiculous to assume he didn't know she went public.
But even if he didn't know she went public, he did know of the affair 10 years earlier and never once tried to silence her -- until just before his election and just after his campaign took a huge hit from the Access Hollywood tape.
You have to be completely fucked in the head to think silencing her had nothing to do with his election.
My bold
Once again you engage in pure double speak.
This is basically what you just said:I never insisted trump knew she went public with her story. What I actually said was it is ridiculous to assume he didn't know she went public.
I never insisted trump knew, but it is ridiculous to assume he didn't know she went public.
What evidence do you have that makes it ridiculous to assume he didn't know?
.
And of course, he's known she knows about the affair since 2006. He waited 10 years until just before his election, and while his campaign was still reeling from the Hollywood Access tape, to silence her. He even contemplated buy the story from the National Inquirer about another affair, just so he could maintain control over that story too.
Her story was never published, so no, it wasn't public. But it's nice to see you finally admit there was no reason to assume he knew about it.
.
You are contradicting yourself.
You just said a minute ago she was shopping it around and that Cohen and Trump found out about it. How do you know? How do you know they didn't know about it BEFORE Trump was running for President?
The profound idiocy of the “she was shopping it” angle is this. If she had slept with Marco Rubio who was a Senator or Chuck Schumer who was a Senator or someone in federal government; that may make sense. People do devious things. However, Trump was not a politician much less thought to be a serious candidate for anything until he decided to run. Shopping around that a whore slept with a playboy (aka the blob) who has long been suspected of having affairs is kinda like the Pope shopping around that the Church has an issue with predator priests. Duh!
Yes, it was published. That doesn't mean Trump saw it but it certainly means he could have seen it; or at least heard about it from someone who did see it. It's ridiculous to assume he had no knowledge of it.Because she went public with her story. That doesn't mean he did know; but does mean her story was public and he could have known. There is no basis to assume he did or did not know.Dumbfuck, now you're flat out lying. I never insisted trump knew she went public with her story. What I actually said was it is ridiculous to assume he didn't know she went public.Which makes his choice to do it right before the election even more confusing.
Not really, no one was aware of the In Touch interview, Faun insist that's Trump and Cohen knew about it. Of course he has presented zero proof.
.
But even if he didn't know she went public, he did know of the affair 10 years earlier and never once tried to silence her -- until just before his election and just after his campaign took a huge hit from the Access Hollywood tape.
You have to be completely fucked in the head to think silencing her had nothing to do with his election.
My bold
Once again you engage in pure double speak.
This is basically what you just said:I never insisted trump knew she went public with her story. What I actually said was it is ridiculous to assume he didn't know she went public.
I never insisted trump knew, but it is ridiculous to assume he didn't know she went public.
What evidence do you have that makes it ridiculous to assume he didn't know?
.
And of course, he's known she knows about the affair since 2006. He waited 10 years until just before his election, and while his campaign was still reeling from the Hollywood Access tape, to silence her. He even contemplated buy the story from the National Inquirer about another affair, just so he could maintain control over that story too.
Her story was never published, so no, it wasn't public. But it's nice to see you finally admit there was no reason to assume he knew about it.
.
Damn, stop with the circular bullshit already. You claimed Cohen made an illegal excessive campaign contribution in 2016 and now you're saying it wasn't a violation of law until Trump started returning the money to Cohen in 2017. Is that really the story you want to stick with? LMAO
.
I never said that... Trump is the one saying HE MADE THE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION WHEN HE PAID COHEN BACK. He paid Cohen back starting with a payment in January 2017. They are two different things.
This is exactly what you said:
my bold
" With Trump trying backdate the reason for the payment from 2016, when the illegal campaign contribution was made to 2017."
.
No I didn't say that. What post are you getting that from? What's the number. Quote it in a reply.
Just expand the damn string, it's right there dummy. That's what the "click to expand" is for. ROFLMAO
.
Yeah and what you typed ISN'T what I said, which is extremely dishonest since you put quotes around something you assigned to me, which is not true.
Trump paid Cohen back in 2017 with what he says was a campaign contribution HE WAS MAKING TO HIS OWN CAMPAIGN. Why is that so hard for you to understand, and why do you have to lie and say that I said something that I didn't?
What's to cite?
One would have to be as brain-dead as you to not know trump denied knowledge of the $130,000 hush money payment he later admitted to reimbursing.
I obviously forgot the UN the first time and you try to make a big deal about it.He’s an UNindicted co- conspirator to a felony.The walls are closing in on Crooked Donnie.Trump & Co. is throwing everything they can get their hands on against the wall hoping that something will stick. Trump has a massive problem, but the Congress will give him enough shade to survive. After the mid-terms, without the Congress, he will at least be hamstrung and reduced to executive orders. In 2020, he is dead. BTW, he and his supporters are mirror images of each other. Sleaze is as sleaze does!!! Bigly.
Trump's response to Michael Cohen's plea deal, dissected - CNNPolitics
He’s now an indicted co- conspirator in a felony and would be prosecuted if not president.
He very likely will have to sit for a deposition in the Stormy case.
Plus all of his other lawsuits and scandals.
This is without the most corrupt presidency ever.
Where's the indictment? You ignorant regressives crack me up.
.
You’re one of the cult that would look the other way if you saw your leader shooting someone.
You need to make up my mind, you said this in the post before "He’s now an indicted co- conspirator in a felony". Now tell the class how anyone could be an un-indicted co-conspirator, when no indictments were sought or issued in the Cohen case?
.
Petty bitch aren’t you.
I never said that... Trump is the one saying HE MADE THE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION WHEN HE PAID COHEN BACK. He paid Cohen back starting with a payment in January 2017. They are two different things.
This is exactly what you said:
my bold
" With Trump trying backdate the reason for the payment from 2016, when the illegal campaign contribution was made to 2017."
.
No I didn't say that. What post are you getting that from? What's the number. Quote it in a reply.
Just expand the damn string, it's right there dummy. That's what the "click to expand" is for. ROFLMAO
.
Yeah and what you typed ISN'T what I said, which is extremely dishonest since you put quotes around something you assigned to me, which is not true.
Trump paid Cohen back in 2017 with what he says was a campaign contribution HE WAS MAKING TO HIS OWN CAMPAIGN. Why is that so hard for you to understand, and why do you have to lie and say that I said something that I didn't?
Well dumb fuck, I copied and pasted the quote I attributed to you directly form the string, I didn't type it, you did. I'm not going to dig 20 pages back in the thread to quote it directly.
.
No, I admit no such thing.What's to cite?
Then you acknowledge that you're just making shit up to slander the object of your hate and rage.
One would have to be as brain-dead as you to not know trump denied knowledge of the $130,000 hush money payment he later admitted to reimbursing.
Either that, or not be consumers of the conspiracy hate that spews forth from the trash you watch on MSNBC or CNN.
You got your shit from KOS or one of the other gutter left sites, we all know it. You're right to be embarrassed by it.
Yes, it was published. That doesn't mean Trump saw it but it certainly means he could have seen it; or at least heard about it from someone who did see it. It's ridiculous to assume he had no knowledge of it.Because she went public with her story. That doesn't mean he did know; but does mean her story was public and he could have known. There is no basis to assume he did or did not know.Dumbfuck, now you're flat out lying. I never insisted trump knew she went public with her story. What I actually said was it is ridiculous to assume he didn't know she went public.Not really, no one was aware of the In Touch interview, Faun insist that's Trump and Cohen knew about it. Of course he has presented zero proof.
.
But even if he didn't know she went public, he did know of the affair 10 years earlier and never once tried to silence her -- until just before his election and just after his campaign took a huge hit from the Access Hollywood tape.
You have to be completely fucked in the head to think silencing her had nothing to do with his election.
My bold
Once again you engage in pure double speak.
This is basically what you just said:I never insisted trump knew she went public with her story. What I actually said was it is ridiculous to assume he didn't know she went public.
I never insisted trump knew, but it is ridiculous to assume he didn't know she went public.
What evidence do you have that makes it ridiculous to assume he didn't know?
.
And of course, he's known she knows about the affair since 2006. He waited 10 years until just before his election, and while his campaign was still reeling from the Hollywood Access tape, to silence her. He even contemplated buy the story from the National Inquirer about another affair, just so he could maintain control over that story too.
Her story was never published, so no, it wasn't public. But it's nice to see you finally admit there was no reason to assume he knew about it.
.
And again, he knew she knew of the affair for 10 years. He waited until his election to silence her.
Do you have proof the reporter lied?Despite the strong evidence, an editorial decision was made not to run the story.
How the Interview I Did with Stormy Daniels for "Trashy" Magazine Might Just Topple a President
Yes, it was published. That doesn't mean Trump saw it but it certainly means he could have seen it; or at least heard about it from someone who did see it. It's ridiculous to assume he had no knowledge of it.Because she went public with her story. That doesn't mean he did know; but does mean her story was public and he could have known. There is no basis to assume he did or did not know.Dumbfuck, now you're flat out lying. I never insisted trump knew she went public with her story. What I actually said was it is ridiculous to assume he didn't know she went public.
But even if he didn't know she went public, he did know of the affair 10 years earlier and never once tried to silence her -- until just before his election and just after his campaign took a huge hit from the Access Hollywood tape.
You have to be completely fucked in the head to think silencing her had nothing to do with his election.
My bold
Once again you engage in pure double speak.
This is basically what you just said:I never insisted trump knew she went public with her story. What I actually said was it is ridiculous to assume he didn't know she went public.
I never insisted trump knew, but it is ridiculous to assume he didn't know she went public.
What evidence do you have that makes it ridiculous to assume he didn't know?
.
And of course, he's known she knows about the affair since 2006. He waited 10 years until just before his election, and while his campaign was still reeling from the Hollywood Access tape, to silence her. He even contemplated buy the story from the National Inquirer about another affair, just so he could maintain control over that story too.
Her story was never published, so no, it wasn't public. But it's nice to see you finally admit there was no reason to assume he knew about it.
.
And again, he knew she knew of the affair for 10 years. He waited until his election to silence her.
According to the reporter from In Touch, the article wasn't published due to an editorial decision.
From the article:
Do you have proof the reporter lied?Despite the strong evidence, an editorial decision was made not to run the story.
How the Interview I Did with Stormy Daniels for "Trashy" Magazine Might Just Topple a President
Where did I say In Touch published her story on the Internet, which would have implied the reporter lied?Yes, it was published. That doesn't mean Trump saw it but it certainly means he could have seen it; or at least heard about it from someone who did see it. It's ridiculous to assume he had no knowledge of it.Because she went public with her story. That doesn't mean he did know; but does mean her story was public and he could have known. There is no basis to assume he did or did not know.Dumbfuck, now you're flat out lying. I never insisted trump knew she went public with her story. What I actually said was it is ridiculous to assume he didn't know she went public.
But even if he didn't know she went public, he did know of the affair 10 years earlier and never once tried to silence her -- until just before his election and just after his campaign took a huge hit from the Access Hollywood tape.
You have to be completely fucked in the head to think silencing her had nothing to do with his election.
My bold
Once again you engage in pure double speak.
This is basically what you just said:I never insisted trump knew she went public with her story. What I actually said was it is ridiculous to assume he didn't know she went public.
I never insisted trump knew, but it is ridiculous to assume he didn't know she went public.
What evidence do you have that makes it ridiculous to assume he didn't know?
.
And of course, he's known she knows about the affair since 2006. He waited 10 years until just before his election, and while his campaign was still reeling from the Hollywood Access tape, to silence her. He even contemplated buy the story from the National Inquirer about another affair, just so he could maintain control over that story too.
Her story was never published, so no, it wasn't public. But it's nice to see you finally admit there was no reason to assume he knew about it.
.
And again, he knew she knew of the affair for 10 years. He waited until his election to silence her.
According to the reporter from In Touch, the article wasn't published due to an editorial decision.
From the article:
Do you have proof the reporter lied?Despite the strong evidence, an editorial decision was made not to run the story.
How the Interview I Did with Stormy Daniels for "Trashy" Magazine Might Just Topple a President
Yes, it was published. That doesn't mean Trump saw it but it certainly means he could have seen it; or at least heard about it from someone who did see it. It's ridiculous to assume he had no knowledge of it.Because she went public with her story. That doesn't mean he did know; but does mean her story was public and he could have known. There is no basis to assume he did or did not know.My bold
Once again you engage in pure double speak.
This is basically what you just said:
I never insisted trump knew, but it is ridiculous to assume he didn't know she went public.
What evidence do you have that makes it ridiculous to assume he didn't know?
.
And of course, he's known she knows about the affair since 2006. He waited 10 years until just before his election, and while his campaign was still reeling from the Hollywood Access tape, to silence her. He even contemplated buy the story from the National Inquirer about another affair, just so he could maintain control over that story too.
Her story was never published, so no, it wasn't public. But it's nice to see you finally admit there was no reason to assume he knew about it.
.
And again, he knew she knew of the affair for 10 years. He waited until his election to silence her.
According to the reporter from In Touch, the article wasn't published due to an editorial decision.
From the article:
Do you have proof the reporter lied?Despite the strong evidence, an editorial decision was made not to run the story.
How the Interview I Did with Stormy Daniels for "Trashy" Magazine Might Just Topple a President
Glad you got the reason right this time. That doesn't mean Trump didn't know about it back then however... as it is highly likely when running a story like that, the reporter or media will reach out to the subject of the article for a comment.
Yes, it was published. That doesn't mean Trump saw it but it certainly means he could have seen it; or at least heard about it from someone who did see it. It's ridiculous to assume he had no knowledge of it.Because she went public with her story. That doesn't mean he did know; but does mean her story was public and he could have known. There is no basis to assume he did or did not know.
And of course, he's known she knows about the affair since 2006. He waited 10 years until just before his election, and while his campaign was still reeling from the Hollywood Access tape, to silence her. He even contemplated buy the story from the National Inquirer about another affair, just so he could maintain control over that story too.
Her story was never published, so no, it wasn't public. But it's nice to see you finally admit there was no reason to assume he knew about it.
.
And again, he knew she knew of the affair for 10 years. He waited until his election to silence her.
According to the reporter from In Touch, the article wasn't published due to an editorial decision.
From the article:
Do you have proof the reporter lied?Despite the strong evidence, an editorial decision was made not to run the story.
How the Interview I Did with Stormy Daniels for "Trashy" Magazine Might Just Topple a President
Glad you got the reason right this time. That doesn't mean Trump didn't know about it back then however... as it is highly likely when running a story like that, the reporter or media will reach out to the subject of the article for a comment.
The didn't run it, god you are dense.
.
Where did I say In Touch published her story on the Internet, which would have implied the reporter lied?Yes, it was published. That doesn't mean Trump saw it but it certainly means he could have seen it; or at least heard about it from someone who did see it. It's ridiculous to assume he had no knowledge of it.Because she went public with her story. That doesn't mean he did know; but does mean her story was public and he could have known. There is no basis to assume he did or did not know.My bold
Once again you engage in pure double speak.
This is basically what you just said:
I never insisted trump knew, but it is ridiculous to assume he didn't know she went public.
What evidence do you have that makes it ridiculous to assume he didn't know?
.
And of course, he's known she knows about the affair since 2006. He waited 10 years until just before his election, and while his campaign was still reeling from the Hollywood Access tape, to silence her. He even contemplated buy the story from the National Inquirer about another affair, just so he could maintain control over that story too.
Her story was never published, so no, it wasn't public. But it's nice to see you finally admit there was no reason to assume he knew about it.
.
And again, he knew she knew of the affair for 10 years. He waited until his election to silence her.
According to the reporter from In Touch, the article wasn't published due to an editorial decision.
From the article:
Do you have proof the reporter lied?Despite the strong evidence, an editorial decision was made not to run the story.
How the Interview I Did with Stormy Daniels for "Trashy" Magazine Might Just Topple a President
Where did anyone say In Touch was the only outlet interested in her story?
And again, Trump waited 10 years to silence her, regardless of her going public with their affair in 2011. He waited until his campaign took a major hit from the Hollywood Access tape and just before the election. There is no question the election was his motivation to silence her.
Yes, it was published. That doesn't mean Trump saw it but it certainly means he could have seen it; or at least heard about it from someone who did see it. It's ridiculous to assume he had no knowledge of it.
And again, he knew she knew of the affair for 10 years. He waited until his election to silence her.
Who said I was talking about In Touch?Where did I say In Touch published her story on the Internet, which would have implied the reporter lied?Yes, it was published. That doesn't mean Trump saw it but it certainly means he could have seen it; or at least heard about it from someone who did see it. It's ridiculous to assume he had no knowledge of it.Because she went public with her story. That doesn't mean he did know; but does mean her story was public and he could have known. There is no basis to assume he did or did not know.
And of course, he's known she knows about the affair since 2006. He waited 10 years until just before his election, and while his campaign was still reeling from the Hollywood Access tape, to silence her. He even contemplated buy the story from the National Inquirer about another affair, just so he could maintain control over that story too.
Her story was never published, so no, it wasn't public. But it's nice to see you finally admit there was no reason to assume he knew about it.
.
And again, he knew she knew of the affair for 10 years. He waited until his election to silence her.
According to the reporter from In Touch, the article wasn't published due to an editorial decision.
From the article:
Do you have proof the reporter lied?Despite the strong evidence, an editorial decision was made not to run the story.
How the Interview I Did with Stormy Daniels for "Trashy" Magazine Might Just Topple a President
Where did anyone say In Touch was the only outlet interested in her story?
And again, Trump waited 10 years to silence her, regardless of her going public with their affair in 2011. He waited until his campaign took a major hit from the Hollywood Access tape and just before the election. There is no question the election was his motivation to silence her.
This was your response to posts ago, my bold.
Yes, it was published. That doesn't mean Trump saw it but it certainly means he could have seen it; or at least heard about it from someone who did see it. It's ridiculous to assume he had no knowledge of it.
And again, he knew she knew of the affair for 10 years. He waited until his election to silence her.
He's also wrong in believing In Touch was the only outlet interested in her story. Her account of her affair was published online in 2011. It may not have been widely known, but certainly, some people knew of it.Yes, it was published. That doesn't mean Trump saw it but it certainly means he could have seen it; or at least heard about it from someone who did see it. It's ridiculous to assume he had no knowledge of it.Her story was never published, so no, it wasn't public. But it's nice to see you finally admit there was no reason to assume he knew about it.
.
And again, he knew she knew of the affair for 10 years. He waited until his election to silence her.
According to the reporter from In Touch, the article wasn't published due to an editorial decision.
From the article:
Do you have proof the reporter lied?Despite the strong evidence, an editorial decision was made not to run the story.
How the Interview I Did with Stormy Daniels for "Trashy" Magazine Might Just Topple a President
Glad you got the reason right this time. That doesn't mean Trump didn't know about it back then however... as it is highly likely when running a story like that, the reporter or media will reach out to the subject of the article for a comment.
The didn't run it, god you are dense.
.
Just because they didn't run it doesn't mean anything. Just like you got it wrong the first time you argued with me over this, it says she did all the investigating needed to corroborate what Stormy Daniels was saying.
"But even if what she told me seemed true, I still had to do my due diligence and report out the story. I spoke to other sources who corroborated her account and had Daniels take a lie-detector test, which she passed. (We administered these from time to time, especially when people made claims without photographic or other material evidence.) By the end of the multi-week process, I had no reason not believe her story and handed off all of my reporting to my editors."
PEOPLE KNEW ABOUT IT.
You're just a fucking douchebag. No married man wants some whore claiming he slept with her.Because she went public with her story. That doesn't mean he did know; but does mean her story was public and he could have known. There is no basis to assume he did or did not know.Dumbfuck, now you're flat out lying. I never insisted trump knew she went public with her story. What I actually said was it is ridiculous to assume he didn't know she went public.
But even if he didn't know she went public, he did know of the affair 10 years earlier and never once tried to silence her -- until just before his election and just after his campaign took a huge hit from the Access Hollywood tape.
You have to be completely fucked in the head to think silencing her had nothing to do with his election.
My bold
Once again you engage in pure double speak.
This is basically what you just said:I never insisted trump knew she went public with her story. What I actually said was it is ridiculous to assume he didn't know she went public.
I never insisted trump knew, but it is ridiculous to assume he didn't know she went public.
What evidence do you have that makes it ridiculous to assume he didn't know?
.
And of course, he's known she knows about the affair since 2006. He waited 10 years until just before his election, and while his campaign was still reeling from the Hollywood Access tape, to silence her. He even contemplated buy the story from the National Inquirer about another affair, just so he could maintain control over that story too.
Her story was never published, so no, it wasn't public. But it's nice to see you finally admit there was no reason to assume he knew about it.
.
You are contradicting yourself.
You just said a minute ago she was shopping it around and that Cohen and Trump found out about it. How do you know? How do you know they didn't know about it BEFORE Trump was running for President?
The profound idiocy of the “she was shopping it” angle is this. If she had slept with Marco Rubio who was a Senator or Chuck Schumer who was a Senator or someone in federal government; that may make sense. People do devious things. However, Trump was not a politician much less thought to be a serious candidate for anything until he decided to run. Shopping around that a whore slept with a playboy (aka the blob) who has long been suspected of having affairs is kinda like the Pope shopping around that the Church has an issue with predator priests. Duh!
