dogooder
Well-known member
That ship sailed in 1980. As an attempt to besmirch Trump's character
That ship sailed in 1980. As an attempt to besmirch Trump's character
Those absolute monarchs... they were never even elected!Did they hide payments during an election or something?
Then why is it part of the testimony?The sex act isn't the crime. Are you seriously trying to be ignorant of the actual law that he/they broke?
To establish the credibility of the alleged facts.Then why is it part of the testimony?
Well if she was paid hush money, she’s not doing a good job of keeping ‘hush’. She should give the money back.To establish the credibility of the alleged facts.
Serendipity Records said:
Then why is it part of the testimony?
Lol - what she's established is that she can't get her story straight.To establish the credibility of the alleged facts.
Well neither one of us is a lawyer, but as a layman I don't see how you can establish the facts without the witnesses in the case, ie Pecker, Daniels, McDougall, Cohen, etc.Well if she was paid hush money, she’s not doing a good job of keeping ‘hush’. She should give the money back.
She already lost the civil defamation lawsuit and refuses to pay what she was ordered to.
So I don’t see a high level of credibility there.
Now maybe Trump banged her, maybe he didn’t. I don’t know. I wasn’t there. No one invited me for a three way.
from what I’ve seen it’s really a he said/she said type of situation.
But regarding the alleged crimes her testimony serves no purpose other than to paint Trump in a bad as possible light.
Cite the New York law that says payment for an NDA is required to be reported as a legal expense.Trump admits payment to Daniels. If it wasn’t for sex, what was it for?
Trump refused to provide a dna sample for 3 years to Carroll’s team of lawyers.
You mean the Donna Karan dress she claimed she was wearing that didn't exist at the time of the alleged encounter? Lol.If he never met her as he said, why would he fear his dna being on her dress?
^^^^ ThisBut regarding the alleged crimes her testimony serves no purpose other than to paint Trump in a bad as possible light.
It's a he said/she keeps changing her story situation.Well if she was paid hush money, she’s not doing a good job of keeping ‘hush’. She should give the money back.
She already lost the civil defamation lawsuit and refuses to pay what she was ordered to.
So I don’t see a high level of credibility there.
Now maybe Trump banged her, maybe he didn’t. I don’t know. I wasn’t there. No one invited me for a three way.
from what I’ve seen it’s really a he said/she said type of situation.
But regarding the alleged crimes her testimony serves no purpose other than to paint Trump in a bad as possible light.
Yup.Well if she was paid hush money, she’s not doing a good job of keeping ‘hush’. She should give the money back.
Contempt of court?She already lost the civil defamation lawsuit and refuses to pay what she was ordered to.
I trust my hoes. You know what -- I heard a story once, friend of a friend got an escort who was drunk as a skunk. So drunk that he was able to take his money back before leaving.So I don’t see a high level of credibility there.
Again--not a crime.Now maybe Trump banged her, maybe he didn’t. I don’t know. I wasn’t there. No one invited me for a three way.
She didn't mention any rape etc in her pornhub commentary. So it isn't he said / she said. Should be a cinch if they can trace the money (can they?).from what I’ve seen it’s really a he said/she said type of situation.
Exactly.But regarding the alleged crimes her testimony serves no purpose other than to paint Trump in a bad as possible light.
Trump and Biden are both quite capable of painting themselves in a bad light within the court of public opinion. Bad light aside, one of 'em is gonna be elected for a second term as POTUS by that same court.It's a he said/she keeps changing her story situation.
Hmm? I think that's your side's idea, right? to keep the jury brooding over Trump having an oranger cock than they do?You guys are concentrating on the wrong (salacious) crap.
It's not about the sex, it's about the cheques.
She didn't mention any rape etc in her pornhub commentary. So it isn't he said / she said. Should be a cinch if they can trace the money (can they?).
You're wasting your time.Hmm? I think that's your side's idea, right? to keep the jury brooding over Trump having an oranger cock than they do?
Hmmmmm? Trump pays Stormy $130,000 (hush money) years after their hotel one night stand. The American people deserve to be told how much Trump paid her on the night of that one night stand....amirite?I trust my hoes. You know what -- I heard a story once, friend of a friend got an escort who was drunk as a skunk. So drunk that he was able to take his money back before leaving.
I just want to know if Trump's hookers were more expensive than Tiger's hookers.Hmmmmm? Trump pays Stormy $130,000 (hush money) years after their hotel one night stand. The American people deserve to be told how much Trump paid her on the night of that one night stand....amirite?
So? Then they should focus on the checks.You guys are concentrating on the wrong (salacious) crap.
It's not about the sex, it's about the cheques.