|Image Replies||0 ()|
|Lifetime||18d 22h 19m 9s|
Washington (CNN) Stormy Daniels was "truthful about having unprotected vaginal intercourse with Donald Trump in July 2006," according to a polygraph test report from 2011.
The report states that the "probability of deception was measured to be less than 1%." It was given to CNN by Michael Avenatti, Daniels' attorney and contains three pertinent questions: "Around July 2006, did you have vaginal intercourse with Donald Trump?," "Around July 2006, did you have unprotected sex with Donald Trump?" and "Did Trump say you would get on 'The Apprentice?'"
Daniels replied yes to all three questions. The first two were analyzed to be truthful, the third question was "inconclusive" according to the polygraph examiner Ronald Slay.
Polygraphs are generally inadmissible in court.
The polygraph was performed at the request of Bauer Publishing, which owns Life&Style and InTouch magazines, according to the reporter who interviewed Daniels in 2011. Reporter Jordi Lippe-McGraw initially interviewed Daniels for Life & Style magazine. The interview was not published at the time, but Bauer Publishing released it in InTouch magazine earlier this year.
Woman named in Stormy Daniels' document accused Trump of unwanted advances
Lippe-McGraw told CNN on Tuesday that Daniels passed the test in a broader sense. "Based off of the interview, we had her take the polygraph test to confirm the details of what she was telling us. There wasn't much in the way of physical evidence, per se," Lippe-McGraw said, adding that the big-picture question they wanted to confirm was that the affair happened, and that Daniels passed. Lippe-McGraw said that Daniels told her she had unprotected sex with Trump, because Daniels is allergic to latex and didn't have condoms at the time.
Earlier Tuesday, Avenatti tweeted out a photograph of Daniels being administered the test.
These are career mistakes you are supposed to have been making when you are 16 making your first porno not 27. The Don was riding high in 2006 he was probably fucking bitches left and right, this ho's just mad he was able to get her to do it for free
if we're making the case for a violation of campaign finance laws the answer to your question is irrelevant. keep defending Trump tho. and save your shariablue bogeyman, please. I live to see anyone with enough hubris to run for president of the US get drawn and quartered figuratively... or literally if I'm really lucky. it'd be just as fun watch Hillary crash and burn if she was in the oval office today
>she's been the most vocal about their relationship
She's literally been the least vocal of all known Trump sex affiliates. The entire reason it's a scandal is because unlike with the other sex scandals, Trump left a legal/financial paper trail in his effort to ensure her silence.
"Lippe-McGraw said that Daniels told her she had unprotected sex with Trump, because Daniels is allergic to latex and didn't have condoms at the time."
Oh wait. Probably not legit. Stormy was a contract star for Wicked. Wicked is a condom-only adult production company.
He said it himself - he could shoot someone on video in Times Square, and it wouldn't do anything to deter his fan base.
If anything, boning a hot pornstar is just more points for him.
I dunno why his detractors don't get that most everything they accuse him of is just galvanizing his base further. ...or maybe they do, and this is all some elaborate ruse.
...and yeah, that.
I imagine the retarded Conservative Christians who suck his cock might.
Not that they'd ever admit this was real. Pretty sure they could release a sextape between them while he screams "I'm Trump" and the tards would bury their heads in the sand.
>The Court of Public Opinion, where polygraph tests are used to determine who is lying on shows like Maury and Jerry Springer.
Ah yes, the highest court in the land, where everything is staged and all "conflictig" parties already reached a deal before agreeing to act a fool on camera together.
If by liberals, you're referring to the center and center-right establishmentarian MSM, then yeah.
Real liberals only have a problem with this in so far as campaign finance laws are broken, otherwise it's yet another convenient distraction for republicans and trump from coverage focused on their actual use of power belying their incompetence, corruption, and fascist machinations.
>billionaire fucked a porn star 15 years ago
>billionaire pays off porn star for their tv career
>porn star more than happy to take money and silence
>billionaire becomes president
>suddenly, 10 years later, she wants to sell out her story to others for as much as she can
>her polygraph is what makes headline news now
like, how desperate do you have to be to have this be a headline?
Its funny because while that should be the real concern, its never
>Trump had sex with a porn star, the hush money might have come from his campaign instead of his own pocket!
>Trump had sex with a porn star while he was married, arent you Conservative Christian™ voters angry yet?
Its also likely the latest in a long line of wishful thinking outrage scandals. The focus of articles is either how he had an affair, or how if he did A and if he did B and if C D and E, then its possible that a judge would interperet this as IMPEEEAAAAAACH
>I have information that will lead to Hillar-
>Suicide by mugging gone wrong on his was home from the harbor
>I have information that will lead to Trumps impeachment
>24/7 coverage, a 60 minutes interview, more publicity than the gun violence teenagers nobody remembers
this is a gross misreading of this actual story, because not only was hush money paid but a Trump affiliate magazine bought Daniels' story and then purposefully killed it in an attempt to prevent any word getting out. She didn't just say
>I take the money and go byebye now
she was actively mislead and legally threatened by Trump associates to stay quiet, and luckily for Trump the incompetence of his people ensured the information got out anyways. it's a shit show on all sides
why is it of any relevance now? did he do anything actually illegal? seems to me she just wants the paycheck to slander him and has sellers remorse because it's worth much more now.
Again, how is who he slept with 15 years ago at all relevant to his presidency now? It's not like it is unknown that he has cheated on his wives in the past.
Are you saying Obama, one of our most centrist presidents, wasn't painted as the second coming of Stalin by right-wing pundits? Are you saying Trump and his administration aren't constantly trying to distract people from their increasingly blatant flirtations with the idea of fascism? What's your dealio here, bud-friend?
>she was actively mislead
No she wasn't. In the 11 years since the alleged incident, it only became an issue now that Trump got elected.
For 11 years she was perfectly fine with arrangement, until she smelled the cash being offered her by vultures in the media who are desperate for a "Trump scandal" that won't fall apart in a week.
>wasn't painted as the second coming of Stalin by right-wing pundits?
That would be Hillary. Right-wing pundits compared Obama more to Hitler.
>What's your dealio here, bud-friend?
They probably don't watch a whole lot of TV, and thus aren't programmed by the leftist propaganda machine that is the MSM.
>Imagine waking up everyday and knowing you're as retarded as this person
The entire system is geared towards teaching these kinds of people their retardation is intelligence, thus they wake up every day thinking they're intelligent, as opposed to "those dirty right wingers who won't agree with me."
That none of you are interested in determining what even constitutes "left wing" or "right wing" policy, is evidence enough that none of you are interested in a mutually understood conversation of what kind of policy Obama actually pursued. As is the clear lack of any conversation about any one particular action of his and why it was left, right, or center- factoring it into a more general view of his presidency.
But do go on regurgitating buzzwords until you're satisfied with yourselves. God knows we're too broken to have any other way of getting those dopamine hits aside from baiting out internet hate cummies.
why is it people who are not christians feel they have a right to hold christian's to a higher standard? As if people who know nothing of the religion or how it actually affects people's lives have the right to judge people based on belief's they mock.
Talk about hypocrisy.
>his campaign is a total lie
what part exactly? What part of his cheating on his wives, fucking porn stars, models and actresses was part of his campaign or unknown before he decided to run?
Be honest it's all about
>It shows his low character
You're trying to shame him and try to shame anyone who doesn't care. There's no reason politically why this is relevant except mudslinging.
Don't forget the sizable immoral demographic of his supporters who would proudly consider this an admirable thing.
I mean, it's sex! With a porn star! That's what I want to do - I can related to this!
Oh, he's married? Marital fidelity only matters when Democrats fail at it.
Dude, you're so poorly informed on this topic it's astonishing how you still insist on speaking as an expert of it. She flatly denied the allegations that are being reported on today in a 2016 WSJ piece. this isn't some vindictive, money-hungry slut. Trump's entourage leaks like a sieve and is the source for all this new information. It's only in light of the blatant mishandling of the situation by Trump's lawyers and affiliates at National Enquirer that Daniels armed herself with a lawyer to pursue litigation, more to rectify her involvement in the whole thing than pursuit of revenge. And save me your "media vulture" poetry, Trump is a veteran at stirring up the media and would love this kind of attention if he was still being paid like a celebrity. Oddly enough when you're the leader of the free world, you're expected to find value in service to your constituency as compensation. Please, keep condescending to people in this thread and acting like you've got your fingers wrapped around the conspiratorial veil that the "MSM" have cast over all our feeble intellects. It really lends credence to my hypothesis that in another life you'd be a professional bullshit artist.
Because Trump's associates at the National Enquirer and his personal lawyer, the latter of whom might've been paid with Presidential campaign money at the time, paid Daniels' for her story as recently as 2016. what happened 15 years ago IS irrelevant, but the issue TODAY is the money. like every Trump scandal up to and including the Russia investigation, it's always been about following the money. this is what happens when you elect a sleazy New York salesman with international business dealings who refused to wholly divest from those interests. You get fucking fraud.
>It's only in light of the blatant mishandling of the situation by Trump's lawyers and affiliates at National Enquirer that Daniels armed herself with a lawyer to pursue litigation, more to rectify her involvement in the whole thing than pursuit of revenge.
This wasn't a "whole thing" to be involved in until Daniels made it a whole thing. The issue was sleeping and buried up until recently.
>but the issue TODAY is the money.
Trump may not be as rich as he claims he is, but he is still quite rich, and $150,000 is chump change to him. Even if for some reason via magical retard accounting the money came out of his campaign, Donald Trump put $66 million dollars of his own money out of his own pocket into his campaign.
The difference between him paying $150,000 out of his own pocket to shut her up and him paying $150,000 to his campaign to pay her to shut up matters maybe for tax purposes and arcane legal minutiae, but practically speaking there's no fucking difference - maybe it was a Bad Thing but there is no world in which one of these is worthy of strident moral condemnation and the other is peaches.
The difference is that it's fucking weird and in no way should he have felt motivated to shell out 66 million as opposed to 65.85 million while paying out of pocket. So if it's chump change, why didn't he pay it out of pocket instead of using a campaign fund?
With no real reason other than arcane legal minutiae (and seriously, you're using the possibility of tax evasion as an excuse for why this is ok?) then why go through such a roundabout process. What motivation is there to do something like that?
Are we supposed to think that 150K spent deliberately out of a mutual fund was some accident or trivial mistake? Because 150K is a lot of money and I'd expect fiscal conservatives to agree that throwing it around without concern is fucking stupid since that's practically half their entire platform. Or should we be concerned that this is a part of a growing list of sketchy bullshit that's "no big deal guys don't worry about it"
>So if it's chump change, why didn't he pay it out of pocket instead of using a campaign fund?
Is there a reason why he would feel compelled not to use his campaign fund? The only thing that changes for him is the name on the check. It's about as "roundabout" as me routing money from my savings account to my checking account. It's not as though it didn't benefit his campaign.
>Are we supposed to think that 150K spent deliberately out of a mutual fund was some accident or trivial mistake?
I'm not sure you know what a "mutual fund" is.
>Because 150K is a lot of money and I'd expect fiscal conservatives to agree that throwing it around without concern is fucking stupid since that's practically half their entire platform.
Campaigns piss away money. Trump spent a billion dollars on his campaign. Hillary spent one and a half. All that money could have fed a million starving children but America simply accepts this because it's everybody's First Amendment right to piss that money away.
Donald Trump could have paid a Stormy Daniels every week for a hundred years and still had money left over. On a national scale (and unfortunately, Donald Trump is a national-scale figure) 150K is crap.
>All that money could have fed a million starving children
Someone should really make a chart of all the funds that politics wastes in terms of what charities could do with it. Most people seem ignorant to how much is spent on running for office, even for contentious state seats
Trump isn’t catholic is he? And the Catholic Church has been pretty critical of him in general, so them saying he shouldn’t have had sex with another woman isn’t really going to do much he should know that already, unless he’s in an open relationship.
Of course you missed the indictment, you idiot, as there hasn't been one yet. First, the Stormy Daniels case needs to get resolved and when they connect the payment to his campaign, which is absolutely inevitable, given its timing, they will hit Cohen for financing Trump as a private citizen (2,700 dollars cap) and Trump's campaign for not having reported it as a contribution. Get your head out of your fat ass.
No it doesn't you idiot. Anyone can lie and still keep their cool. Still have their nerves under control. You're gonna believe some machine can tell if a person is lying through their teeth? You're fucking dumb. This is all just a part of the liberals plan to smear trump. Get a whore to accuse cheeto in charge of consensual adultery and take anything and everything to prove you're not the ones lying. Even if it means taking a polygraph test at face value.
>you're gonna believe some machine can tell if a person is lying?
until you prove that a certified polygraph tester and a certified testing tool were somehow tricked by a pornstar 7 years ago, all you're doing is passively deflecting. pretty standard for braindead reps tbh
Can soemone give some advice on how to get through thick headed liberals? Listen kid, polygraph tests are about stress. If beavis and butt head taught me anything, it's that even an idiot can figure it out how to outsmart a machine. It's man made after all. It's only as smart as the asshole who made it. And I doubt any man knows how to read minds
I never gave my opinion. I'll tell you I don't give a shit if he did because it doesn't effect me in any way nor does it effect his ability to be a great leader. But Im also a skeptic and am I not just going to believe a whore and liberals who take machines at face value
Why are you making it seem like trumps the first person to ever life? Everyone lies! All politicians lie. It's a common attribute for politicians. So what if he lied about having sex? It literally doesn't matter. Lying or not its not effecting anyone at all. It's just a smear campaign because of a biased agenda. To put it poetically liberals are trying to create a storm in a teacup
>I'll tell you I don't give a shit if he did because it doesn't effect me in any way nor does it effect his ability to be a great leader.
I don't give a shit either, but you have to be a conspiracy theorist to come up with some fancy explanation about how some whore prepared a fancy machine to take down the future President of the United States fifteen years ago.
If you have no dog in the fight there's no reason to choose the conspiracy theory over the simple explanation unless you have some actual evidence for the conspiracy theory.
No. I am claiming that polygraph tests are not good measures of truth, something that the US judicial agrees with since they are not admissible. You are the one claiming we should ignore that in this special case and need to defend why. And no, the status of the alleged perpetrator or victim is not reason enough
Of course it matters.
If he lied and that is proven, then he paid hush money to shut the whore up and that becomes undeniable. If he paid hush money to shut the whore up, he did it through his lawyer, who accidentally broke campaign finance laws, because of all times, they decided to do it right at the start of his campaign.
And are you so set in your ways, have such a hard on for your side that you refuse to accept the idea that maybe she was briefed before it happend. Told it was gonna happen and maybe coached by a few people to ensure her story keeps traction. It just reads stress. All forms. All you have to do is keep your cool. Anyone can prepare mentally for it. You don't need a rigged machine. I'm not saying she's lying BUT I am saying a machine and a whore are not things to be believed
You claimed they are not good measures of truth, because they can be cheated, but you have no evidence that Stormy Daniels cheated hers and yet you are extremely convinced that she did simply because she could in theory. Then you refused to prove she cheated on hers, because you got no clue if she did. You are literally taking the theoretical possibility of her lying as an indisputable truth.
Its a realistic way to look at things. You're grasping at straws to keep your side from falling. You're right I cant technically prove she's lying because even I can't read minds, but I'm also saying her story is PROBABLY fabricated because 1. She's a whore 2. Liberals capatlized on this fast which is strange and 3. Everyone lies as I said before. Trump lies, stormy lies. The best proof IF she's telling the truth would be pics or videos, but a machine that reads stress..
THAT'S GRASPING A STRAWS
It doesn't matter whether I know that she did or didn't cheat. The fact that there is a possibility that she could have because a flawed test was used is reason enough to be sceptical of the results of that test. Everything else you claim is easily reversed as you are so set in your ways that she didn't cheat, something you have no proof of, as absolute fact without allowing for the possibility that she may have.
Our justice system is supposed to be built on the principle of "guilty beyond a shadow of doubt." Polygraph tests by definition introduce a shadow of doubt.
>she's a whore
Literally irrelevant in this case, because there is a contract. What kind of a guy, let alone a presumed billionaire, running to be the president of the United fucking States, will altruistically agree to pay 130 000 to some slut who is lying about having fucked him? I am pretty sure you can agree that none.
And so, given the existence of said contract, which I think you would also agree is undeniable at this point, why is it such a hard fucking leap in faith to believe that she told the truth in the polygraph test even if she's a paid slut?
Because it doesn't suit you. THAT is grasping for straws.
>everything else is easily reversed
Absolutely untrue. I am not taking the test on its own. There are plenty of circumstantial facts to support its plausibility. The test itself wasn't done in a basement either. It was done by a certified professional in a professionally controlled environment.
When you call all of that lies, it's up to you to prove they are lies.
I wouldn't know anon. Im not here to defend trump, just point out that liberals are using a whore to push an agenda with a machine. And all is supposed to be taken at face value? I don't think so. Just trying to say it's not legitamate thing, nor has it veer been and that you're side is grasping at straws to push this. But hmmm if I had to guess about trumps money business with the whore I guess I could say that maybe she called him or even harrassed him. Flirting with him and such. He didn't want to be rude nor did he want to make a scene with a lady of the night so he just paid her to fuck off. Does that seem plausible to you? Probably not since you're just a biased idiot
Regardless of who administers the test or where it is administered, it is still a terrible standard of truth and easily attacked in court as such if you try to introduce it. The reason admissibility in court is important is that it exemplifies how manipulatable these tests are. Circumstantial evidence is just that, circumstantial. While a polygraph supports it, that doesn't inherently confirm the allegations are true. The fact that you are so ignorant, wilfully or otherwise, of this shows how woefully biased you are.
The point is that there is more than a polygraph test to support the test's results. When you combine a polygraph with an existing, material, objectively accepted as true contract, then it's much harder to deny the results of said test. Especially when you have nothing to support the denial in the first place.
When multiple sources confirming the same thing start aligning in the same way, chances of them being singularly wrong start to diminish.
The fact that you are isolating the polygraph and attacking it as a single instance that's completely separate from the case altogether shows that YOU are, willfully or otherwise, biased and ignorant.
It's still 130000 dollars. Why not 130 bucks? Why sign a contract with Stormy in particular? Why not sign one with every other whore who's accused him before, during and after his campaign?
Because she isn't lying and because he knows it.
Also its not just words anon. He has a wife, kids. A reputation. He went to the dude ranch and caught the eye of a psycho female. Anon, I don't think you understand what these chicks are willing to do. Trump took the easy way out (if this all happens to be true) of just paying her to fuck off. But, as a psycho female she too has a reputation to uphold and we can see it here with this smeer campain. Anon, put yourself in his shoes. You've got kids a wife and billions of dollars. How would you deal with her that isn't going to draw attention? Exactly you pay her. Women will shut up with cash, but that cash ran out, she's sees he's becoming president...yeah you see. Common anon, put two and two together.
>When you have nothing to prove denial
What part of not admissible in court do you not understand? The fact that the justice system doesn't allow it is reason enough for me to doubt any polygraph results, regardless of context. THAT is what supports my denial of the results. Do I need to rephrase this another 20 times until you finally get it?
>When multiple sources align
Such as? A polygraph test and a contract to keep someone quiet? Face it, we all know that Trump comes off as the person who would do this. That being the case, it makes sense to keep people quiet who would claim he did, regardless of whether he did, while running a campaign. The contract in and of itself does not prove guilt, it just proves that they knew she could make these claims during the campaign and made moves to prevent that.
I am isolating individual evidence because that is how you go about defending or prosecuting a case. You don't just say you have a mountain of evidence and expect to get the conviction. It has to actually be real, concrete evidence
No, Anon. I would only exchange goods (money) if I knew her "words" could actually damage my reputation. If I got around paying off every whore who talks crap, I'd probably file for bankruptcy within the week. You don't pay if they got nothing to hurt you with, Anon. 2 + 2
The "real, concrete" evidence will likely come out after the agreement is invalidated. They are disputing the contract and it being void at the moment. You can't expect proof to come out if there is a contract that legally forbids the person who has the "real, concrete" proof to come out and how it to the world.
You can doubt the results, but you cannot proclaim them being false just because "the justice system doesn't admit polygraphs in court". It's absolutely insane that you are not getting this idea.
And yes, the contract does prove guilt in this case, because of how it was handled. I'll ask again: why would you pay a slut that has nothing hush money and why would you do it EXACTLY before the campaign takes off if she has nothing on you after all these years you could've done it? Why not pay all the other whores who've attempted to trick Trump? Is it because of her irregularly gigantic fake tits?
You say words are just that but what's happening now is just he said she said with a machine thrown in their to appease one side and all the while, these remours, these simple words are certainly doing damage to his reputation. Whether it's true or not. But like said, she harrased him and chicks like to play the victim, perhaps she would've turned the story around to say it was him. Trump and lawyer thought about that and decided maybe if they paid her she would just leave forever. But psycho females will be psycho females
>And all is supposed to be taken at face value?
Literally every fact in the world either supports one side or the other. You're literally saying that just because in this case it's bad for Trump, therefore, you can't trust it.
>He has a wife, kids. A reputation. He went to the dude ranch and caught the eye of a psycho female.
Do you know what Donald Trump usually does when people defame him? He sues them for libel and slander. He's issued hundreds of these lawsuits over the years. He pays lawyers thousands of dollars an hour to do this. But in this case, he didn't sue for libel or slander. He paid her $130,000, not to retract her claims, but to sign an NDA. A fucking NON-DISCLOSURE-AGREEMENT. There's a very obvious thing that Donald Trump does when people lie about him: he sues them into oblivion. He does it every time. But not this time. Why?
>The fact that the justice system doesn't allow it is reason enough for me to doubt any polygraph results, regardless of context.
The justice system doesn't allow all sorts of shit. It doesn't allow me to testify about any conversations that I wasn't a part of. That's great. It's good for justice. But for you to automatically disbelieve a statement supported by mountains of circumstantial evidence because it was polygraphed is stupid.
So, instead filing a lawsuit like he did literally every other time, against basically everybody who's said anything false (or sometimes just mean) about him, he instead went out of his way to draft a legal document that exists for the sole purpose of hiding the truth - which is what NDAs are, by definition - in a completely nonsensical and irrational decision.
Well, I guess he's an INDIVIDUAL, and his own man, and therefore we don't have to pay any attention to how little sense the whole thing makes.
I never claimed the results were false. I claimed that they were questionable and that was reason enough for me to be hesitant to jump onto one side or the other. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I claimed they were false. This was my first comment in the thread, by the way.
>Why would you do to before the campaign
Because they knew about her ahead of time and knew that regardless of validity her claims would hurt his campaign? It certainly doesn't make him look good, but it is a reasonable thing to consider given the response when the other women came out. Beyond that I honestly can't say exactly what their thoughts were on this at the time
>There's a very obvious thing that Donald Trump does when people lie about him: he sues them into oblivion. He does it every time. But not this time. Why?
He's currently suing her for $20 million in damages you mong.
>But for you to automatically disbelieve a statement supported by mountains of circumstantial evidence because it was polygraphed is stupid.
There's also the fact that she's denied the incident for 11 years, and the fact that the polygraph video is question is dubious and half the necessary equipment for a reading isn't even hooked up to Daniels. The fact that it looks like a poorly made porn skit that CNN of all networks managed to procure, 7+ years after it was allegedly administered, also casts doubt.
>And yes, the contract does prove guilt in this case, because of how it was handled.
You would be laughed out of court. She's denied the incident more times than she's claimed it happened, appeared to be high as fuck as on her 60 minutes expose where even Anderson Cooper called her out for being unreliable, and after all this time admits all she's actually after is ANOTHER payout.
>he instead went out of his way to draft a legal document
/He/ did no such thing. His lawyer did.
>that exists for the sole purpose of hiding the truth
Or establishing legal evidence for what the truth actually is and getting her to sign a document confirming it.
The only thing that seems to have changed her mind on what the truth is, is a payout. If she's willing to claim something is the truth for over a decade until someone(s) offer her money to tell a different story, what's more likely- she's been lying for all these years but suddenly feels the need to tell the truth now, or that a washed up porn star who strips for money is willing to lie to carrion-hungry media offering her a payout and promising protection for doing so?
She denied being raped, she didn't deny having sex with Trump, you tard. She didn't appear high as fuck at all. She hasn't admitted being after the money either, as she's always maintained that she wants her story out. Make more shit up, loser.
Well when the story was all the rage a week or two ago, there was speculation that Trump used campaign finances to pay her off, which would be super dooper illegal. They ran with it for a few days before news broke the payment happened over a decade ago, now its a new soundbyte for dem campaigns to try and at least dissuade the Conservative Christian™ vote.
>She denied being raped, she didn't deny having sex with Trump, you tard
AC explicitly mentions during the interview you apparently didn't see that she has explicitly denied having sex with Trump several times in the past over the course of several years, has signed MORE THAN ONE statement claiming they never had sex, and asks why people should believe her now.
>She didn't appear high as fuck at all.
Cocaine is a hell of a drug
>She hasn't admitted being after the money either, as she's always maintained that she wants her story out. Make more shit up, loser.
Right after the interview. "We would consider a settlement."
It's always been about money.
Reality bites, doesn't it loser? :)
>They Fucked in 2006? It's 2018 why is this even a thing?
Because the Russian collusion narrative is unwinding rapidly, and they need something to cover up the fact that Obama illegally coordinated with McCabe, Strzok, and Page about launching their "insurance policy" investigation.
>He's currently suing her for $20 million in damages you mong.
Yeah, for breach of contract. Not for libel or slander, which is what you do when you're the target of false accusations.
>/He/ did no such thing. His lawyer did.
Unless Donald Trump is entirely and utterly fucking incompetent to be a business of any kind, he knows what his lawyers are doing.
>Or establishing legal evidence for what the truth actually is
What the fuck kind of NDA "establishes legal evidence for what the truth actually is"
>Because the Russian collusion narrative is unwinding rapidly
You guys have been crowing about how it's finished for the last year and yet the investigation ignores your doomsaying and continues on its merry way.
>and they need something to cover up the fact that Obama illegally coordinated with McCabe, Strzok, and Page about launching their "insurance policy" investigation.
So, who's in charge of this investigation into this Obama conspiracy? Has Sessions appointed a special counsel for it yet? (He can, by the way - he doesn't need to ask anyone's permission to do it).
>Not for libel or slander, which is what you do when you're the target of false accusations.
The false accusation and the breach of contract are one in the same. No where is mutual exclusivity implied or applicable.
>he knows what his lawyers are doing.
Then why claim Trump himself drafted the document when you know it's false? Taking cues from Ms. Daniels?
>What the fuck kind of NDA "establishes legal evidence for what the truth actually is"
One where you sign a legal document affirmatively stating something did not happen, and that claims to the contrary are false.
Not one you sign, affirmatively stating you agree to not talk about something that did happen
Read it again:
Can you spot the difference? Use those DBQ skills.
>continues on its merry way drumming up process crimes yet still not actually charging anyone with collusion with Russia to influence the election or anything of the sort
Let me know when they find actual evidence of larger conspiracy and aren't mounting fishing expeditions.
>So, who's in charge of this investigation into this Obama conspiracy?
Sessions and the DOJ.
>Has Sessions appointed a special counsel for it yet?
He's already assigned an outside DOJ prosecutor parallel to IG Horowitz.
m/2018/03/29/breaking-ag-jeff-sessi ons-reveals-name-of-outside-dc-doj- prosecutor-assigned-to-horowitz-joh n-huber-from-utah/
Same day as this announcement, McCabe starts up his legal defense fund.
Pure coincidence, I'm sure :).
>always about the money
"We would consider it" now means they will absolutely take it, and somehow it makes it all about the money. Suits your narrative, but nothing more, loser.
>picked 1 random image of her pupils, claimed she's high
What about her expression? What about her coherence? What about her gesticulation?
Stop making shit up, loser.
>has signed more than one statement
Completely irrelevant as she never denied having sex DURING the interview, which is the entire point of coming out in the '60 minutes' piece after the scandal blew out. Of course she'll sign statements if she believed she was under a legal obligation to do it. Apparently, however, she wasn't.
You and the other trumpites would know.
>picked 1 random image of her pupils
Try the whole interview.
>Completely irrelevant as she never denied having sex DURING the interview0
What has more weight- several signed legal documents or a 60 minutes interview? :)
> Of course she'll sign statements if she believed she was under a legal obligation to do it.
That's not how legal obligations work. She DIDN'T have to sign.
>and what have we seen since then? nothing.
>saying courts don't move fast
>denying the plausibility of Mueller's probe, because it takes long
Mueller's probe has been open for a year +
The $20m lawsuit has been in play for about 15 days
Another loser baited by fake news.
>try the whole interview
I have and you're full of shit.
>What has more weight- several signed legal documents or a 60 minutes interview?
The interview. Obviously, if she's signed the documents, she's been under an obligation to do so when asked about having had an affair with Trump. Now that she is presumably not, she is telling the truth.
>That's not how legal obligations work. She DIDN'T have to sign.
And yet she did, and now she's saying she did have sex while suing to dismantle the settlement.
>I have and you're full of shit.
To each his own I guess, what do I know though I'm just a certified DRE.
LOL no. Legal documents sweetie.
>if she's signed the documents, she's been under an obligation to do so
She hasn't been. Nothing has forced her to sign those several legally binding documents.
>Now that she is presumably not, she is telling the truth.
Like when she told the truth about that signature not really looking like her actual signature?
>And yet she did, and now she's saying she did have sex while suing to dismantle the settlement.
I'm glad we agree she's unreliable, and at best has been switching up her stories and lying for years.
I'm sure she's telling the truth now though, especially if you pay no attention to her and her lawyers overtures for more money :)
And yet you are ignoring any other important sign but the one that fits your predetermined theory. You should stop being so certified.
Yes, sweetie. There is a clear reason why she could have denied having an affair with Trump prior to the NDA. Now that it is being disputed, she can claim she's had sex and actually demonstrate she has after the agreement is invalidated, which is the entire bloody idea.
>Nothing has forced her to sign those
Nothing other than being scared for her life I suppose.
>Like when she told the truth about that signature not really looking like her actual signature?
Don't change the subject. I am not gonna go through her entire fucking life just to suit your storytelling.
>I'm glad we agree she's unreliable, and at best has been switching up her stories and lying for years.
I'm sure she's telling the truth now though, especially if you pay no attention to her and her lawyers overtures for more money :)
We don't agree she's unreliable at all. The sole idea that she got offered $130.000 means she is reliable.
>And yet you are ignoring any other important sign
Like what? What else could of led to her pupils becoming dilated to such an extreme amount? A last minute eye exam before her interview? It's the coke, stupid. :)
>You should stop being so certified.
Or I can keep my certification and continue to make accurate judgements based on facts. :)
No sweatie :)
>There is a clear reason why she could have denied having an affair with Trump prior to the NDA.
"It didn't happen" is a pretty clear reason.
>she can claim she's had sex and actually demonstrate she has
How, beyond word of mouth? Keep in mind she's either lying now, or has been lying for over a decade about it. Don't worry though, I'm sure that 60 minute interview where she appeared to be on cocaine and AC called her out for lying will be evidence enough.
>Nothing other than being scared for her life I suppose.
She's suddenly not so scared for her life now that there's money to be made. Funny how that works.
>We don't agree she's unreliable at all.
We clearly do. Neither of us dispute that she's been lying, only what she's been lying about. Either way, she's unreliable.
>The sole idea that she got offered $130,000 means she is reliable.
Totally. Everyone knows that the more money someone is paid, the more honest and reliable they must be.
That's why the left always holds the rich up as honest paragons of moral decency.
She's reliable in that they knew she'd take the payout to fuel her apparent coke habit. Now that she's legally boxed herself in thanks to her tangled web of lies, she has no where to go but $20m into debt :)
>lengths of the trial matter when I want them to
Funny, I'm not the one who said the lawsuit was bogus because nothing happened in the 15 days it's been in play, only to then compare it to the Mueller probe.
Can't keep your story straight. Just like Stormy :)
>Like what? What else could of led to her pupils becoming dilated to such an extreme amount? A last minute eye exam before her interview? It's the coke, stupid. :)
That's not what I said. I said that dilated pupils are not the sole symptom of cocaine usage. You ignored the lack of any other typical signs and focused only on the pupils, because you're 100% full of shit.
>Or I can keep my certification and continue to make accurate judgements based on facts. :)
Facts? Do you have a blood sample? You don't. Since you don't, you cannot prove that she was on coke. That's a fact you should incorporate among the other stupid shit you're typing.
>"It didn't happen" is a pretty clear reason.
Except "it didn't happen" doesn't explain the $130.000 in hush money, you mongrel.
>How, beyond word of mouth? Keep in mind she's either lying now, or has been lying for over a decade about it. Don't worry though, I'm sure that 60 minute interview where she appeared to be on cocaine and AC called her out for lying will be evidence enough.
When the NDA is dismantled, you'll find out what's in her photo album. Does the DVD give you the chills? It surely scares Trump since he hasn't said a single word about it.
>Totally. Everyone knows that the more money someone is paid, the more honest and reliable they must be.
If she wasn't reliable and truthful in her claims, she wouldn't have been offered the $130.000 by Trump and Cohen in the first place. You don't offer a non-disclosure agreement if you are sure someone is lying. Keep your chin up, loser. You're tangling yourself in your own bullshit.
>Funny, I'm not the one who said the lawsuit was bogus because nothing happened in the 15 days it's been in play, only to then compare it to the Mueller probe.
>Can't keep your story straight. Just like Stormy :)
except it was u who said that the mueller probe was shit, because there was nothing found in over a year. but when it comes to the "15 days", again according to u, it cannot be nothing because it's been "only 15 days".
not to mention that mueller is clearly doing work and that there is undeniable proof of collusion or at least conspiracy to collude and obstruction of justice. what does your supposed lawsuit against stormy for 20 million have? nada.
>The false accusation and the breach of contract are one in the same. No where is mutual exclusivity implied or applicable.
Nowhere in the legal filing issued on behalf of Trump is any mention of libel, slander, or false accusation mentioned. That's shit you literally fucking made up out of thin air. Here's the full text.
>Then why claim Trump himself drafted the document when you know it's false?
Lawyers are fiduciaries. They are ethically bound by their professional code of conduct not to go off and do random shit. When you hear reports that "the defendant claimed" or "Mr. Black sued", they don't bother to mention that it's usually the defendant's lawyer or Mr. Black actually doing the talking. This is true basically fucking everywhere, and if you need to draw a distinction between the lawyer and the client, you're either looking at a malpractice case or deliberate obfuscation.
>One where you sign a legal document affirmatively stating something did not happen.
She was an idiot for signing her hand to a false statement, but let's have the whole truth: lift the NDA and subject the whole thing to discovery.
DREs are people who are paid by the police to say they found whatever the police said they found. The process is regularly ruled unscientific and unadmissable in court, just like the polygraph.
>except it was u
Behold, the beginning of that chain of conversation.
>there is undeniable proof of collusion or at least conspiracy to collude
>even though no such charges have been filed against anyone, especially any of charges from process crimes being pled guilty to by any party at this point in time
What kind of propagandistic news do you yuropoors have over there?
>they don't bother to mention that it's usually the defendant's lawyer or Mr. Black actually doing the talking
Good thing that anon explicitly said "drafted a letter". The letter being a piece of evidence in claims made by Daniels.
>if you need to draw a distinction between the lawyer and the client, you're either looking at a malpractice case or deliberate obfuscation.
When the legal document itself is being presented by one party as a piece evidence central to claims, distinction between lawyer and the client, when the lawyer claims to have drafted said legal document of his own accord, is entirely pertinent and necessary to the case. But I too am aware of basic precedents about legal representation in your average law school 101 book.
>She was an idiot for signing her hand to a false statement
How do we know THAT's a false statement? She's denied the affair more times than she's made claims to the contrary, for an extended period of time, only seeming to change her mind when money became part of the issue.
>DREs are people who are paid by the police to say they found whatever the police said they found. The process is regularly ruled unscientific and unadmissable in court, just like the polygraph
I'm fairly certain that contemporary jurisprudence does not hold the evidence provided by DREs in the same manner it holds evidence provided by a polygraph. It has bee contested, but the deciding issue rests on on what sort of training- medical or otherwise, said DRE has received, also on departmental protocols and record keeping by both the employing department and DRE themselves.
For example, there's both medical precedent and training for what reactions a person will have when they take certain drugs. And while it is possible to consume multiple drugs and provide an unclear set of symptoms, one can still satisfactorily determine whether or not a subject is under the influence of /something/. This information can be found in, say, your average med school 101 book. Said information can be used in certified medical training, aiding the DRE in producing accurate results that hold up to legal review.
And while I'm sure "is it really such a stretch of the imagination to think that a porn star/stripper might develop a coke habit" would not be admissible in court, thankfully, this is only /news/. You're in the wrong place if you're looking for courtroom standards.
>She's denied the affair more times than she's made claims to the contrary, for an extended period of time, only seeming to change her mind when money became part of the issue.
Is there a timeline that lays out what claims and denials were made by Daniels, and when? The signed statement was not released by Daniels; it was presumably turned over to Cohen as part of a legal agreement which was then released to (rightly) torpedo her credibility.
>What kind of propagandistic news do you yuropoors have over there?
Rick Gates has knowingly communicated with a member of the Russian Intelligence. His lawyer confirmed it when he admitted that he lied to the FBI.
>charged for crimes involving Manafort's Ukraine dealings that happened before Trump campaign, going all the way back to 2007, and lying about it
>still no charges for anything related to Trump, the election, or alleged collusion/interference
>"obviously this crime from 2014 proves collusion in 2016"
As I suspected: half-assed propagandistic yuropoor news.
>While at it, he admitted Gates dealt with Russian Intelligence DURING the campaign.
Yes, an individual both Gates and Manafort had allegedly been in contact with since 2009, especially pertaining to their work in/with Ukraine.
"Dealings" between parties during the campaign, which are already known by Mueller (thanks to recording provided by Gates), dealt with the "Tymoshenko report" and payments related to it, which is a pre-campaign event.
Mueller's memo explicitly states this:
>Instead of truthfully answering questions about his contacts with Gates and Person A, van der Zwaan lied. He denied having substantive conversations with Gates and Person A in 2016. When confronted with an email dated September 12, 2016, sent by Person A to van der Zwaan, the defendant lied again … Further, van der Zwaan in fact had a series of calls with Gates and Person A — as well as the lead partner on the matter — in September and October 2016. The conversations concerned potential criminal charges in Ukraine about the Tymoshenko report and how the firm was compensated for its work. The calls were memorable: van der Zwaan had taken the precaution of recording the conversations with Gates, Person A, and the senior partner who worked on the report. In van der Zwaan's recorded conversation with Person A, in Russian, Person A suggested that "there were additional payments," that "[t]he official contract was only a part of the iceberg," and that the story may become a blow for "you and me personally."
Mueller is currently digging up questionable practices pre-campaign, which is why despite "all of the charges", no one, not even Manafort and Flynn, have been charged with actual "collusion".
It seems like your half-assed propgandistic yuropoor news outlet is counting on people being to dumb to differentiate between Russians and Ukranians. In that regard, with you they've struck gold.
That is completely irrelevant. The point here is that there was an ongoing communication between Trump's staff and the RI during his campaign. No matter how you attempt to flip it or what this was about, the first blood has been drawn, and all of this will serve as a focal point to other events, such as the Trump Tower meeting, and so will bank and communication logs that Mueller already has. That is the significance of van der Zwaan.
Try to wrap your mind around it, you clueless, intellectually deficient trumpite.
>That is completely irrelevant.
It's completely relevant, and central to the main charges being levied right now from anything beyond process crimes. It all deals with the Ukraine.
>The point here is that there was an ongoing communication between Trump's staff and the RI during his campaign.
About previous incidents involving business conducted in the Ukraine prior to 2016. RTFM: read the fucking memo
>No matter how you attempt to flip it or what this was about
You can literally just read Mueller's memo to learn what it was about: dealings with the Tymoshenko report. Not the election or the campaign. The only one trying to flip facts to fit their agenda is you.
>Try to wrap your mind around it
Try to read what's actually being presented by Mueller. And again, remember: no one, not even Manafort and Flynn, nor Gates, have been charged with actual "collusion".
>About previous incidents involving business conducted in the Ukraine prior to 2016. RTFM: read the fucking memo
It does NOT matter. Everyone, including Trump, denied having ANY dealings with Russia, let alone RI and the GRU, and we are now finding out that there was an ongoing dialogue DURING the campaign irregardless of what it was about. Again, this is a first step. If there was a talk with Russians, first of all, why deny it? Second of all, how long before the same rule applies to other damning conversations that DID directly involve collusion like the one Junior had? How can you not comprehend that is beyond me.
>Try to read what's actually being presented by Mueller. And again, remember: no one, not even Manafort and Flynn, nor Gates, have been charged with actual "collusion".
Obviously. They were pressured to give out information and they have. Why else would Mueller drop a number of chargers against Gates? Do you think Ricky sang a lullaby to get that sort of a deal on a charge this heavy? Or is it more plausible that he gave something substantial on Trump up? Unreal.
>You can literally just read Mueller's memo to learn what it was about: dealings with the Tymoshenko report. Not the election or the campaign. The only one trying to flip facts to fit their agenda is you.
You have an agenda, man. That's why you refuse to see the picture in a broader view. I am apolitical and as far as I am concerned, we're all a nation of mongoloids. You present that fact very well.
I am not the person who said all gays should be shot. I have been gay for a very long time but after some time I have seen that it does break society, as do many other things--- People who push for hedonism, drug use, denial of family- All of them must be looked down upon and helped. Not accepted, especially not blind acceptance.
How fucking stupid are Americans? I dont give 2 shits about this retarded story or you dumb motherfuckers obsession with porn stars and presidents.
BUT MOTHERFUCKING POLYGRAPHS ARE PSEUDO SCIENCE YOU DUMBSHITS
Its not about "gaming" the machine you spy novel loving teenagers. Its 100% flawed. It has no credibility what so fucking ever.
Fuck i hate Americans perpetuation this ridiculous bullshit.
>muh horrible trump
Fucking snowflakes the lot of you. Hes a god damned saint compared to leaders around the world. Take what you got and live with it, don't bitch like the sad narcissistic sex hating landwhales you all are irl.
>Its not about "gaming" the machine you spy novel loving teenagers. Its 100% flawed. It has no credibility what so fucking ever.
The federal government to this day uses polygraph examinations as part of the process for vetting the highest security clearances. Studies show that polygraphs are far from perfect, but many studies and most reviews also suggest that they are not useless.
For someone yelling about pseudoscience and credibility you certainly aren't citing any scientific literature to back yourself up.
Can you prove the machine created by man can read minds? Untill you prove it can you're just baiting people
"bbu buh buh the government uses it"
The government doesn't know everything idiot. They are just as human as you and me. You're just a dumbass or a master troll. End of
>Can you prove the machine created by man can read minds?
ter/7 suggests that polygraphs are not worthless, especially in the hands of trained practitioners.
>Untill you prove it can you're just baiting people
If claiming things without proof is "baiting people", you've done that as well. In fact, either way, your entire post is basically one long bait chain.
>The government doesn't know everything idiot. They are just as human as you and me.
The government is not a person. It consists of a massive team of people using every advantage they can get to advantage the United States, even imperfect ones.
>Remember how in my post, especially that part you green texted, remember how I wrote "they"? what does "they" mean to you?
So, are 100% of career intelligence officials dumbass, master trolls, Stormy Daniels, and spy novel loving teenagers? Maybe all the professionals working for the United States governments are more retarded than your pet dog?
And way to ignore the entire rest of the post, shit eater.
>look he posted a website that's biased towards an agenda. IT'S CREDIBLE!!!!11
If I posted a link to a website that says it can prove the existence of God, is that doe.how credible? You guys say that government backs this, but that doesn't prove anything. Simply because logic, reason and simple common sense says a says a machine can't read fucking minds! Are you religious? Do you believe in God? Just because millions of asshole say he's real, DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!! Nobody believes your bullshit.
Lol did you come from /pol/?
>wheres your sources
Or maybe from /x/
>this machine created by a man...or maybe..something more Can go beyond that and see into the past and can tell us what is fact and what isn't
>what? It was created by a man and only measures stress levels? WHERE'S YOUR CREDIBLE SOURCE FOR COMMON SENSE!!!?
You're a delusional idiot, a troll, a dumbass. You're all these things and more. What? You want credible source for that too? Just go back and re-read your posts.
>Lol did you come from /pol/?
The irony is so thick you could cut it with a knife.
>sources >cites!? >credilbity
Sources and citations are the foundations of debate. Credibility is an essential part of evaluating those sources. It's a wonder you managed to graduate middle school.
>WHERE'S YOUR CREDIBLE SOURCE FOR COMMON SENSE!!!?
Your personal common sense is worthless. "Common sense" can be used to claim anything from the moon landing hoax to creationism. You've done nothing to support your claim that polygraphs are worthless other than your own personal incredulity.
All those really test for is whether or not someone is nervous, not whether or not they are lying. Furthermore, even if Trump had sex with a pornstar, so what? Also, if someone did get unwanted sexual advances from Trump, that isn't necessarily a big deal either, if she rejected him and he fucked off then so what?
Focusing on a poonhound being a poonhound rather then the fact that the GOP is now taking it's own turn at Jolly-Rogering the country sideways is fucking stupid.
Time and self evaluation of your value to any relationship especially the one with yourself. Cheating is typically the result of the cheaters insecurities.
A strong person just takes the heat of a relationship gone bad, owns their part in it's failure and accepts responsibility for his/her actions. You can in many instances save a relationship if both parties are committed to the hard work required, many others are not capable of that difficult path. My advice is to assess, evaluate and move forward with or without the cheater.
contact an ethical hacker who is a guru in all hacking skills, contact him via firstname.lastname@example.org, check his website to know more about his jobs and other things he can do
A private investigator can find out fast because they have GPS tracking devices to track your spouses location.?They can get phone records such as deleted text messages. They can monitor their computer usage.?The use hidden audio and video devices. They can send in female/male decoys to test their intentions.?A private investigator will get the truth quick. Contact a hacker
HACK INTO ANY SCHOOL DATABASE AND CHANGE UNIVERSITY GRADES.
HACK INTO CREDIT BUREAU DATABASE AND INCREASE YOUR CREDIT SCORE.
HACK ANY EMAIL OR SOCIAL NETWORK AND KNOW IF YOUR PARTNER IS CHEATING ON YOU.?HACK INTO YOUR PARTNER'S PHONE PICS, TEXT MESSAGE AND LISTEN TO CALLS TO KNOW IF HE IS CHEATING.
HACK INTO ANY BANK WEBSITE?Hack into any COMPANY WEBSITE?HACK INTO ANY GOVERNMENT AGENCY WEBSITE?HACK INTO SECURITY AGENCY WEBSITE AND ERASE CRIMINAL RECORDS?Hack into CRAIGSLIST AND REMOVE FLAGGING?HACK INTO ANY DATABASE SYSTEM?HACK PAYPAL ACCOUNT?HACK WORD-PRESS Blogs?SERVER CRASHED hack?UNTRACEABLE INTERNET PROTOCOL et?HAVE YOU OR YOUR CHILD BEEN BULLIED ONLINE BEFORE AND WANT TO GET BACK AT THE PERSON, WE CAN HELP YOU TRACE THE ACTUAL LOCATION OF THE PERSON AND?DO WHATEVER YOU REQUEST TO THE PERSONS COMPUTER?IS ANYONE BLACKMAILING YOU ONLINE AND YOU WANT US TO GET INTO THEIR?COMPUTER AND DESTROY DATA AND EVIDENCES AGAINST YOU
So what he got himself some before he was a president it's not like he was in Oval Office getting a b****** by a twenty-something intern, and then lied under oath that he had no sexual relations with her. Ted Kennedy drowned his fling and their baby she carried in a drunk driving accident. Robert Kennedy had his flings, other presidents had mistresses, or flings with other people's wives, and even had slaves as mistresses. So once again who cares he didn't lie under oath. He is not breaking the law.
Trump has now responded to questions:
He didn't know about the NDA.
That throws Cohen under the bus.
If true, it means Cohen entered into a "legal" agreement on behalf his client without telling him. Legally and ethically wrong and could see him struck off.
Cohen is already in legal jeopardy because the hush payment 11 days prior to the election amounts to an undeclared, excessive and illegal election funding payment.
If Trump knew then he also committed this crime.
So the sex is irrelevant.
It's almost always the cover up that gets you.
It's also pretty difficult for Trump to claim he didn't know about the contract when it had a signature line for him and the contract requires that Trump himself not talk about anything in the contract so it would be impossible to uphold his side if he *didn't* know about it.
Additionally because the NDA is covering up an illegal campaign contribution it's completely unenforceable anyway. NDAs cannot keep a person from speaking about crimes, they're a civil thing but criminal cases always take priority.
Trump has really gotten himself into some trouble with this relatively minor issue. Almost makes you wonder what he was trying to cover up in the first place?
How is Trump still president, when I think of a US president I think of an mature, calm, intelligent individual. When it comes to Trump I get a weird, i'am throwing a party for people in there 20's and Trump the really weird old guy that stumbles into the party, he's piss drunk also has pissed his pants and is complaining that Boston isn't blaring over the stereo,vibe.
>gay is derogatory
Biological dead end practice; and many studies show many, many, negative gay attributes.
E.g - ~33% of adoptive gay couples abuse their adoptees.
Previously if you were gay no security clearance for you! Pvt Manning sure proved that one....
>about using taxpayer money
Wew, nice flailing addition!
Where the hell you pull this nonsense from is inspiring. No one cares a rich businessman fucked a whore, or a lawyer loyal to him, paid her to shut up about fucking him.
So now you try to insert that somehow public funds were involved.
Pulease, the US Democrats have no moral standing whatsoever. Fixing the primaries, for
the "anointed" corrupt Democrat of the leaders choice. Most people forget most Democratic political conventions are back room affairs.
The public bits are just entertainment.
>Get your head out of your fat ass.
You skipped my favorite part(s); Trump is impeached; Pence stands aside and Hillary is President!
Ha ha, you liberal true believers are the worst.
Wearing the faded bumper stickers of their failed windmill tilts like badges of coveted losses.
page took 0.0448 seconds to execute