CDZ What did you all think of the 60 minutes Stormy interview?

[miketx]

what interview

dont watch CBS

Besides, with the enemy of the state media we have I'm sure the interview would have gone like this:

 

[2aguy]

I just saw a clip after everyone said he pupils were screwed up....he pupils were dilated.....big time...

 

[jon_berzerk]

what interview

dont watch CBS

Besides, with the enemy of the state media we have I'm sure the interview would have gone like this:

View attachment 184875

yup i dont watch any of that stuff

 

[Pogo]

From what little I heard about it on the radio this morning I'm glad I ignored it.

I thought of watching it, but figured I'd wait an hour, and read the highlights in the news. Let me give you the gist of it. Trump cheated on his wife. I know. It's shocking, right?

Nobody gives a shit about that. It's what went down in October of 2016 that's relevant.

Did she go into any detail about that?

I can't remember what she said about the hush money, but nothing is going to become of that either way. Trump isn't a dummy. His name isn't on the NDA, and Cohen claims he made the payment out of his own pocket. Trump is completely insulated from the situation.

Actually he's completely painted into a corner. Into two corners you might say.

In this corner we have Rump suing or threatening to sue over an NDA that, as you just noted, doesn't even have his name on it. That means he has no standing to sue.

And in that corner you have him claiming that the fling never happened, which if that were true, would completely remove any reason for a payoff to keep quiet about some event that never happened. And if it did happen, triggering the payoff, then he admits he's a liar. Which he also does by suing under the NDA.

It's a veritable pretzel factory.

I agree that it makes him look like a jackass, but I don't see anything becoming of it legally. Everybody with half a brain cell knows it happened.

Once AGAIN --- "it happened" is still irrelevant. What has legs here is the word salad he's tossed himself into, and how the hell he's gonna get out of it.

Hate to be the one to break this but the real story here has nothing to do with sex.

 

[yiostheoy]

Some background. Personally I think it would be more surprising for a fella like Trump to have NOT played around than to have. FDR died with his mistress alongside if I recall and Bill Clinton, well, he would have been fun to party with I suppose. So the only real point of this for me is to use it as a yardstick/check for hypocrisy in folks who ridicule B. Clinton, JFK or whoever for their promiscuity.

That said, did you all find "Stormy" to appear credible in the interview? It is the least goofy she has ever seemed to me. Maybe the background skepticism I brought in from the Kimmel interview where I found her to be goofy bled over?

I was waiting for her to say, "I can describe his genitals to you and an independent investigator can verify".

Threatening her is the only thing which would bother me. That relies totally on how much I believe Stormy. Remembering the gals in my life she reminds me of, I'm not ready to hang someone on her word.

The facts of the payoff lend more credence to her claim than she does. Not that it is high treason but the details given of the $130,000 payoff seem to warrant the slap on the wrist rich people get in these cases.

Just wondering what the scuttlebut is on this one.

He said, she said.

He said he didn't.

She said he did.

 

[Toronado3800]

Any proof other than a whores word?

Ey, is that signature allowed in the CDZ?

 

[Toronado3800]

I hope Trump had fun motorboating that set of boobs. I know I would.

It is hypocritical for Liberals to say anything about Trump's sex life after giving Bill Clinton a pass on being a sexual predator and having sex with a young intern in the White House and then lying about it. Then the Liberals voted for his wife who attacked the women that exposed Bill Clinton being a sexual predator.

Yeah, like I said, voting for Trump just proved there was no "moral" in the "minority".

Not that I care if Trump dies next to his mistress as long as he leads the country well. Just loving that pretenders can't make fun of B. Clinton anymore w/o making fun of Trump unless they are a hypocrite or cheerleader.

 

[Flash]

I hope Trump had fun motorboating that set of boobs. I know I would.

It is hypocritical for Liberals to say anything about Trump's sex life after giving Bill Clinton a pass on being a sexual predator and having sex with a young intern in the White House and then lying about it. Then the Liberals voted for his wife who attacked the women that exposed Bill Clinton being a sexual predator.

Yeah, like I said, voting for Trump just proved there was no "moral" in the "minority".

Not that I care if Trump dies next to his mistress as long as he leads the country well. Just loving that pretenders can't make fun of B. Clinton anymore w/o making fun of Trump unless they are a hypocrite or cheerleader.

Newsflash - Billionaire gets some hot nookie!

There was no rape like with Bill Clinton.

There was getting blowjobs in the White House like with Bill Clinton.

There was no lying to a judge about it like there was with Bill Clinton.

There was no looking the American people in the eye and lying to them like it was with Bill Clinton.

There was no Hillary Clinton demeaning and attacking the women that exposed the sexual attacks.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Some background. Personally I think it would be more surprising for a fella like Trump to have NOT played around than to have. FDR died with his mistress alongside if I recall and Bill Clinton, well, he would have been fun to party with I suppose. So the only real point of this for me is to use it as a yardstick/check for hypocrisy in folks who ridicule B. Clinton, JFK or whoever for their promiscuity.

That said, did you all find "Stormy" to appear credible in the interview? It is the least goofy she has ever seemed to me. Maybe the background skepticism I brought in from the Kimmel interview where I found her to be goofy bled over?

I was waiting for her to say, "I can describe his genitals to you and an independent investigator can verify".

Threatening her is the only thing which would bother me. That relies totally on how much I believe Stormy. Remembering the gals in my life she reminds me of, I'm not ready to hang someone on her word.

The facts of the payoff lend more credence to her claim than she does. Not that it is high treason but the details given of the $130,000 payoff seem to warrant the slap on the wrist rich people get in these cases.

Just wondering what the scuttlebut is on this one.

From your description, it's not clear to me whether the "Stormy" matter captures your interest for its "palace intrigue" aspect, the threats of bodily harm aspect, or merely that she was paid to keep quiet.

I was waiting for her to say, "I can describe his genitals to you and an independent investigator can verify".

Well, she did say that. It didn't end up in the 60 Minutes version of the interview, but there's a part called "60 Minutes Afterhours" in which she says exactly that." It appeared on CNN's re-broadcast of the interview during today's AC360 program.

In the "afterhours" discussion segment, Daniels mentions porn parodies she was asked to do with a Trump look-alike in them. These offers apparently were made between 2006 and 2016. Her narrative on why she opted not to do them seems a bit odd to me.

Another thing mentioned on AC360 is that Trump asked WH staffers whether they believed Daniels. We don't know what was their reply. What I don't get is why he'd ask that. They already work for him. Odds are, like many Trumpkins, they don't care about any of it, if for no other reason than that they didn't adulterate themselves with Daniels.

Threatening her is the only thing which would bother me.

I believe she was threatened in the parking lot. I need more details about the "make your life very difficult" threat to form a conclusion about it.

Just wondering what the scuttlebut is on this one.

The scuttlebutt in my my world is over (main topics of discussion emboldened):

• The federal election law violations that may be associated with the $130K payment in kind that went undeclared by the Trump campaign.
  • There's no question that the claim that Trump didn't know about the NDA and wasn't a party to the NDA is looking like a spurious claim. Because it is looking that way, the question is whether the payment was made to benefit Trump's campaign. If it was, and it sure looks like it was, there is a federal election law violation that was committed, in which case the next question is whether Cohen or Trump (thus his campaign) committed it. If Cohen did, he'll get disbarred. If Trump did, I can't say what'll happen.
    • Some dude has been asserting that "DD" (Trump) was an optional party to the contract. I don't buy that at all. I've never seen or signed a contract in which there is a named optional party. I've seen described optional signers, but not ones named in pre-printed typeface in the contract ones.
  • The notion that Stormy contacted Cohen, claimed that she and Trump had a tryst, Cohen disbelieved her and Trump said it didn't happen, yet Cohen or anyone connected with Trump paid the woman $130K all the same is preposterous. Yet that is, in essence, what Cohen's attorney is claiming happened. (And, yes, in this matter, Trump's attorney, Cohen, has an attorney representing him. Cohen, in this matter.)
• Ms. Daniels having for all intents and purposes told her story and defended herself on national television. That's what she described as her reason for bringing the matter to court. What else does she want? Presumably, a Trump deposition, which is probably the only thing Trump (his lawyers) doesn't want.
  
• What did Daniels' lawyer (in Oct. 2016) say regarding her signing the NDA? Did he advise her to sign it or not sign it? Why? As of mid-Oct. 2016, Daniels could have gotten "major coin" for telling her story, regardless of whether Trump won or lost the election.
• Will the case be handled in arbitration or in federal/state court?

There is no scuttlebutt in my circles about the rest of her circumstances.

• Trump availed himself of Ms. Daniels' favors to cheat on his wife and his mistress. That's morally turpitudinous to the point that I find it impeachable, but clearly the GOP Congress does not.
• Ms. Daniels says she took the money because she felt coerced. People as rich and powerful as Trump do indeed have significant and varied ways to be coercive. Nobody in my world thinks, based on what's been made public, that legally there's anywhere for that go.
• Mr. Avenati is achieving his client's goal: he's getting her story out. He's trying the case in the "court of public opinion." To what end? I don't know. I don't even think I care. Theirs is a civil case. Neither he nor she is pressing the federal election law or any other criminal aspect of the matter.
• Anything else....

 

[usmbguest5318]

You know, as go most Trumpkins, I think they see the Daniels and other extramarital affairs Trump has had as being parts of a "conspiracy theory" designed by some "secret society," of sorts.

I heard one Trumpkin effectively say that absent a photo that she could be sure wasn't photoshopped/fabricated, she wasn't going to believe that Trump cheated on his wife. I thought, "Does that nitwith think that people get naked with their paramours and take a photo with their driver's licence or passport clearly legible?" She's one of those people who see everything, except "her guy's stuff" as a political "conspiracy."

 

[deanrd]

Apparently, Stormy donated to Trump's "spank" account.

 

[usmbguest5318]

One other thing I think about the Daniels-Trump matter is that there's something about it that's a bigger "bombshell" than is election violations or sex/adultery.

I think some part of the matter is connected to the "Russians." My guess is it may be one of several things the Russians knew about and held over Trump's head to obtain his fawng deference to Putin/Russia. The operative word in my mind being not "collusion" but "coercion."

Donald Trump has never not been a philanderer, but there are plenty of Trump sagas that he has covered up using NDAs. My guess is that Russians hacked into some repository that has the details of some of them, the Daniels matter being but one, and somehow "leaked" the info to the WSJ and NYT as a way to prove to Trump just what types of "dirt" they have and how easily they can get it released into the public sphere.

I think that because, well, for as much as Daniels wants to tell her story, where the hell was she in the fall of 2016? Where was she for all of 2017? Her "double Ds" didn't burst onto the public scene until 2018. What was going on in the world between January 2018 and March 2018 and that pertained to Russia and that Trump might have had to resist pressure to at least disregard if not embrace? I don't know, but I think something was. Was it merely the Russian election? Maybe? Was it something only USIC people know about? Maybe? Was it the assassinations in the UK? Maybe. Might it have something to do with the Facebook-Cambridge A. controversy/data? Maybe. Obviously I can't and won't "hang my hat" on any of this....It's just what I feel in my gut.

Daniels strikes me as too much of a nincompoop to have timed her arrival to use it now rather than much earlier, but not so much of one that -- having the types of proof her lawyer has alluded to her having (had), for the incontrovertible defense against a libel suit is truth; quite simply, it ain't libel if one is telling the truth -- she didn't realize she could have written a book about the affair at any point in 2016 and made millions, not $130K, from it.

Now, Trump is curiously silent about Daniels and McDougal, for that matter. The only things and people whom Trump doesn't berate, belittle, insult, etc. are Putin, Russia, and stuff pertaining to either. Nobody else -- not "little" people and not "big" people -- escapes his tweeted vitriol.

 

[Picaro]

Typical fake news tabloid crap, no substance, just innuendo, pretty much standard for all MS media and its infantile deviant fan base of Democrats who haven't managed to find anything of substance to smear Trump with for two years plus now. They have nothing to lose any more, shot their cred to pieces from the get go re the primaries, so why not run around making big noises over some stripper with no cred as well? lol

Anybody still running around babbling about 'Russian collusion' and why Trump is 'curiously silent' re some idiotic BS or other the Hillary cultists make up daily is truly mentally ill and sick.

 

[Picaro]

From what little I heard about it on the radio this morning I'm glad I ignored it.

I thought of watching it, but figured I'd wait an hour, and read the highlights in the news. Let me give you the gist of it. Trump cheated on his wife. I know. It's shocking, right?

Nobody gives a shit about that. It's what went down in October of 2016 that's relevant.

Did she go into any detail about that?

I can't remember what she said about the hush money, but nothing is going to become of that either way. Trump isn't a dummy. His name isn't on the NDA, and Cohen claims he made the payment out of his own pocket. Trump is completely insulated from the situation.

Actually he's completely painted into a corner. Into two corners you might say.

In this corner we have Rump suing or threatening to sue over an NDA that, as you just noted, doesn't even have his name on it. That means he has no standing to sue.

And in that corner you have him claiming that the fling never happened, which if that were true, would completely remove any reason for a payoff to keep quiet about some event that never happened. And if it did happen, triggering the payoff, then he admits he's a liar. Which he also does by suing under the NDA.

It's a veritable pretzel factory.

I agree that it makes him look like a jackass, but I don't see anything becoming of it legally. Everybody with half a brain cell knows it happened.

No argument there, but those with full brain cells just ignore what those with half a brain cell think is real news.

Clue: Hookers aren't credible, especially dope addled ones.

 

[MarathonMike]

Didn't watch it. I have seen pictures of her and her ridiculous inflato-boobs though. I see that her porn days are over so she appears to be drumming up some new income streams.

 

[Pete7469]

From what little I heard about it on the radio this morning I'm glad I ignored it.

What program / station?

Just the local news radio station. 590 KLBJ from Austin Todd and Don show.

 

[Pete7469]

I thought of watching it, but figured I'd wait an hour, and read the highlights in the news. Let me give you the gist of it. Trump cheated on his wife. I know. It's shocking, right?

Assuming one will believe the whore, which I'm skeptical of.

Personally at this point I only give a fraction of a fuck. The democrooks have absolutely no business pretending to hold ethical standards or a moral compass. They have protected their own perverts and KILLERS from justice and kept them in offices of power. They've even built a statue of a crackhead in DC.

Either way I'm not a Trump sycophant. I remain delighted he beat hitlery, and if all he does is prevent the democrooks from implementing any more asinine gun laws and increases border security I'm fine with him. He does not share a lot of my beliefs and I'm OK with that also.

 

[Mac1958]

I didn't see it, but I can't imagine it changed anyone's mind on the guy one way or the other.

 

[rightwinger]

Stormy came off well, articulate and well thought out responses
Trump offered her a spot on The Apprentice if she fucked him
Stormy spanked him and he was a good boy afterwards
Trump did not wear a condom
Trump said she reminded him of Ivanka

 

[pismoe]

i didn't see it , i wouldn't waste my time . But as regards SHE the slut . A person can't avoid seeing on the tv what she looks like and she ain't any big deal as far as looks go , imo .