Frank Galvin said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Her testimony established that there was an event that caused payoff money to be exchanged.

---

That's not even in dispute you pedo rhegard. You and other regressives all are idiots.

---

Trump's lawyers headlined his position in opening statements that the sex never happened. So what are you talking about?

---

I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.

---

Maybe you can explain it but you have refused to do it.

The prosecutor's case is that: (1) Trump falsified business records to (2) hide the fact that he paid hush money to Daniels and (3) the hush money was to keep Daniels quiet about the sex.

Trump's attorney said in opening statement that there was no sex to keep quiet about. The judge said that made Daniels' testimony about the alleged sex because Trump's attorney put it in dispute, No explain again what was undisputed?

---

wrong.

The prosecutor's case is that Trump illegally used campaign funds to have his attorney pay money to Stormy for her to sign the NDA.

It is only illegal if they can prove that it was a violation of campaign finance law, and they also have to prove that Trump knew it was an illegal use of campaign funds.

People get paid money to sign NDAs all the time... it is not illegal.

The local prosecutors in NYC are trying to charge Trump with a Federal crime... but they are filling the air with salacious details which have nothing to do with the charges. The whole thing is a farce.

ShooterTX said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Her testimony established that there was an event that caused payoff money to be exchanged.

---

That's not even in dispute you pedo rhegard. You and other regressives all are idiots.

---

Trump's lawyers headlined his position in opening statements that the sex never happened. So what are you talking about?

---

I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.

---

Maybe you can explain it but you have refused to do it.

The prosecutor's case is that: (1) Trump falsified business records to (2) hide the fact that he paid hush money to Daniels and (3) the hush money was to keep Daniels quiet about the sex.

Trump's attorney said in opening statement that there was no sex to keep quiet about. The judge said that made Daniels' testimony about the alleged sex because Trump's attorney put it in dispute, No explain again what was undisputed?

---

wrong.

The prosecutor's case is that Trump illegally used campaign funds to have his attorney pay money to Stormy for her to sign the NDA.

It is only illegal if they can prove that it was a violation of campaign finance law, and they also have to prove that Trump knew it was an illegal use of campaign funds.

People get paid money to sign NDAs all the time... it is not illegal.

The local prosecutors in NYC are trying to charge Trump with a Federal crime... but they are filling the air with salacious details which have nothing to do with the charges. The whole thing is a farce.

---

I never came closing to saying NDAs are illegal. I don't know how you got that to be the point of my post.

What do you think "falsified business records" and "hiding the fact he paid hush money" means? If the prosecutor can get a jury to believe he falsified the business records so that he could use campaign funds for the expense he satisfies your second paragraph.

Again, the Stormy Daniels' sex testimony was only marginally relevant (to show there was some reason for Trump to pay Cohen other than for the legal services the records recite) until Trump's attorney claimed there was no sex. The absence of the one-night stand could lead a reasonable juror to believe Trump had no reason to engage in the scheme; it would be an exculpatory fact. At that point it became more relevant.

As to flooding the court with salacious details, the judge sustained almost every defense objection to the details. In his mistrial ruling he said he would have sustained more if Trump's attorneys had objected. But they did not.

The State upgrades a misdemeanor offense to a felony because the statute of limitations had run out.

Then prosecutes only one individual under the new guidelines.

By the weirdest of circumstances that individual is the opposition party's candidate for president.

Welcome to Argentina.

Frank Galvin said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Her testimony established that there was an event that caused payoff money to be exchanged.

---

That's not even in dispute you pedo rhegard. You and other regressives all are idiots.

---

Trump's lawyers headlined his position in opening statements that the sex never happened. So what are you talking about?

---

I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.

---

Maybe you can explain it but you have refused to do it.

The prosecutor's case is that: (1) Trump falsified business records to (2) hide the fact that he paid hush money to Daniels and (3) the hush money was to keep Daniels quiet about the sex.

Trump's attorney said in opening statement that there was no sex to keep quiet about. The judge said that made Daniels' testimony about the alleged sex because Trump's attorney put it in dispute, No explain again what was undisputed?

---

wrong.

The prosecutor's case is that Trump illegally used campaign funds to have his attorney pay money to Stormy for her to sign the NDA.

It is only illegal if they can prove that it was a violation of campaign finance law, and they also have to prove that Trump knew it was an illegal use of campaign funds.

People get paid money to sign NDAs all the time... it is not illegal.

The local prosecutors in NYC are trying to charge Trump with a Federal crime... but they are filling the air with salacious details which have nothing to do with the charges. The whole thing is a farce.

---

I never came closing to saying NDAs are illegal. I don't know how you got that to be the point of my post.

What do you think "falsified business records" and "hiding the fact he paid hush money" means? If the prosecutor can get a jury to believe he falsified the business records so that he could use campaign funds for the expense he satisfies your second paragraph.

Again, the Stormy Daniels' sex testimony was only marginally relevant (to show there was some reason for Trump to pay Cohen other than for the legal services the records recite) until Trump's attorney claimed there was no sex. The absence of the one-night stand could lead a reasonable juror to believe Trump had no reason to engage in the scheme; it would be an exculpatory fact. At that point it became more relevant.

As to flooding the court with salacious details, the judge sustained almost every defense objection to the details. In his mistrial ruling he said he would have sustained more if Trump's attorneys had objected. But they did not.

---

I'm simply replying to the 3 things you listed. It appeared that you were saying Trump committed 3 crimes... i suppose you were numbering them for some other reason?

And again... this isn't about falsifying business records... this is very specifically about falsifying campaign finance records.

The hardest part for the prosecution is to somehow prove that Trump knowingly used campaign finances for this specific payout... which is going to be pretty much impossible. Of course, Trump paid the invoices submitted by his lawyer, but you will have to show that the invoice was itemized to show a reimbursement for a payout to Stormy Daniels. Everyone on the planet knows that such an invoice doesn't exist. If it did, then the federal prosecutors would have brought charges years ago, when they reviewed the allegations.

There's a lot of wind in the willows here.

Bragg is "writing" his own Federal election laws here with assistance from Judge Merchan. The Federal election laws which stand have already been focused on Trump and the Federal Election Committee and the DOJ declined to pursue charges since finding no violations. Bragg is way over his skis if not his ego and hubris in this, especially since he has no authority to prosecute possible Federal election law violations. The NDA had nothing to do with campaign expenditures even if the intent was to fade some heat for Trump during the election, and there is nothing to substantiate Trump knew how these funds were accounted for by the rogue witness. Both Bragg and the Judge should face some vicious discipline for their egregious misuse of power and authority in this mess, which is going to go to repeated appeals. Trump's character and personality are well known so this is bringing nothing new to the table that would damage him beyond his pocketbook. The saddest thing is that all this doesn't sink his position due to the ineptness and abuse of power displayed by Biden, and the Congress' abdication of its charge as the law-making body of the nation, responsible for one third of the balance of power in government.

ShooterTX said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Her testimony established that there was an event that caused payoff money to be exchanged.

---

That's not even in dispute you pedo rhegard. You and other regressives all are idiots.

---

Trump's lawyers headlined his position in opening statements that the sex never happened. So what are you talking about?

---

I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.

---

Maybe you can explain it but you have refused to do it.

The prosecutor's case is that: (1) Trump falsified business records to (2) hide the fact that he paid hush money to Daniels and (3) the hush money was to keep Daniels quiet about the sex.

Trump's attorney said in opening statement that there was no sex to keep quiet about. The judge said that made Daniels' testimony about the alleged sex because Trump's attorney put it in dispute, No explain again what was undisputed?

---

wrong.

The prosecutor's case is that Trump illegally used campaign funds to have his attorney pay money to Stormy for her to sign the NDA.

It is only illegal if they can prove that it was a violation of campaign finance law, and they also have to prove that Trump knew it was an illegal use of campaign funds.

People get paid money to sign NDAs all the time... it is not illegal.

The local prosecutors in NYC are trying to charge Trump with a Federal crime... but they are filling the air with salacious details which have nothing to do with the charges. The whole thing is a farce.

---

I never came closing to saying NDAs are illegal. I don't know how you got that to be the point of my post.

What do you think "falsified business records" and "hiding the fact he paid hush money" means? If the prosecutor can get a jury to believe he falsified the business records so that he could use campaign funds for the expense he satisfies your second paragraph.

Again, the Stormy Daniels' sex testimony was only marginally relevant (to show there was some reason for Trump to pay Cohen other than for the legal services the records recite) until Trump's attorney claimed there was no sex. The absence of the one-night stand could lead a reasonable juror to believe Trump had no reason to engage in the scheme; it would be an exculpatory fact. At that point it became more relevant.

As to flooding the court with salacious details, the judge sustained almost every defense objection to the details. In his mistrial ruling he said he would have sustained more if Trump's attorneys had objected. But they did not.

---

I'm simply replying to the 3 things you listed. It appeared that you were saying Trump committed 3 crimes... i suppose you were numbering them for some other reason?

And again... this isn't about falsifying business records... this is very specifically about falsifying campaign finance records.

The hardest part for the prosecution is to somehow prove that Trump knowingly used campaign finances for this specific payout... which is going to be pretty much impossible. Of course, Trump paid the invoices submitted by his lawyer, but you will have to show that the invoice was itemized to show a reimbursement for a payout to Stormy Daniels. Everyone on the planet knows that such an invoice doesn't exist. If it did, then the federal prosecutors would have brought charges years ago, when they reviewed the allegations.

---

They aren't trying to prove he used campaign funds. They are trying to prove that the funds should have been a campaign donation and that he falsified the business records to conceal an unreported donation, which is another crime from the falsification.

drahthaar said:

---

The NDA had nothing to do with campaign expenditures even if the intent was to fade some heat for Trump during the election, and there is nothing to substantiate Trump knew how these funds were accounted for by the rogue witness.

---

The deleted portion of your post is debatable. The retained portion is laughable/wishful thinking.

ShooterTX said:

---

J.R. said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

?

---

that's an older picture... probably been photoshopped.

Here she is at the courthouse.

---

Mitch doesn't deal with reality very well.
Stormy is a semi broke bag hag......nothing more.


Strongly doubt Trump......who in those days had his choice of the the hottest women in the country ; needed to stoop that low.

Seriously the gal is grotesque.

---

well, big boy, he was banging that an others while he had a newborn 3 month old at home. What a chitbird. Takes 2, bro.

---

Maybe you can put down the crack pipe long enough to explain how Trump is such a wretched human for allegedly having sex with a woman who gets paid to have sex with stragers... and yet you remain totally silent about this sick, disgusting guy:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ashley-biden-diary-claims/

---

I will put it simply so you can understand. He was married. You don't see a problem there, regardless who the person is?

ShooterTX said:

---

J.R. said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

?

---

that's an older picture... probably been photoshopped.

Here she is at the courthouse.

---

Mitch doesn't deal with reality very well.
Stormy is a semi broke bag hag......nothing more.


Strongly doubt Trump......who in those days had his choice of the the hottest women in the country ; needed to stoop that low.

Seriously the gal is grotesque.

---

well, big boy, he was banging that an others while he had a newborn 3 month old at home. What a chitbird. Takes 2, bro.

---

Maybe you can put down the crack pipe long enough to explain how Trump is such a wretched human for allegedly having sex with a woman who gets paid to have sex with stragers... and yet you remain totally silent about this sick, disgusting guy:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ashley-biden-diary-claims/

---

now, little shooter with the tin foil hat, It was a cigar , not a crack pipe, but thanks, none the less.

Frank Galvin said:

---

drahthaar said:

---

The NDA had nothing to do with campaign expenditures even if the intent was to fade some heat for Trump during the election, and there is nothing to substantiate Trump knew how these funds were accounted for by the rogue witness.

---

The deleted portion of your post is debatable. The retained portion is laughable/wishful thinking.

---

I don't necessarily disagree with your statement. Trump and his minions are pond scum at their best but they're also smart scum who've ridden in this rodeo often. My point is that there is no revealed evidence beyond the smell of rotten character. The jury will convict (I think) but it will not be on any hard evidence but sentiment and inept defense.

There may be hard evidence discovered but it hasn't been revealed at this point. Bragg is running a circus currently.

Frank Galvin said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Her testimony established that there was an event that caused payoff money to be exchanged.

---

That's not even in dispute you pedo rhegard. You and other regressives all are idiots.

---

Trump's lawyers headlined his position in opening statements that the sex never happened. So what are you talking about?

---

I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.

---

Maybe you can explain it but you have refused to do it.

The prosecutor's case is that: (1) Trump falsified business records to (2) hide the fact that he paid hush money to Daniels and (3) the hush money was to keep Daniels quiet about the sex.

Trump's attorney said in opening statement that there was no sex to keep quiet about. The judge said that made Daniels' testimony about the alleged sex because Trump's attorney put it in dispute, No explain again what was undisputed?

---

Incorrect.

The prosecution is accusing Trump of violating campaign finance laws by not reporting the hush money payment as part of his campaign disclosures and therefore violating election laws.

Its actually super simple:
1. NDAs / Hush Money schemes are not illegal
2. It violates campaign finance laws only if it can be proved that that is the ONLY reason Trump paid the hush money

There is not evidence of #2. Trump would be in a catch-22 because if he had reported it as part of his campaign disclosure, he would be charged with violating election laws for reporting it and using campaign funds to pay for it.

Not hard.

Frank Galvin said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Her testimony established that there was an event that caused payoff money to be exchanged.

---

That's not even in dispute you pedo rhegard. You and other regressives all are idiots.

---

Trump's lawyers headlined his position in opening statements that the sex never happened. So what are you talking about?

---

I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.

---

Maybe you can explain it but you have refused to do it.

The prosecutor's case is that: (1) Trump falsified business records to (2) hide the fact that he paid hush money to Daniels and (3) the hush money was to keep Daniels quiet about the sex.

Trump's attorney said in opening statement that there was no sex to keep quiet about. The judge said that made Daniels' testimony about the alleged sex because Trump's attorney put it in dispute, No explain again what was undisputed?

---

wrong.

The prosecutor's case is that Trump illegally used campaign funds to have his attorney pay money to Stormy for her to sign the NDA.

It is only illegal if they can prove that it was a violation of campaign finance law, and they also have to prove that Trump knew it was an illegal use of campaign funds.

People get paid money to sign NDAs all the time... it is not illegal.

The local prosecutors in NYC are trying to charge Trump with a Federal crime... but they are filling the air with salacious details which have nothing to do with the charges. The whole thing is a farce.

---

I never came closing to saying NDAs are illegal. I don't know how you got that to be the point of my post.

What do you think "falsified business records" and "hiding the fact he paid hush money" means? If the prosecutor can get a jury to believe he falsified the business records so that he could use campaign funds for the expense he satisfies your second paragraph.

Again, the Stormy Daniels' sex testimony was only marginally relevant (to show there was some reason for Trump to pay Cohen other than for the legal services the records recite) until Trump's attorney claimed there was no sex. The absence of the one-night stand could lead a reasonable juror to believe Trump had no reason to engage in the scheme; it would be an exculpatory fact. At that point it became more relevant.

As to flooding the court with salacious details, the judge sustained almost every defense objection to the details. In his mistrial ruling he said he would have sustained more if Trump's attorneys had objected. But they did not.

---

I'm simply replying to the 3 things you listed. It appeared that you were saying Trump committed 3 crimes... i suppose you were numbering them for some other reason?

And again... this isn't about falsifying business records... this is very specifically about falsifying campaign finance records.

The hardest part for the prosecution is to somehow prove that Trump knowingly used campaign finances for this specific payout... which is going to be pretty much impossible. Of course, Trump paid the invoices submitted by his lawyer, but you will have to show that the invoice was itemized to show a reimbursement for a payout to Stormy Daniels. Everyone on the planet knows that such an invoice doesn't exist. If it did, then the federal prosecutors would have brought charges years ago, when they reviewed the allegations.

---

They aren't trying to prove he used campaign funds. They are trying to prove that the funds should have been a campaign donation and that he falsified the business records to conceal an unreported donation, which is another crime from the falsification.

---

Correct. The NDA / Hush Money payments to Stormy in no way can reasonably construed as a reasonable campaign expense. Everything else could be a minor accounting mistake if occurred.

Keep the TDS red meat coming.

Frank Galvin said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Her testimony established that there was an event that caused payoff money to be exchanged.

---

That's not even in dispute you pedo rhegard. You and other regressives all are idiots.

---

Trump's lawyers headlined his position in opening statements that the sex never happened. So what are you talking about?

---

I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.

---

Maybe you can explain it but you have refused to do it.

The prosecutor's case is that: (1) Trump falsified business records to (2) hide the fact that he paid hush money to Daniels and (3) the hush money was to keep Daniels quiet about the sex.

Trump's attorney said in opening statement that there was no sex to keep quiet about. The judge said that made Daniels' testimony about the alleged sex because Trump's attorney put it in dispute, No explain again what was undisputed?

---

wrong.

The prosecutor's case is that Trump illegally used campaign funds to have his attorney pay money to Stormy for her to sign the NDA.

It is only illegal if they can prove that it was a violation of campaign finance law, and they also have to prove that Trump knew it was an illegal use of campaign funds.

People get paid money to sign NDAs all the time... it is not illegal.

The local prosecutors in NYC are trying to charge Trump with a Federal crime... but they are filling the air with salacious details which have nothing to do with the charges. The whole thing is a farce.

---

I never came closing to saying NDAs are illegal. I don't know how you got that to be the point of my post.

What do you think "falsified business records" and "hiding the fact he paid hush money" means? If the prosecutor can get a jury to believe he falsified the business records so that he could use campaign funds for the expense he satisfies your second paragraph.

Again, the Stormy Daniels' sex testimony was only marginally relevant (to show there was some reason for Trump to pay Cohen other than for the legal services the records recite) until Trump's attorney claimed there was no sex. The absence of the one-night stand could lead a reasonable juror to believe Trump had no reason to engage in the scheme; it would be an exculpatory fact. At that point it became more relevant.

As to flooding the court with salacious details, the judge sustained almost every defense objection to the details. In his mistrial ruling he said he would have sustained more if Trump's attorneys had objected. But they did not.

---

I'm simply replying to the 3 things you listed. It appeared that you were saying Trump committed 3 crimes... i suppose you were numbering them for some other reason?

And again... this isn't about falsifying business records... this is very specifically about falsifying campaign finance records.

The hardest part for the prosecution is to somehow prove that Trump knowingly used campaign finances for this specific payout... which is going to be pretty much impossible. Of course, Trump paid the invoices submitted by his lawyer, but you will have to show that the invoice was itemized to show a reimbursement for a payout to Stormy Daniels. Everyone on the planet knows that such an invoice doesn't exist. If it did, then the federal prosecutors would have brought charges years ago, when they reviewed the allegations.

---

They aren't trying to prove he used campaign funds. They are trying to prove that the funds should have been a campaign donation and that he falsified the business records to conceal an unreported donation, which is another crime from the falsification.

---

um.. a campaign donation would make them campaign funds and a campaign fund issue. Concealing a campaign donation would make it a campaign fund issue. Business records related to his campaign are campaign fund issues.

At what point does the state have juristiction over fed campaign fund issues?

J.R. said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

J.R. said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

?

---

that's an older picture... probably been photoshopped.

Here she is at the courthouse.

---

Mitch doesn't deal with reality very well.
Stormy is a semi broke bag hag......nothing more.


Strongly doubt Trump......who in those days had his choice of the the hottest women in the country ; needed to stoop that low.

Seriously the gal is grotesque.

---

well, big boy, he was banging that an others while he had a newborn 3 month old at home. What a chitbird. Takes 2, bro.

---

Maybe you can put down the crack pipe long enough to explain how Trump is such a wretched human for allegedly having sex with a woman who gets paid to have sex with stragers... and yet you remain totally silent about this sick, disgusting guy:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ashley-biden-diary-claims/

---

I will put it simply so you can understand. He was married. You don't see a problem there, regardless who the person is?

---

I will put it simply so you can understand... he sexually abused his own daughter, multiple times. He is a sick pedophile.

You don't see a problem there, regardless who the person is?

Karen McDougal was smoking. Don't blame Trump. Stormy though? yuck

ShooterTX said:

---

J.R. said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

J.R. said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

?

---

that's an older picture... probably been photoshopped.

Here she is at the courthouse.

---

Mitch doesn't deal with reality very well.
Stormy is a semi broke bag hag......nothing more.


Strongly doubt Trump......who in those days had his choice of the the hottest women in the country ; needed to stoop that low.

Seriously the gal is grotesque.

---

well, big boy, he was banging that an others while he had a newborn 3 month old at home. What a chitbird. Takes 2, bro.

---

Maybe you can put down the crack pipe long enough to explain how Trump is such a wretched human for allegedly having sex with a woman who gets paid to have sex with stragers... and yet you remain totally silent about this sick, disgusting guy:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ashley-biden-diary-claims/

---

I will put it simply so you can understand. He was married. You don't see a problem there, regardless who the person is?

---

I will put it simply so you can understand... he sexually abused his own daughter, multiple times. He is a sick pedophile.

You don't see a problem there, regardless who the person is?

---

so, you are saying Trump sexually abused one of his 2 daughters?

J.R. said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

J.R. said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

J.R. said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

?

---

that's an older picture... probably been photoshopped.

Here she is at the courthouse.

---

Mitch doesn't deal with reality very well.
Stormy is a semi broke bag hag......nothing more.


Strongly doubt Trump......who in those days had his choice of the the hottest women in the country ; needed to stoop that low.

Seriously the gal is grotesque.

---

well, big boy, he was banging that an others while he had a newborn 3 month old at home. What a chitbird. Takes 2, bro.

---

Maybe you can put down the crack pipe long enough to explain how Trump is such a wretched human for allegedly having sex with a woman who gets paid to have sex with stragers... and yet you remain totally silent about this sick, disgusting guy:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ashley-biden-diary-claims/

---

I will put it simply so you can understand. He was married. You don't see a problem there, regardless who the person is?

---

I will put it simply so you can understand... he sexually abused his own daughter, multiple times. He is a sick pedophile.

You don't see a problem there, regardless who the person is?

---

so, you are saying Trump sexually abused one of his 2 daughters?

---

even though it's really fun to laugh at your ignorance.... go ahead and click on the link, and read the information that CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, etc have been working hard to hide from you.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ashley-biden-diary-claims/

Or you can just continue to pretend that you are rejecting the bad guy while supporting Biden.

ShooterTX said:

---

J.R. said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

J.R. said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

J.R. said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

?

---

that's an older picture... probably been photoshopped.

Here she is at the courthouse.

---

Mitch doesn't deal with reality very well.
Stormy is a semi broke bag hag......nothing more.


Strongly doubt Trump......who in those days had his choice of the the hottest women in the country ; needed to stoop that low.

Seriously the gal is grotesque.

---

well, big boy, he was banging that an others while he had a newborn 3 month old at home. What a chitbird. Takes 2, bro.

---

Maybe you can put down the crack pipe long enough to explain how Trump is such a wretched human for allegedly having sex with a woman who gets paid to have sex with stragers... and yet you remain totally silent about this sick, disgusting guy:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ashley-biden-diary-claims/

---

I will put it simply so you can understand. He was married. You don't see a problem there, regardless who the person is?

---

I will put it simply so you can understand... he sexually abused his own daughter, multiple times. He is a sick pedophile.

You don't see a problem there, regardless who the person is?

---

so, you are saying Trump sexually abused one of his 2 daughters?

---

even though it's really fun to laugh at your ignorance.... go ahead and click on the link, and read the information that CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, etc have been working hard to hide from you.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ashley-biden-diary-claims/

Or you can just continue to pretend that you are rejecting the bad guy while supporting Biden.

---

No doubt watching Biden interact with young women and young girls he is a pervert who has been given a pass for way too long. Unfortunately he has been a part of the power structure for 50 years, nothing will ever happen to him no matter how corrupt, or how big a pervert he is.

Reading that confirmed authentic diary is painful. No wonder his kids are so messed up.

J.R. said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

J.R. said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

J.R. said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

?

---

that's an older picture... probably been photoshopped.

Here she is at the courthouse.

---

Mitch doesn't deal with reality very well.
Stormy is a semi broke bag hag......nothing more.


Strongly doubt Trump......who in those days had his choice of the the hottest women in the country ; needed to stoop that low.

Seriously the gal is grotesque.

---

well, big boy, he was banging that an others while he had a newborn 3 month old at home. What a chitbird. Takes 2, bro.

---

Maybe you can put down the crack pipe long enough to explain how Trump is such a wretched human for allegedly having sex with a woman who gets paid to have sex with stragers... and yet you remain totally silent about this sick, disgusting guy:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ashley-biden-diary-claims/

---

I will put it simply so you can understand. He was married. You don't see a problem there, regardless who the person is?

---

I will put it simply so you can understand... he sexually abused his own daughter, multiple times. He is a sick pedophile.

You don't see a problem there, regardless who the person is?

---

so, you are saying Trump sexually abused one of his 2 daughters?

---

hopefully you are just acting dumb. If not acting, well that's embarrassing for ya

Ghostrider said:

---

J.R. said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

J.R. said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

J.R. said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

?

---

that's an older picture... probably been photoshopped.

Here she is at the courthouse.

---

Mitch doesn't deal with reality very well.
Stormy is a semi broke bag hag......nothing more.


Strongly doubt Trump......who in those days had his choice of the the hottest women in the country ; needed to stoop that low.

Seriously the gal is grotesque.

---

well, big boy, he was banging that an others while he had a newborn 3 month old at home. What a chitbird. Takes 2, bro.

---

Maybe you can put down the crack pipe long enough to explain how Trump is such a wretched human for allegedly having sex with a woman who gets paid to have sex with stragers... and yet you remain totally silent about this sick, disgusting guy:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ashley-biden-diary-claims/

---

I will put it simply so you can understand. He was married. You don't see a problem there, regardless who the person is?

---

I will put it simply so you can understand... he sexually abused his own daughter, multiple times. He is a sick pedophile.

You don't see a problem there, regardless who the person is?

---

so, you are saying Trump sexually abused one of his 2 daughters?

---

hopefully you are just acting dumb. If not acting, well that's embarrassing for ya

---

Never under estimate the stupidity of people with TDS. JR has proven his ignorance knows no bounds... he is ignorant on all kinds of topics... just look through his comments for evidence.

ShooterTX said:

---

J.R. said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

J.R. said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

J.R. said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

?

---

that's an older picture... probably been photoshopped.

Here she is at the courthouse.

---

Mitch doesn't deal with reality very well.
Stormy is a semi broke bag hag......nothing more.


Strongly doubt Trump......who in those days had his choice of the the hottest women in the country ; needed to stoop that low.

Seriously the gal is grotesque.

---

well, big boy, he was banging that an others while he had a newborn 3 month old at home. What a chitbird. Takes 2, bro.

---

Maybe you can put down the crack pipe long enough to explain how Trump is such a wretched human for allegedly having sex with a woman who gets paid to have sex with stragers... and yet you remain totally silent about this sick, disgusting guy:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ashley-biden-diary-claims/

---

I will put it simply so you can understand. He was married. You don't see a problem there, regardless who the person is?

---

I will put it simply so you can understand... he sexually abused his own daughter, multiple times. He is a sick pedophile.

You don't see a problem there, regardless who the person is?

---

so, you are saying Trump sexually abused one of his 2 daughters?

---

even though it's really fun to laugh at your ignorance.... go ahead and click on the link, and read the information that CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, etc have been working hard to hide from you.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ashley-biden-diary-claims/

Or you can just continue to pretend that you are rejecting the bad guy while supporting Biden.

---

yeah, videos off the inter webs are really believable . That shows your ignorance , little fella with the tin foil hat!

ShooterTX said:

---

Ghostrider said:

---

J.R. said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

J.R. said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

J.R. said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

?

---

that's an older picture... probably been photoshopped.

Here she is at the courthouse.

---

Mitch doesn't deal with reality very well.
Stormy is a semi broke bag hag......nothing more.


Strongly doubt Trump......who in those days had his choice of the the hottest women in the country ; needed to stoop that low.

Seriously the gal is grotesque.

---

well, big boy, he was banging that an others while he had a newborn 3 month old at home. What a chitbird. Takes 2, bro.

---

Maybe you can put down the crack pipe long enough to explain how Trump is such a wretched human for allegedly having sex with a woman who gets paid to have sex with stragers... and yet you remain totally silent about this sick, disgusting guy:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ashley-biden-diary-claims/

---

I will put it simply so you can understand. He was married. You don't see a problem there, regardless who the person is?

---

I will put it simply so you can understand... he sexually abused his own daughter, multiple times. He is a sick pedophile.

You don't see a problem there, regardless who the person is?

---

so, you are saying Trump sexually abused one of his 2 daughters?

---

hopefully you are just acting dumb. If not acting, well that's embarrassing for ya

---

Never under estimate the stupidity of people with TDS. JR has proven his ignorance knows no bounds... he is ignorant on all kinds of topics... just look through his comments for evidence.

---

now, little shooter...put up the tin foil hat, bro.

Nobody but Ashley and Joe know if the abuse stories are true. However, the diary is authentic. Otherwise, the weaponized justice department would not have raided a journalist's home to retrieve it. No on has ever questions its authenticity outside of The View.

Here is an example that maybe will help the mouth-breathing crowd understand the issue. This was an analogy shared by a Clinton-appointed FEC official.

- If a candidate purchases a suite for a political debate, that CANNOT but paid out of campaign as a campaign expense; even if the candidate bought the suite expressly for the debate, it is reasonable to assume the candidate may wear the suit for non-campaign purposes (even if unlikely such as John Fetterman)

- If a candidate purchases a podium to practice for a political debate, that CAN be expensed to the campaign because there is not reasonable alternative use for the podium

---

So Trump actually would have violated campaign finance laws if he had expensed the hush money because there are myriad other reasons unrelated to the election as to why he may have wanted to shut her up.

Had Trump sent her to seduce Joe Biden the night before the debate, that might be rightly considered a campaign finance expense.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Nobody but Ashley and Joe know if the abuse stories are true. However, the diary is authentic. Otherwise, the weaponized justice department would not have raided a journalist's home to retrieve it. No on has ever questions its authenticity outside of The View.

---

Ashley Biden has verified the authenticity of the diary and its contents.
The media remains silent on the subject, but she swore under oath to its authenticity.

J.R. said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

J.R. said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

J.R. said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

J.R. said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

?

---

that's an older picture... probably been photoshopped.

Here she is at the courthouse.

---

Mitch doesn't deal with reality very well.
Stormy is a semi broke bag hag......nothing more.


Strongly doubt Trump......who in those days had his choice of the the hottest women in the country ; needed to stoop that low.

Seriously the gal is grotesque.

---

well, big boy, he was banging that an others while he had a newborn 3 month old at home. What a chitbird. Takes 2, bro.

---

Maybe you can put down the crack pipe long enough to explain how Trump is such a wretched human for allegedly having sex with a woman who gets paid to have sex with stragers... and yet you remain totally silent about this sick, disgusting guy:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ashley-biden-diary-claims/

---

I will put it simply so you can understand. He was married. You don't see a problem there, regardless who the person is?

---

I will put it simply so you can understand... he sexually abused his own daughter, multiple times. He is a sick pedophile.

You don't see a problem there, regardless who the person is?

---

so, you are saying Trump sexually abused one of his 2 daughters?

---

even though it's really fun to laugh at your ignorance.... go ahead and click on the link, and read the information that CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, etc have been working hard to hide from you.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ashley-biden-diary-claims/

Or you can just continue to pretend that you are rejecting the bad guy while supporting Biden.

---

yeah, videos off the inter webs are really believable . That shows your ignorance , little fella with the tin foil hat!

---

Wow.
You are such a complete idiot that you think I posted a link to a video?
You truly are a new level of stupidity.

ShooterTX said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Nobody but Ashley and Joe know if the abuse stories are true. However, the diary is authentic. Otherwise, the weaponized justice department would not have raided a journalist's home to retrieve it. No on has ever questions its authenticity outside of The View.

---

Ashley Biden has verified the authenticity of the diary and its contents.
The media remains silent on the subject, but she swore under oath to its authenticity.

---

The "media" is an Orwellian PR for China Joe.

Since Ashley Biden isn't Stormy Daniels, the Ashley Biden issue probably needs its own thread.

No. Its all about whataboutism.

Trump dallies with *****s while his wife and is pregnant.

So what? Biden sniffs kids hair

Maybe but Trump used campaign money to keep Stormy quiet

Ehhh, Biden's daughter wrote stuff in her diary about showering with her dad. If its in a druggy girls diary it must be true

The election of crappy men will cripple America. As long as people keep voting for clowns its a downhill slide

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

No. Its all about whataboutism.

Trump dallies with *****s while his wife and is pregnant.

So what? Biden sniffs kids hair

Maybe but Trump used campaign money to keep Stormy quiet

Ehhh, Biden's daughter wrote stuff in her diary about showering with her dad. If its in a druggy girls diary it must be true

The election of crappy men will cripple America. As long as people keep voting for clowns its a downhill slide

---

No. It's all about hypocrisy and double standards.

We're told for 20 years that President Clinton lying under oath is just about Republicans sexual fetishism. No Democrat is butthurt over JFK boning bimbos in the White House. Suddenly the party of free love among men, women, children, and animals is butthurt because President Trump may or may not have boned a porn star. Trashy yes. Illegal no.

The election or crappy men that weaponize public institutions against political opponents and erode the integrity of the system will cripple America.

You are right but it runs both ways. At this point I dont think one is any better than the other.

ShooterTX said:

---

J.R. said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

J.R. said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

J.R. said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

J.R. said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

?

---

that's an older picture... probably been photoshopped.

Here she is at the courthouse.

---

Mitch doesn't deal with reality very well.
Stormy is a semi broke bag hag......nothing more.


Strongly doubt Trump......who in those days had his choice of the the hottest women in the country ; needed to stoop that low.

Seriously the gal is grotesque.

---

well, big boy, he was banging that an others while he had a newborn 3 month old at home. What a chitbird. Takes 2, bro.

---

Maybe you can put down the crack pipe long enough to explain how Trump is such a wretched human for allegedly having sex with a woman who gets paid to have sex with stragers... and yet you remain totally silent about this sick, disgusting guy:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ashley-biden-diary-claims/

---

I will put it simply so you can understand. He was married. You don't see a problem there, regardless who the person is?

---

I will put it simply so you can understand... he sexually abused his own daughter, multiple times. He is a sick pedophile.

You don't see a problem there, regardless who the person is?

---

so, you are saying Trump sexually abused one of his 2 daughters?

---

even though it's really fun to laugh at your ignorance.... go ahead and click on the link, and read the information that CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, etc have been working hard to hide from you.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ashley-biden-diary-claims/

Or you can just continue to pretend that you are rejecting the bad guy while supporting Biden.

---

yeah, videos off the inter webs are really believable . That shows your ignorance , little fella with the tin foil hat!

---

Wow.
You are such a complete idiot that you think I posted a link to a video?
You truly are a new level of stupidity.

---

now, little shooter boy. . you are a ****ing moron. Can you not tell I just ****ing with you cuz you are an idiot. You ain't real smart, there little fella. You may need to get a job and stay of this non-sense.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Here is an example that maybe will help the mouth-breathing crowd understand the issue. This was an analogy shared by a Clinton-appointed FEC official.

- If a candidate purchases a suite for a political debate, that CANNOT but paid out of campaign as a campaign expense; even if the candidate bought the suite expressly for the debate, it is reasonable to assume the candidate may wear the suit for non-campaign purposes (even if unlikely such as John Fetterman)

- If a candidate purchases a podium to practice for a political debate, that CAN be expensed to the campaign because there is not reasonable alternative use for the podium

---

So Trump actually would have violated campaign finance laws if he had expensed the hush money because there are myriad other reasons unrelated to the election as to why he may have wanted to shut her up.

Had Trump sent her to seduce Joe Biden the night before the debate, that might be rightly considered a campaign finance expense.

---

Great explanation.

Apparently Alvin Bragg got the memo because he put on evidence that the only reason Trump paid her was the election.

The Trump team has tried to show that evidence unreliable and will put on evidence to the contrary. It is up to the jury to decide which story to believe.


The controversy is not whether there could have been other reasons Trump paid her; it is whether there actually were other reasons.

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

You are right but it runs both ways. At this point I dont think one is any better than the other.

---

If you have some examples of the Republicans weaponizing the state against political opponents would love to read about them. The unprecedented use of lawfare to undermine an election is a innovation of the 2024 Democrat Party ... just as Obama's novel use of the Justice Department to attack journalists critical of the regime or using the IRS to undermine political opponents ... similar to given the president's son special treatment.

Open to similar examples launched by the GOP.

Frank Galvin said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Here is an example that maybe will help the mouth-breathing crowd understand the issue. This was an analogy shared by a Clinton-appointed FEC official.

- If a candidate purchases a suite for a political debate, that CANNOT but paid out of campaign as a campaign expense; even if the candidate bought the suite expressly for the debate, it is reasonable to assume the candidate may wear the suit for non-campaign purposes (even if unlikely such as John Fetterman)

- If a candidate purchases a podium to practice for a political debate, that CAN be expensed to the campaign because there is not reasonable alternative use for the podium

---

So Trump actually would have violated campaign finance laws if he had expensed the hush money because there are myriad other reasons unrelated to the election as to why he may have wanted to shut her up.

Had Trump sent her to seduce Joe Biden the night before the debate, that might be rightly considered a campaign finance expense.

---

Great explanation.

Apparently Alvin Bragg got the memo because he put on evidence that the only reason Trump paid her was the election.

The Trump team has tried to show that evidence unreliable and will put on evidence to the contrary. It is up to the jury to decide which story to believe.


The controversy is not whether there could have been other reasons Trump paid her; it is whether there actually were other reasons.

---

Incorrect. By this (lack of logic) a politician could buy a home, car, clothes, etc., with campaign funds and simply say "there were no other reasons to purchase these than for the campaign." So-called intent is not part of the statute. It does not matter whether Trump in his mind paid her off because it would threaten his campaign; there are 10 additional reasons he might have done it. It's actual silly to think impact on the campaign would be a plausible reason - he is hardly known for his character, and the fact he's a creep is baked into the cake. He more likely would have bragged "I was the most luxurious lover she ever had."

I'll go back to my example. Let's use John Fetterman. It is reasonable to say that John Fetterman does not frequently wear suits. That does not mean he can buy a suit for a campaign debate and just claim "I don't normally wear suits" so I'm charging this to my campaign.

Bragg is just a political hack trying to tie up Trump's money and time to interfere with an election. I appreciate your TDS, but there are bigger, foundational actual threats to democracy at play that should be more important than TDS.

Just like all the lawfare against Trump - every intellectually honest broker knows they're all bull*****