Stormy Daniels - "affair never happened"

The reason Trump is fighting it so much, is word on the street is Trump likes to be humiliated in the bedroom. Makes sense, a lot of rich dudes are into that shit. Which also explains why Trump likes getting pissed on.
Stormy has texts which shows Trump is a freak.
 
The reason Trump is fighting it so much, is word on the street is Trump likes to be humiliated in the bedroom. Makes sense, a lot of rich dudes are into that shit. Which also explains why Trump likes getting pissed on.
Stormy has texts which shows Trump is a freak.

LOL @ Liberals judging anyone's sexual appetites. You guys are sounding more Christian by the day.
 
44nutman's comments were not nearly hypocritical enough to be called Christian.

In a forum that has members routinely talking about sucking girls' farts, I think it does.

At the end of the day, let's just say the two year old fake news about Trump's sexual appetites were proven true. Let's just say. Are Liberals really in any position to stand on any kind of moral high ground? No. It would be embarrassing, as most publicized sexual escapades of anyone would be, but I really don't think the freak flag Liberals would want to go down that road too much, and condemn him too harshly. Opens a lot of doors, know what I mean?.
 
Why do we care so much about whether or not Trump slept with some ho when he was a private citizen? And why are there people believing that he should be impeached because Trump may have slept with some ho when he was a private citizen? And why are people finding a ho that has been about as consistent as... well... a ho to be trustworthy? And why is said ho being glorified?

Y'all scraping that barrel hard.
 
In a forum that has members routinely talking about sucking girls' farts, I think it does.

At the end of the day, let's just say the two year old fake news about Trump's sexual appetites were proven true. Let's just say. Are Liberals really in any position to stand on any kind of moral high ground? No. It would be embarrassing, as most publicized sexual escapades of anyone would be, but I really don't think the freak flag Liberals would want to go down that road too much, and condemn him too harshly. Opens a lot of doors, know what I mean?.
giphy.gif
 
The first politician in history to use religion as ploy to get votes, folks.

No just the most morally bankrupt person to get away using religion as a ploy to get votes.
I thought he gave it away with the 2 Corinthians slip up, but the rubes still bought it hook line and sinker.
The sad part is you still have televangelists on TV still supporting him even after the Stormy fiasco.
 
No just the most morally bankrupt person to get away using religion as a ploy to get votes.
I thought he gave it away with the 2 Corinthians slip up, but the rubes still bought it hook line and sinker.
The sad part is you still have televangelists on TV still supporting him even after the Stormy fiasco.

Yes, those completely not phony televangelists supporting Trump, really shocks me. Did they praise Trump for being a great Christian, in between blasting demons out of people's heads with their bare hands?

Don't play the Christian card. It's weak, and we can go over literally every President in history, as they've all identified as such, and nitpick their "true" Christian values, and wonder other Christians still supported them after they betrayed them. It's the weakest "gotcha" there is.
 
Whoever gets elected president after Trump is going to have things so easy.

If it's a Democrat, Pres. Trump will tweet at them ad nauseam.
 
No just the most morally bankrupt person to get away using religion as a ploy to get votes.
I thought he gave it away with the 2 Corinthians slip up, but the rubes still bought it hook line and sinker.
The sad part is you still have televangelists on TV still supporting him even after the Stormy fiasco.


 
In a forum that has members routinely talking about sucking girls' farts, I think it does.

At the end of the day, let's just say the two year old fake news about Trump's sexual appetites were proven true. Let's just say. Are Liberals really in any position to stand on any kind of moral high ground? No. It would be embarrassing, as most publicized sexual escapades of anyone would be, but I really don't think the freak flag Liberals would want to go down that road too much, and condemn him too harshly. Opens a lot of doors, know what I mean?.
Fake news, girls farts (say what). Carry on in the bubble.
 
Yes, those completely not phony televangelists supporting Trump, really shocks me. Did they praise Trump for being a great Christian, in between blasting demons out of people's heads with their bare hands?

Don't play the Christian card. It's weak, and we can go over literally every President in history, as they've all identified as such, and nitpick their "true" Christian values, and wonder other Christians still supported them after they betrayed them. It's the weakest "gotcha" there is.
Bullshit, evangelicals have sold out "like never before". This 3 time marrying, 2 corinthian, adulterer (with porn actors), daily-lying con man is making fools of these fools. There is no President in history with such low morals and decency, not even a close second.

Evangelicals would vote for a porn star if he/she was the Republican nominee.
 
Also another woman is suing to be able to tell her story - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/20/...eakingNews&contentID=66703135&pgtype=Homepage

A former Playboy model who claimed she had an affair with Donald J. Trump sued on Tuesday to be released from a 2016 legal agreement requiring her silence, becoming the second woman this month to challenge Trump allies’ efforts during the presidential campaign to bury stories about extramarital relationships.

The model, Karen McDougal, is suing the company that owns The National Enquirer, American Media Inc., which paid her $150,000 and whose chief executive is a friend of Mr. Trump’s. The other woman, the adult entertainment star Stephanie Clifford, better known as Stormy Daniels, was paid $130,000 to stay quiet by the president’s personal lawyer, Michael D. Cohen. She filed suit earlier this month.

...

Ms. McDougal negotiated with the country’s leading tabloid news provider, A.M.I., which is known to buy and bury stories that might damage friends and allies of its chief executive, David J. Pecker, a practice known as “catch and kill.”

Ms. McDougal’s legal complaint alleges that she did not know about the practice, or about Mr. Pecker’s friendship with Mr. Trump, when she began talking to company representatives in spring 2016, shortly after Mr. Trump locked up the Republican nomination.

A.M.I. has previously acknowledged that Mr. Trump had been friends with Mr. Pecker, but said that he had never tried to influence coverage at A.M.I.’s publications.

Ms. McDougal has said she was ambivalent about selling her story on the tabloid news market, but felt that her hand was forced after a hint of the alleged affair appeared in May 2016 on social media. Convinced something more would come out, she was determined to tell her story on her terms, her suit says.

A mutual friend connected her to Mr. Davidson, who, she said, told her the story could be worth millions. He arranged an interview with Dylan Howard, A.M.I.’s chief content officer, in Los Angeles. Mr. Davidson told her before the interview that A.M.I. would put $500,000 into an escrow account for her, and that “a seven-figure publishing contract awaited her,” the complaint reads.

Mr. Howard spent several hours pressing Ms. McDougal on the details of her story. But several days later, the media company declined to buy it, the complaint reads, and “Mr. Davidson revealed that, in fact, there was no money in escrow.”

A.M.I. told The Times last month that it decided not to print Ms. McDougal’s story because it could not verify important details, but it acknowledged that it discussed her allegations with Mr. Cohen, the president’s lawyer, saying it did so as part of its reporting process.

The tabloid company showed renewed interest in summer 2016 when Ms. McDougal began talks with ABC News. This time, A.M.I. offered a different deal.

Mr. Davidson informed her that A.M.I. would buy her story but “not publish it” because of Mr. Pecker’s relationship with Mr. Trump,” the suit says. The payment would be $150,000, with Mr. Davidson and others involved on her behalf taking 45 percent. More alluring to Ms. McDougal, who is now a fitness specialist, was that the media company would feature her on its covers and in regular health and fitness columns, the complaint says.

As A.M.I. and Mr. Davidson pushed her to sign the deal on Aug. 5, Ms. McDougal expressed misgivings. But, her suit says, Mr. Davidson and Mr. Howard argued in an urgent Skype call that the deal to promote her would “kick start and revitalize” her career, given that she was “old now.” She was 45.

In all, they said, the contract would obligate A.M.I. to run more than 100 columns or articles and at least two covers featuring her. When she asked Mr. Davidson what she should do if her story leaked, Mr. Davidson responded in an email, “IF YOU DENY YOU ARE SAFE,” and urged her to sign as soon as possible, according to the court documents.

The Times reported last month that Mr. Davidson sent Mr. Cohen an email on Aug. 5, 2016, asking him to call. Mr. Davidson then told Mr. Cohen over the phone that the deal had been completed, according to a person familiar with the conversation.

The timeline provided in the lawsuit shows that Mr. Davidson’s email came as he and A.M.I. were still hashing out the terms of the deal, which Ms. McDougal did not sign until the following day, Aug. 6. Mr. Cohen told The Times last month that he did not recall the communications.
Seems like Trump's personal lawyer and fixer was very involved in this hush money case as well. Did Cohen reimburse Mr. Pecker's expense? If not, why did Mr. Pecker pay $150K to kill the story? Why pass on it earlier in the year, and then in August 2016 decide he better buy it afterall - because Trump was GOP nominee by then? He'll need to explain that on the witness stand and if it was to protect Trump than it can be deemed an illegal campaign donation. And given Cohen knew all about it - Trump cannot pretend he wasn't aware.
 
Back
Top