Trump Offering Stormy Hush $$$$$$

[ZiprHead]

No it was not the Repubs, it was the Democrats who were pushing that narrative. I certainly did not agree with the impeachment of Bill Clinton. It was a huge waste of time and money and took attention away from the job of running the country. It seems now the Democrats are interested in where the POTUS chooses to put his dick.

Really? Don't you remember how ghastly Newt Gingrich thought the whole sordid affair was (while Newt was getting his peter puffed by an assistant in the senate parking garage)?

 

[thebeave]

No it was not the Repubs, it was the Democrats who were pushing that narrative. I certainly did not agree with the impeachment of Bill Clinton. It was a huge waste of time and money and took attention away from the job of running the country. It seems now the Democrats are interested in where the POTUS chooses to put his dick.

Really? Don't you remember how ghastly Newt Gingrich thought the whole sordid affair was (while Newt was getting his peter puffed by an assistant in the senate parking garage)?

Dude, for whatever reason (probably I should have been more careful with my wording) people are assuming the opposite of what I intended. Go re-read the posts. I am in agreement with you about Newt and his ilk. I think I better move on from this thread though. Jimmy H is getting cranky at me again for not paying enough attention to some of the other posts on this forum...

 

[Patooka]

I remember back in the Bill Clinton horndog days, the mantra was that a president's sexual dalliances was not deemed relevent. Which I was OK with. Apparently that has changed somewhere along the lines. When did it change and why?

Simple. You are either being dishonest or you are simply wrong. Clinton got impeached over a fucking blowie. I was a teenager at the time living literally on the other side of the planet and even I know that. How fucking ignorant do you want to be?

 

[Patooka]

My question would be what could Daniels possibly have that'd be worth more money that wouldn't have come out by now or would actually harm Trump. I'm more inclined to think it isn't true.

He likes it up the bum. Poe's Law and all that.

 

[Patooka]

I remember back in the Bill Clinton horndog days, the mantra was that a president's sexual dalliances was not deemed relevent. Which I was OK with. Apparently that has changed somewhere along the lines. When did it change and why?

THe right wing was full of it and all that crap about honoe in the White House for years was a complete dumpster full of shit.

We had to listen to the right wing go on and on about it as Gingrich cheated on his wife and while the guy who'd replace him for a day or two did the same.

The left wing didn't make puritanical bullshit a ballot issue, that was the right wing.

I know, that's been my point. So why does the left wing make hay out of Trump's sexual affair with Stormy in 2024?

I know! They fucking didn't. Clearly you support campaign finance fraud but as it turns out, the entire left wing (don't worry I checked) does not.

 

[bilby]

for charging off the $ 130,000.00 as a business expense

Yup. It doesn't matter whether he fucked her, or told her he was a Russian spy, or told her he wanted Hillary to be President, or whatever he did to or said to her.

It doesn't even matter that he then paid her to keep whatever it was a secret.

He can fuck whomever will consent. He cannot falsify his accounts to conceal his hush-money payments.

That nobody would give crap the first about some white-collar crime involving dodgy accounting, if it wasn't for some salacious backstory, is a sad indictment of the public at large, and of the media that stoke their desires for sex and outrage (ideally both at once).

But the sex is just the reason this sells newspapers; It's irrelevant to the reason his actions were criminal, and it ought (in a sane society) to be irrelevant to literally anything - unless there's a suggestion of non-consent, which would make it a crime in its own right.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I know, that's been my point. So why does the left wing make hay out of Trump's sexual affair with Stormy in 2024?

To distract from the fact that they are bereft of any meaningful policies I would wager.

Interviewer: VP Harris, what are your plans to reduce inflation?

VP Harris: Look, I grew up in a middle class neighborhood with nice lawns and Trump fucked an adult entertainer and gave her money not to say anything about it.

1) What inflation problem? There was a surge of inflation from the Covid supply chain shocks, but now we are simply seeing the aftermath, not continuing inflation.

2) I don't think there are very many Democrats who care about his affair. But there are many that care about his response. Infidelity in presidents is not uncommon (~50% there is evidence of it), breaking the law to cover it up is uncommon.

 

[Coleman Smith]

2) I don't think there are very many Democrats who care about his affair. But there are many that care about his response. Infidelity in presidents is not uncommon (~50% there is evidence of it), breaking the law to cover it up is uncommon.

If he had not engaged in a cover up and fraud for declaring the $$ he paid as business expense you probably would have never heard the name Stormy Daniels.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I remember back in the Bill Clinton horndog days, the mantra was that a president's sexual dalliances was not deemed relevent. Which I was OK with. Apparently that has changed somewhere along the lines. When did it change and why?

THe right wing was full of it and all that crap about honoe in the White House for years was a complete dumpster full of shit.

We had to listen to the right wing go on and on about it as Gingrich cheated on his wife and while the guy who'd replace him for a day or two did the same.

The left wing didn't make puritanical bullshit a ballot issue, that was the right wing.

I know, that's been my point. So why does the left wing make hay out of Trump's sexual affair with Stormy in 2024?

Not seeing much hay being made. Are we supposed to really believe you hadn't noticed the dozens of other issues people on here are having wuth Trump or do you just have that many on ignore?

The only issue with more money for Daniels would be curiosity as to what it could possibly even be worth paying to keep quiet. She could have had him pay to abort his child and it wouldn't move the election in any way.

So now that I've actually bothered to read up on this, they just don't want Stormy saying inconvenient things about Trump. Or, more likely, saying inconvenient things about Trump, getting paid for it, and Trump not getting a cut.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

2) I don't think there are very many Democrats who care about his affair. But there are many that care about his response. Infidelity in presidents is not uncommon (~50% there is evidence of it), breaking the law to cover it up is uncommon.

If he had not engaged in a cover up and fraud for declaring the $$ he paid as business expense you probably would have never heard the name Stormy Daniels.

I believe the issue was the break up of the payments. That is the fraud. They tried to hide the money transition. This is why there were so many charges, it was based on each payment.

 

[BH]

Instead of hush money they ought to say close you legs money.

 

[TomC]

2) I don't think there are very many Democrats who care about his affair. But there are many that care about his response. Infidelity in presidents is not uncommon (~50% there is evidence of it), breaking the law to cover it up is uncommon.

If he had not engaged in a cover up and fraud for declaring the $$ he paid as business expense you probably would have never heard the name Stormy Daniels.

I believe the issue was the break up of the payments. That is the fraud. They tried to hide the money transition. This is why there were so many charges, it was based on each payment.

This is really the point!
If Moneybags Trump had just whipped out his Huuuuge wallet and paid his hooker to shut up about it, there'd be no legal problem.
But he didn't. He stole the money from his campaign supporters. And committed fraud to cover it up.
That's why this story has legs. The incredible level of hypocrisy it takes for a Christian to pay off a hooker for a bang while his third wife is having their baby is astounding to me. But the legal problems are a result of Trump lying about where the money came from.

But what's even more astounding is that the evangelical Christian community decided that Trump was their guy!
What a bunch of hypocritical dweebs.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

2) I don't think there are very many Democrats who care about his affair. But there are many that care about his response. Infidelity in presidents is not uncommon (~50% there is evidence of it), breaking the law to cover it up is uncommon.

If he had not engaged in a cover up and fraud for declaring the $$ he paid as business expense you probably would have never heard the name Stormy Daniels.

I believe the issue was the break up of the payments. That is the fraud. They tried to hide the money transition. This is why there were so many charges, it was based on each payment.

This is really the point!
If Moneybags Trump had just whipped out his Huuuuge wallet and paid his hooker to shut up about it, there'd be no legal problem.
But he didn't. He stole the money from his campaign supporters. And committed fraud to cover it up.

His lawyer mortgaged his home to payoff Daniels. Then Trump paid Cohen installments from the Trump Organization (not the campaign) as reimbursement. And when I say Cohen, I mean a shell company name. Payments over a certain threshold become the notice of banking regulators as it is often a sign of money laundering, especially when there are lots of nice round numbers. They kept the reimbursements under a certain level to avoid such detection.

If memory serves, had Trump just gave Daniels money from the campaign, that'd been legal... but it would have needed to of been documented and he'd need to explain why he gave a porn star near half a million of campaign money. That said, we've learned it wouldn't have made a difference and Trump would have been better off with Daniels talking.

 

[starwater]

Crime family gonna crime.

 

[Playball40]

That's stupid. She didn't keep her mouth shut the first time. He should demand a refund instead.

Why should she?

 

[Playball40]

I remember back in the Bill Clinton horndog days, the mantra was that a president's sexual dalliances was not deemed relevent. Which I was OK with. Apparently that has changed somewhere along the lines. When did it change and why?

And yet, they charged and impeached him......hmmmmmm

 

[Derec]

Why should she?

Because she got paid hush money. It shows that she has as little integrity as her former lawyer.

I was against making a big deal over Clinton's sex life in the 90s as well.

 

[Coleman Smith]

"I was against making a big deal over Clinton's sex life in the 90s as well."

Clinton did pay off Lewinsky for an NDA and then commit fraud by claiming the payoff was a business expense.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

He can fuck whomever will consent. He cannot falsify his accounts to conceal his hush-money payments.

That nobody would give crap the first about some white-collar crime involving dodgy accounting, if it wasn't for some salacious backstory, is a sad indictment of the public at large, and of the media that stoke their desires for sex and outrage (ideally both at once).

But the sex is just the reason this sells newspapers; It's irrelevant to the reason his actions were criminal, and it ought (in a sane society) to be irrelevant to literally anything - unless there's a suggestion of non-consent, which would make it a crime in its own right.

There's another factor here. I consider this relevant specifically because he tried to hush it up. He's doing things he believes will not go over well with his supporters. That's a problem for me, the sex isn't.

It's like with a security clearance--you can't get a security clearance if you're closeted anything. It's not the act, it's the closeting.

And while I don't want to require security clearances for Congress and the President (it could be used to deny candidates) I would love to see a rule that they need to go through the background check and the outcome of said check is published.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

2) I don't think there are very many Democrats who care about his affair. But there are many that care about his response. Infidelity in presidents is not uncommon (~50% there is evidence of it), breaking the law to cover it up is uncommon.

If he had not engaged in a cover up and fraud for declaring the $$ he paid as business expense you probably would have never heard the name Stormy Daniels.

And I wouldn't care if I hadn't heard the name.