Stormy Daniels Talks Hush Money Trial with Rachel Maddow: Exclusive Interview ( Part III)

I am allergic to latex [condoms] and in every sex scene I have ever done on film... [personal life]' I have brought my own polyurethane condom. Because latex makes me feel like I am on fire [down there]."  —Stormy Daniels. 

It is doubtful based on this testimony in court from Stormy D. that she would forget she had sex with Donald. However, liar that he is Donald stood on the debate stage against Biden and lied, 'I did not have sex with that woman.' 

C'mon man!  The juror in the so-called, "Hush-money Case" did not believe you!

At first. . . I didn't get it. . . and then I did. Oh Stormy!

Classic IV - STORMY

As we are all adults here. . . let's keep it our language clean as we can. Or, you WILL shame yourself and nobody else!

The point of this article is to demonstrate that Donald is not even true to himself. That 'thing' lies on his 'precious memories.'

The point of this article is to demonstrate that Donald is not even true to himself. That 'thing' lies on his 'precious memories.'

If he will lie about his height and weight, he will lie about anything. 

Lies about height. . .how do you do it? I mean all one has to do is 'send' a person of the stated height to take a selfie with the liar and voilà!

Lies about height. . .how do you do it?

Like I said, he lies about everything. 

If he will lie about his height and weight, he will lie about anything. 

People are saying that he has small hands.

Mushrooms?

Yep LOL 

Only pervs care about what she has to say. That includes madcow

You are wrong yet again: a court of law cared enough to listen to her testimony and use it as an ingredient in making an informed decision in a court case. No 'pervs' were allowed to serve jury duty, as such a person would have been screened out. Now, try again without the ad hominem attack on Ms. Daniels.

Moreover, Rachel's last name is, "Maddow" and she deserves as much respect as you insist upon when we call you "Right Down the Center."

You do realize it wasn't the jury that selected her as a witness don't you?  It was the perv prosecution that wanted her there so the perv media would make a big deal about the size of a Trump dick.

It was the perv prosecution that wanted her there so the perv media would make a big deal about the size of a Trump dick.

You think that it helps the prosecution's case to have someone make fun of Trump's dick?   You think that is what professional prosecutors do?

You reject the idea that Daniels was brought in to testify that the alleged event that precipitated the hush money actually took place?   You know, the evidence that would actually be constructive for the prosecution.

That comment is 'brilliant' in its simple-ness. Lawyers and judges select criminal witness—never done by a jury.

As for your denigrating tone towards the prosecution and the media—even this 'nasty business of calling up Donald's. . .'junk' on a thread where all are asked to be mature and civil. . . well, I guess some just can't help themselves to negate following even a simple request.

I can assure you of this one thing: Even the judge did not want Stormy to describe Donald's. . .personal family jewels on the public record.

Simply. Was. Not. And. Did. Not. Happen.

ou think that is what professional prosecutors do?

Alvin has proven he is not a professional prosecutor

Of course you deflect rather than honestly deal with the question asked.

Donald stood at a prestigious debate engagement before the public he hopes to 'faithfully' serve and lied about his appetite for 'strange flesh' (not his wife) and I am horrified that he renounced a 'precious memory.' The type of memory which 99.99 percent of us have about our personal sexual relationships, and barring a serious medical condition/failing memory or worse we can never lose—for it has a sacred spot within each of us.

The jury believed he paid 'off' Stormy Daniels through his lawyer Michael Cohen for a sexual 'favor' while his wife was unaware of his 'throbbings' out in the world. 

Ms. Daniels remembers. . . the unique latex condone that irritated her internally, as she was ill-prepared for the evening happening and was not carrying her own polyurethane condom resource. She used his 'supply.'

An 'alleycat' of Donald's stature ought to have sent a staff person to 'fetch' a proper and (ouch-less) pack of the proper condoms in order to make the 'evening' more delightful.  

I beg to differ. An amateur prosecutor does not work for a salary. Mr. Bragg's publicly known salary is quite 'hefty.'

Of course you accuse someone of deflecting when they respond to your question. 

The comment you replied to was not serious.   Instead of dealing with the fact that a professional prosecutor would not gratuitously deal with details that do not help his/her objective we get the ridiculous claim that Bragg was not a professional prosecutor.

Deflection rather than admitting that a discussion of Trump's dick detracts from Bragg's objective.

Only warning! I am going to put my foot down. Answer the question, questions, or do not bother with the question/s. You can return to discussing the article, but I have a solid distaste for obfuscation meta. It will be deleted as soon as it is determined to be so. 

And the Judge made sure that his courtroom decorum was not made a mockery of by deep dives verbally into the nether-regions of Donald or Stormy.

Everybody! Eyes up. This room will remember its respectful decorum too! Stick with what you find in the video interview/record provided or in Judge Merchan's court. There is plenty in those two 'spots' provided for you to 'work' with in your comments. Use it!

Of course you deflect rather than honestly deal with the question asked.

I will answer it, then. 

You reject the idea that Daniels was brought in to testify that the alleged event that precipitated the hush money actually took place?   You know, the evidence that would actually be constructive for the prosecution.

Yes, I reject it. Trump was not on trial concerning whether or not he had sex with Daniels. He was tried on charges of committing accounting crimes pursuant to hiding another crime. That he paid hush money was not in question, so whether sex had actually taken place or not is irrelevant; only that he had paid the money. The only relevant factor was motive for the payment; whether he paid it to protect his political aspirations, evade taxes, circumvent election laws or to protect his family from embarrassment. 

Since this is so, and that whether or not Trump had sex with Daniels doesn't change any of that, the only reason for allowing the irrelevancy of her testimony was the salaciousness would influence the jury in the defense's favor, along with embarrassing Trump in the current political race. 

Yes, I reject it. Trump was not on trial concerning whether or not he had sex with Daniels. He was tried on charges of committing accounting crimes pursuant to hiding another crime.

Daniels was there to corroborate the event that substantiated a coverup.   The motive for the payment makes no sense if there was no event to cover up.   If Trump had not denied that he had sex with Daniels then she might not have been called to testify.   But Trump denied it thus Daniels' testimony was appropriate.

Scenario One: Daniels tells the truth in court.

Scenario Two: Daniels doesn't tell the truth in court. 

Either way makes no difference to the fact that Trump paid hush money. Even if it could be proved that Daniels lied about everything, Trump still paid the hush money. Why he paid it was what the trial was about. If his accounting misdemeanors were to conceal a further criminal act, he'd still be just as guilty, even if Daniels lied and no affair had occurred. In other words, even if it could have been proven Daniels had lied about all of it, it would not have absolved Trump of what he was being tried for. Whether or not the affair occurred is completely irrelevant at that point. 

In my opinion, the prosecution included Daniel's testimony in hopes that at least some members of the jury would confuse punishing Trump for the affair instead of dealing with the motive for the payment, along with the current political embarrassment. If even someone not a lawyer, such as myself, can see this, the judge should have seen it as well and not allowed the testimony. 

Why he paid it was what the trial was about.

Indeed!   Yes!   Most attorneys like to give a complete scenario (vs. major loose ends) to convince a jury.   And the idea that they would intentionally make an argument that Trump falsified records to coverup an illegal transaction executed to prevent the public from knowing about a politically damaging event without stating the event would leave a jury skeptical.

And if they mention the event, then why not corroborate the event?   Seems uber-logical to me.

If his accounting misdemeanors were to conceal a further criminal act, he'd still be just as guilty, even if Daniels lied and no affair had occurred. 

Even in this trial we had Trump supporters whine that the real crime that was covered up was not sufficient clear (good grief).   Yet you think the prosecution should have skipped the Daniels' testimony altogether and make the crime even more vague.   Right.

In my opinion, the prosecution included Daniel's testimony in hopes that at least some members of the jury would confuse punishing Trump for the affair instead of dealing with the motive for the payment, ...

Seems like a very cynical opinion to me.   You do not seem to have much faith in juries.   Ever serve on one?   I have served on three.  In all three cases we took our duties quite seriously.   Jurors, seems to me, generally try hard to be objective.   And jurors, in my experience, are not morons that are easily tricked as you indicate.

If even someone not a lawyer, such as myself, can see this, the judge should have seen it as well and not allowed the testimony. 

I think you are proving quite nicely that you are not an attorney.   Maybe you are wrong about this and the judge, prosecutors, and jury got it right.   Ever consider that?

Daniels doesn't change any of that, the only reason for allowing the irrelevancy of her testimony was the salaciousness would influence the jury in the defense's favor, along with embarrassing Trump in the current political race.

Irrelevant testimony is not allowed in a trial especially when a jury is present, by definition. Salaciousness in a trial confuses and distracts from facts and is not allowed in testimony when it can be controlled. That is, 'strong' limits are placed on such details. 

So you are wrong. That said, there was some discussion that some 'verbal' statement of a salacious nature happened when Ms. Daniels lapsed into detailing. . . it was quickly and properly tamped down by the Judge and removed from the written record.  Albeit, once heard it could not be pulled back.

If Donald was embarrassed about being in court with relevant discussions taking place by Ms. Daniels role in the proceedings. . . he should have 'manned-up' and told the truth about his one-night stand with her and how he paid to keep her quiet through another agent: Attorney Michael Cohen.

Thus, in the end, only the facts decided the matter. Ms. Daniels testimony was of background assist that 'fleshed' out the overall case: Critically, she was the ''Why." in the Who/what/how/where/when/WHY (Donald felt he had to pay as we are often told he is 'hella' stingy)  of critically putting on the case.

And if they mention the event, then why not corroborate the event?   Seems uber-logical to me.

Did you not read my previous two posts? You know, the part about whether it actually happened or not would not make the slightest difference to what he was actually charged with? Do you agree that, if Daniels came out tomorrow stating she lied about the whole thing, it wouldn't make a difference as to whether he was guilty or not, which would be due to the fact that he still made the hush money payment? Since the answer is obvious, it is equally obvious the only reason to include the testimony was the salacious nature of it, not its necessity to the prosecution's case. In other words, "Oh! That Trump is such a nasty man! He must be guilty!" element of the testimony. 

That's the failure of your argument, TiG. You have to show why it was necessary, or even relevant, when it clearly wasn't. In fact, considering the nature of the charges, it could only serve to confuse the issue, since Trump wasn't being tried for having sex with a porn star. The testimony wasn't even necessary in proving he made the payment, since that was not contested. The payment was not in dispute. The Daniels testimony simply had no relevance whatsoever to what was being tried. 

I think you see this but continue to argue because "TRUMP!"

You know, the part about whether it actually happened or not would not make the slightest difference to what he was actually charged with?

I disagreed.   And I explained why.   It is logical to provide a complete story with no loose ends.  

In other words, "Oh! That Trump is such a nasty man! He must be guilty!" element of the testimony. 

Get a grip, Drakk. 

I think you see this but continue to argue because "TRUMP!"

Nothing but blatantly dishonest theatrics now.

Your protests have grown emotional and irrational.    I find that the judge, prosecutors, and the jury behaved in a measured, rational manner. 

Trump still paid the hush money.

The 'hush' was about the sexual liaison in a wealthy man's apartment which led a member of that man's team to put up his own money to cover Donald's nasty obsession with other women not his wife! And, his discovering that he could be a better force in politics . . . if he could make that singular occasion recess into the shadows under an NDA (for the sum specified.)

The Daniels testimony simply had no relevance whatsoever to what was being tried. 

As TiG recently hinted. . . you are not a judge and you don't have a court room for any prosecutor or defense attorney to put on a case. Had it not been necessary for Ms. Daniels to have been there. . . then, you should be able to point to the defense winning the argument to have her not be a witness, or having her testimony stricken from the record as error. 

I don't see that argument being made by you. You are passing emotional propaganda back and forth that Donald can lie and discredit Ms. Daniel by claiming, 'I didn't have sex with her.' - and somehow we should believe a 'spectacularly-charged' liar like Donald (with little to no credibility) and not Ms. Daniels (because you pass judgement that she is 'low.') 

Well, here was the solution that did not occur. Donald and his lawyers took the risk of not putting him on the stand UNDER OATH in a court of law to advocate for himself when he would have declared, "I didn't have sex with her."  or, 'Yes, we did have sex." - Whereupon he would not know whom could come into court to accuse him farther of lying yet again by the prosecution team.

The jury decided the case. . .without his assistance. He took a risk and that time it failed. 

Trump still paid the hush money.

There is nothing to "hush" if the sex did not happen. Donald would have simply sued her for defamation in a court and not even bothered with 'hiding' it in clutch of 34 payments with his signature on it.

Now, having established that it did happen as reasoned by a jury. . . .  Let's deal with your reluctance to discuss the lie told at the presidential debate to President Biden, the moderators, evangelicals across the country, the assembled media, and the masses tuned in. Donald muttered, 'It did not happen.' (Paraphrase.) That was evidentially proven to be a 'spectacular' lie. 

Donald should not/could not/ will a debate by spectacularly lying and showing no true integrity throughout it. 

You should not 'stand' with him as he lies to defend the indefensible. Check it out!

Are you going to answer my question? 

Now, having established that it did happen as reasoned by a jury. . . .  Let's deal with your reluctance to discuss the lie told at the presidential debate to President Biden, the moderators, evangelicals across the country, the assembled media, and the masses tuned in.

Far be it from me to intrude on your discussion with me. You seem to be handling both sides of this conversation on your own just fine. I'll just leave you to it. Bye. 

Perfectly said

[deleted][✘]

That's comment is stuffed with only pride and no acceptance of facts or substance. Here is some more substance and clarity; your comments so far on this topic, while subtle, are clearly emotionally invested in Donald Trump's welfare and future plans (Project 2025) for this country, in my opinion. Whereas, liberties, freedoms, and privileges of the new majority of this country will be regressed and continue in subjugation for the sake of this new minority's private pleasure and religious practices. 

That, sir, has nothing to do with the Hush-money case which took place in Judge Merchan's court!

Bye-Bye.

Trump is an aggressor. We can see that by his request to the Supreme Court and its conservative majority granting its imprimatur (using 'Trump' throughout its opinion) to increased presidential powers of immunity—in place for the next (Trump?) presidency. 

Donald is no a victim. He is MAGAs foremost 'frontiersman' carving a path politically for the takeover of this democracy.

Daniels was there to corroborate the event that substantiated a coverup. 

Exactly. 

It's always been that way with certain folks - the agnorance.  

I presume this is the question you think I have not answered:

Drakk @4.1.18 ☞ Do you agree that, if Daniels came out tomorrow stating she lied about the whole thing, it wouldn't make a difference as to whether he was guilty or not, which would be due to the fact that he still made the hush money payment? 

The question, since we are talking about how a trial was conducted by the prosecution, is if it would make a difference in the determination of guilt.   And yes, I think how a prosecution makes it case has a hell of a lot to do with the determination of guilt.

What I explained earlier is that attorneys create narratives designed to give the jurors a plausible truth.   These narratives are designed to be logically complete.   The reason, of course, is that a narrative with a 'fill in the blank' hole would clearly NOT be as persuasive as one where all claims are logical and corroborated by evidence.

The narrative provided by the prosecution is that Trump intentionally falsified his business records to cover up a crime.   Instead of recording the payments made to Daniels to keep her quiet out of concern her revelation would harm his campaign he had Cohen pay her off and then he reimbursed Cohen under the false representation of legal expenses.

Trump had explicitly denied the allegation that he had sex with Daniels.   Had he acknowledged that the reason he was paying her off was because of his illicit extramarital act then there would be little reason to bring in Daniels to corroborate.   Defense could stipulate the fact and the prosecution likely would accept same.    But he denied it.    Given this denial, the prosecutors could have (per your scenario) asked the jury to just take their word (just believe them that Trump is lying) that a real-life event did indeed take place to precipitate Trump wanting to quiet Daniels.   But that is an example of a hole — and one that the defense had explicitly denied!   It is far better, if possible (and it was), for the prosecution to complete their narrative and support it with evidence.    That is what they did.

Daniels chose to go into details well beyond the questions asked of her.   Many of those details were not necessary (and were not requested) for the purposes of the prosecution.   But having her testify was a very logical call in that it allowed the prosecutors to have a complete scenario which establishes as evidenced truth the event which triggered the chain of events that resulted in Trump's felonies.

Now I have gone into extraordinary detail answering your question.   This details my answers:

TiG@4.1.16 ☞ Most attorneys like to give a complete scenario (vs. major loose ends) to convince a jury.   And the idea that they would intentionally make an argument that Trump falsified records to coverup an illegal transaction executed to prevent the public from knowing about a politically damaging event without stating the event would leave a jury skeptical.

-and-

TiG@4.1.14 ☞ Daniels was there to corroborate the event that substantiated a coverup.   The motive for the payment makes no sense if there was no event to cover up.   If Trump had not denied that he had sex with Daniels then she might not have been called to testify.   But Trump denied it thus Daniels' testimony was appropriate.

-and-

TiG@4.1.2 ☞ You reject the idea that Daniels was brought in to testify that the alleged event that precipitated the hush money actually took place?   You know, the evidence that would actually be constructive for the prosecution.

The question, since we are talking about how a trial was conducted by the prosecution, is if it would make a difference in the determination of guilt.   And yes, I think how a prosecution makes it case has a hell of a lot to do with the determination of guilt.

My dad, who is the most rabid Trump hater I know, would make John Russel look like a card carrying MAGA fanatic. I went over to mow his lawn because he's too old to do it anymore. The first thing he said to me was "Hi! Did you see how SCOTUS just destroyed democracy in America?" He hates, and I mean hates, Republicans and has told me several times he's going to disown me if I vote for Trump. 

I told him about our discussion we're having, and I didn't even get to half-finish describing the conversation before he interrupted me and told me that Daniels testimony was irrelevant for the same reasons I told you. I couldn't believe it. He prays every night that God would kill Trump so I thought his attitude would be that of "whatever it takes to bring Trump down". 

Point is, if even someone like my dad can see it, you certainly should be able to. I think you do, but for whatever reason, continue what amounts to the sophistry you've been putting forth for the purpose of justifying testimony that was pointless except as manipulation and political maneuvering. It had no relevance to the actual facts of the trial except to introduce prejudice. 

You see, (and I know you do) even if the defense somehow proved that Trump had no sex with Daniels, it would not have made a difference in the outcome. This is because the trial was not about whether or not Trump had sex with Daniels, in spite of the fact you think it is somehow dependent on it. The trial was that he paid hush money and why he did so. Whether Trump had sex or not cannot alter that. It's that simple. 

Since my question only required a simple yes or no and since you instead gave a long response that didn't answer the question, I believe I can assume that if Daniels came out and confessed that she lied about all of it, you would then believe that Trump is not guilty of what he was convicted of. Thank you for your answer. 

In my opinion, what the defense did was slimy, underhanded and, most likely grounds for appeal.  

In my opinion, what the defense did was slimy, underhanded and, most likely grounds for appeal.

Opinions vary. Wow. . . using dad. . . wonder if you would quote him if he argued TiG's point. (Rhetorical.) Personal stories have value, but a court is a court is a court with rules of law. . .generally not feelings.

I told him about our discussion we're having, and I didn't even get to half-finish describing the conversation before he interrupted me and told me that Daniels testimony was irrelevant for the same reasons I told you.

Your story is irrelevant.   I can only imagine how you spun my argument to him.

Point is, if even someone like my dad can see it, you certainly should be able to.

I have laid this out clearly.   If you cannot see the logic of why a prosecutor would want to establish the fact that the triggering event of these crimes actually happened then it seems you are not even trying.

...  it would not have made a difference in the outcome. 

I disagree and have explained why in great detail.

In my opinion, what the defense [sic] did was slimy, underhanded and, most likely grounds for appeal.  

It is not at all slimy or underhanded for the prosecution to have Daniels counter Trump's denial of the event underlying the chain of events which resulted in the crimes.

I can only imagine how you spun my argument to him.

Yes, I suppose you would. Disappointing, but whatever makes you feel better is the important thing, I suppose. 

I disagree and have explained why in great detail.

That's the thing, TiG. You haven't. You're just throwing words together hoping they sound convincing. The trial depended on the fact that hush money was paid, how it was accounted for and why all of it was done. The why was one of four choices; evade election laws, evade taxes, protect his political aspirations or to protect his family. Whether or not he had sex was not a consideration in determining guilt. Or, at least it should not have been, but the reason the prosecution included it. And don't give me the nonsense that it was all Daniels. Everyone knows the prosecution talks to their witnesses and coaches them before trial. 

Since I expect you will continue your defense of the prosecution's actions in this, and I will not abandon what is clearly the more factual position, I guess we're done here. 

You're just throwing words together hoping they sound convincing. 

Irony.

And as any democrat 'Dad' can see. . .courts are not about our feelings. . . seeing that a conservative SCOTUS gave a damn about our in a majority vote to make for a coming, "Imperial presidency."

The why was one of four choices; evade election laws, evade taxes, protect his political aspirations or to protect his family.

Unbelievable. Just read the choices, and take stock of this: The family (Melania) was not at the trial speaking for either the prosecution or the defense as witness; the one person left off Drak's selective list above is only individual behind the payment of 34 checks signed by Donald over to his attorney Michael Cohen: "Stormy Daniels.. And Drak, "bless him" don't want to hear from her . . . because it tarnished/es Donald or it's 'icky.' Or even worse, it offends Right-wing Evangelical so-called, 'sensitivities.' 

Unbelievable.

Well, I've got to say it's really interesting to see how my side of the conversation with you is going. Very creative, I'll give you that. I can hardly wait to see what you have me saying next! : )

That comment's snark is wasted on this discussion. It is what it is. Better to be reasonable about the whole case before us and not just the parts that selfishly brighten the day of one side or the other. 

The why was one of four choices; evade election laws, evade taxes, protect his political aspirations or to protect his family.

Leave out the last of the four and you will start getting close.

So mature

4.3

4.3.1

Only pervs care about what she has to say. That includes madcow

I don't think Maddow is a perve, but I don't know her. I think the only reason Daniels was on her show was to cause political embarrassment for Trump. If Trump is guilty of having sex with Daniels he probably deserves the embarrassment, but if I were in Maddow's shoes I don't think I would stoop that low to have Daniels on my show. 

In present times there is nothing at all unusual about people engaging in purely partisan acts to discredit, embarrass, whatever the opposition.   It sucks, but this is so over-the-top common nowadays that this is not even noteworthy.

Surely you see this daily on Fox News too.   It is not just 'the left'.

Surely you see this daily on Fox News too.   It is not just 'the left'.

As I have said numerous times, I don't believe anything I see in the MSM or anywhere else. If there is an issue I'm concerned enough about I read as many sources as I can, do research, and come to my own conclusions. 

My comment stated nothing about believing these sources.   It noted the existence of slimy partisan crap regardless of the source.  

My point, again, is that it is not even noteworthy to mention that slimy partisanship appears in the media.

Ms. Daniels has a child at home. She has a husband at home. Both know about her past professional life. Moreover, Ms. Daniels herself as expressed she is a professional actress in porn movies and a director behind the camera. The productions are of no value to true believers, anyway so there is nothing 'low' to stoop down or bow. She is not ashamed of her past conduct. Indeed, she seems surely proud of it enough to march right into court up onto the witness stand and out=loud pronounce I 'blanked' Donald Trump, a president and former president in a room large enough to be an 'apartment' of some kind. And all the while knowing that her husband, her child, and her family would be privy to the knowledge/confirmation along with millions in the public around the world.

Rachel's motivations are her own. The network's motivations are their own. One thing NT can take stock of is this: Donald Trump lied during the 2024 presidential debate when he flatly muttered just loud enough to be caught by the microphone: 'It did not happen.'  To President Biden statement about his moral turpitude being reminiscent of an 'alley-cat.'  The point certainly needing ''pulling out" and examining with Ms. Daniels, since she was there doing an in-person interview.

The 'slime' felt out of Donald's mouth at the court where he would walk outside the court and lie to his public specifically and the general at-large public all around the world watching internationally, 'It didn't (the sex with Ms. Daniels) happen.' 

The jury did not believe him and the foundation for the case held together to get a guilty charge on 34 counts of falsification of business records in a court of law. Sentencing pending.

So but but but the other guy defense.  Be better than that

My comment did not engage in “but but the other guy” reasoning.   

This is a product of your imagination.

My comment did not engage in “but but the other guy” reasoning.   

"Surely you see this daily on Fox News too.   It is not just 'the left'." is exactly that.

There is no "but" in my comment.   My comment stated that in present times there is nothing at all unusual about people engaging in purely partisan acts to discredit, embarrass, whatever the opposition.  

My comment recognizes that this is true regardless of ideology and politics.   It is an ALL, not a BUT.    In addition, my comment is factually (and logically) correct.

If you are going to use a cliche, feeble "zinger" to taunt, at least apply it correctly.

Stick with that if you wish.

Only pervs care about what she has to say

Its true-- I'm a perv (well-- at least I try...).

I care what she has to say!

That includes madcow

Thanks for your comment!

Its making me feel a sense of nostalgia-- memories of the time I was in 3rd (or maybe 4th?) grade. At that age we would engage in childih name calling...Ah, the memories!

Funny how the names about Trump miss your sight.

Awesome Krishna.

Such gentlemen!  Such maturity!

Also, I think you're thinking of preschoolers

Hi guys, no meta 'wars' between us on this article. Answer a question, questions, or don't answer it or them. Just move back to the topic with a separate comment in reply. Obfuscating meta will be deleted without warning.

Happy Fourth of July to all!

Happy Fourth of July to all!

Is it the Forth of July?

I'm not sure whether I should believe you.

No-- first I'm going to check several sources in the media.

Thoroughly!!!

Then and only then will I make up my mind as to whether its actually the Fourth or not!

A jury believes Stormy Daniels was paid off, because of a sexual liaison with Donald Trump to the tune of 34 counts of falsification of business records related to the liaison incident-ahead of the 2016 presidential election!

Donald, in last week's 2024 presidential debate, exclaimed-muttered under his voice is more like it, 'It did not happen.' (Paraphrased.) After, Biden compared him to an alley-cat. 

In the video above, Ms. Daniels is clarifying in 'critical' detail (using cautionary language appropriate for television): what, where, when, how, and why the 'happenings' between her and Donald. 

Donald has not denied Ms. Daniel was in 'the' room (she described it for us in another part of the longer Maddow interview what it looked like.)

We are focusing on Donald's denial that he had sexual intercourse with Ms. Daniels. 

What can you believe is the rationale for the such a large 'payout' from a known stingy man like Donald?

Mmmm, perhaps he was just trying to help her out in her career with funds for augmentation and corrective surgeries. 

Perhaps. But, that is not claimed in the court records or in the Maddow interview. So, certainly NOT!

Mmmm, perhaps he was just trying to help her out in her career with funds for augmentation and corrective surgeries. 

Sure, because trump is so well known for his generous wallet...

/sarc

and he's so chivalrous also - someone was talking about how the convicted felon and rapist allegedly offered a reporter his topcoat after a long interview and the reporter was shivering or some such nonsense and this was a guy

you'd never see the scumbag offering it to a woman, he doesn't even hold an umbrella for Melania

They literally stole money from a kids cancer charity...