Uh, Do Liberals Realize that the Stormy Daniels-Donald Trump Incident Happened 12 Years Ago?

[basquebromance]

"John F Kennedy was a scumbag with women. Bill Clinton was a scumbag with women. Hillary Clinton allowed him to be a scumbag with women. Donald Trump was a scumbag with women. This list is longer btw. I don't care about a President's personal/sex life. I care about his policies" - Eloquent Joe Walsh

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

For Perjury you have to be found “lying under oath” dumbass. When did Trump take that oath before speaking on the subject? See, this is why you are just throwing out claims and subject matter, when you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.

SO you are saying that it's okay for Trump to lie to us if it isn't under oath?

Is this what you are claiming?

Joe, first you don’t know what are the conditions of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors”, you throw in obstruction because it “sounds good” without providing supportive facts behind THAT one, now you are making accusations surrounding a payment that’s not conclusive and solid where those finances came from. Hell, Hillary “lied” about classified emails that PROVED to be inaccurate and untrue.. but lying is only an issue for you regarding Trump. So where is HER account of lying before Congress during an investigation? Get your facts straight next time before you post.

 

[sealybobo]

Actually no. It specifically refers to those who have taken “an oath of office” and those who attained an official government status position. It’s very clear. Are you really THAT unclear between what is termed as a “government office” from those which are categorized as a private sector position?

If Trump paid Stormy Daniels to influence the election and didn't report it, he broke the law... period.

I'm sorry you can't get this simple concept.

Sorry joe that I have to educate you in these matters of High Crimes and Misdemeanors. The facts are the democrats are desperate to now prove a case of campaign contributions of a billionaire, who spent a lot less than Hillary did in running for office. They have to have clear documented evidence of intentionally using campaign funds, there is none, which is why Mullier is resorting to a set of questions. If there was clear evidence, Trump’s participation in a set of questions would not be warranted.

Try harder Joe, if you were that knowledgeable you would not respond as you did in your last post. Instead I just have to shake my head and laugh.

We already have a case. If we didn’t this would be over. We are still in the discovery phases. More evidence is good.

Trump could end this by testifying tomorrow

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Actually no. It specifically refers to those who have taken “an oath of office” and those who attained an official government status position. It’s very clear. Are you really THAT unclear between what is termed as a “government office” from those which are categorized as a private sector position?

If Trump paid Stormy Daniels to influence the election and didn't report it, he broke the law... period.

I'm sorry you can't get this simple concept.

Sorry joe that I have to educate you in these matters of High Crimes and Misdemeanors. The facts are the democrats are desperate to now prove a case of campaign contributions of a billionaire, who spent a lot less than Hillary did in running for office. They have to have clear documented evidence of intentionally using campaign funds, there is none, which is why Mullier is resorting to a set of questions. If there was clear evidence, Trump’s participation in a set of questions would not be warranted.

Try harder Joe, if you were that knowledgeable you would not respond as you did in your last post. Instead I just have to shake my head and laugh.

We already have a case. If we didn’t this would be over. We are still in the discovery phases. More evidence is good.

Trump could end this by testifying tomorrow

Which case? How Russia and Trump conspired together to effect an election? No pursuit there to convict. Obstruction by firing Comey? That’s right, Rosenstein who initiated the process to begin special council Mueller’s Investigation over the firing of James Comey, had IN FACT recommended that firing himself and passed that recommendation along to Trump. Is it the adulterous affair with Stormy Daniels prior to Trump serving political office? That does not qualify under the interpretation and definition of “High Crimes” as he was a private citizen not a politician who has taken “an oath” for a government position earning a taxpayer salary. If it’s campaign contributions, that has to be clearly proven, as well as it does not appear to be under the clear definition and conditions of impeachment given for High Crimes and Misdemeanors”.

The best liberals and Mueller can hope for is perjury which, if Trump is not by legal definition “a Target”, is not under legal obligation to testify to satisfy an investigation. No crime has been clearly established through evidence against Trump, which goes with Mueller’s own words in not labeling President Trump as the “Target” of this or any investigation. Trump would only be legally considered as a witness to an event, and not the central focus of the investigation. A witness is what you hope to obtain, but is not KEY to your Investigation if you are not legally “the target” of one. This also plays into the legal issue between Trump and Mullier, to force through subpoena a sitting president who has not been found to be connected to any crime. Mullier would have to provide evidence to the contrary and put his cards on the table.

All that aside, the leaking of information to the press surrounding what they find through documents obtained in the raid against Cohen’s Office, shows the lack of any real credibility with this investigation. What does Sean Hannity have to do with Russia Collusion, or the release of details surrounding Trump’s encounter with Stormy Daniels? This adds to the proof this is more “opposition research” than any real serious collusion investigation. Mullier’s credibility and effort will be more tarnished the more they leak, so keep it up if you want to lose your clear cut legal position of impeachment.

 

[hadit]

For Perjury you have to be found “lying under oath” dumbass. When did Trump take that oath before speaking on the subject? See, this is why you are just throwing out claims and subject matter, when you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.

SO you are saying that it's okay for Trump to lie to us if it isn't under oath?

Is this what you are claiming?

It's fairly obvious that you can't convict someone of perjury because of things they said while not under oath. Now you're moving the goal posts.

Unfortunately, I see the pattern. First, make an outrageous statement like, "if he says this, it's perjury". Then, when shown there's really no way to know that, fall back on something like, "it's okay then that Trump lies to you".

It's true, there really is no difference between the extremes, because you see the same tactics on both sides, and neither seems to realize they're reflecting the other.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Looking at the continual stream of liberal threads on the Stormy Daniels scandal, one wonders if liberals realize that Daniels' alleged hookup with Trump supposedly occurred in 2006, 12 years ago, and that Cohen's payoff to her occurred in 2016, 10 years after the alleged encounter and long before Donald Trump even ran for president?

So? The issue is not when he cheated on his wife, or that he did so when she had just given birth to his son (and allegedly had unprotected sex with an adult film actor). The issue is why or if he had knowledge of the $130,000 deal a month before the election, and if that deal violated the law.

Once Trump testifies under oath, or even if he takes the 5th, is fat ass is cooked. Expect him to not listen to others and to react emotionally - and of course never consider the consequences when he fires Mueller.

The reaction will be fast and furious, if not in The Congress, but in the voting booths across the nation. Even Red States will see the light and vote for change. I doubt the majority of voters will double down on a loser.

 

[hadit]

Looking at the continual stream of liberal threads on the Stormy Daniels scandal, one wonders if liberals realize that Daniels' alleged hookup with Trump supposedly occurred in 2006, 12 years ago, and that Cohen's payoff to her occurred in 2016, 10 years after the alleged encounter and long before Donald Trump even ran for president?

So? The issue is not when he cheated on his wife, or that he did so when she had just given birth to his son (and allegedly had unprotected sex with an adult film actor). The issue is why or if he had knowledge of the $130,000 deal a month before the election, and if that deal violated the law.

Once Trump testifies under oath, or even if he takes the 5th, is fat ass is cooked. Expect him to not listen to others and to react emotionally - and of course never consider the consequences when he fires Mueller.

The reaction will be fast and furious, if not in The Congress, but in the voting booths across the nation. Even Red States will see the light and vote for change. I doubt the majority of voters will double down on a loser.

So it is as all about politics and achieving through scandal what failed at the ballot.

 

[sealybobo]

Actually no. It specifically refers to those who have taken “an oath of office” and those who attained an official government status position. It’s very clear. Are you really THAT unclear between what is termed as a “government office” from those which are categorized as a private sector position?

If Trump paid Stormy Daniels to influence the election and didn't report it, he broke the law... period.

I'm sorry you can't get this simple concept.

Sorry joe that I have to educate you in these matters of High Crimes and Misdemeanors. The facts are the democrats are desperate to now prove a case of campaign contributions of a billionaire, who spent a lot less than Hillary did in running for office. They have to have clear documented evidence of intentionally using campaign funds, there is none, which is why Mullier is resorting to a set of questions. If there was clear evidence, Trump’s participation in a set of questions would not be warranted.

Try harder Joe, if you were that knowledgeable you would not respond as you did in your last post. Instead I just have to shake my head and laugh.

We already have a case. If we didn’t this would be over. We are still in the discovery phases. More evidence is good.

Trump could end this by testifying tomorrow

Which case? How Russia and Trump conspired together to effect an election? No pursuit there to convict. Obstruction by firing Comey? That’s right, Rosenstein who initiated the process to begin special council Mueller’s Investigation over the firing of James Comey, had IN FACT recommended that firing himself and passed that recommendation along to Trump. Is it the adulterous affair with Stormy Daniels prior to Trump serving political office? That does not qualify under the interpretation and definition of “High Crimes” as he was a private citizen not a politician who has taken “an oath” for a government position earning a taxpayer salary. If it’s campaign contributions, that has to be clearly proven, as well as it does not appear to be under the clear definition and conditions of impeachment given for High Crimes and Misdemeanors”.

The best liberals and Mueller can hope for is perjury which, if Trump is not by legal definition “a Target”, is not under legal obligation to testify to satisfy an investigation. No crime has been clearly established through evidence against Trump, which goes with Mueller’s own words in not labeling President Trump as the “Target” of this or any investigation. Trump would only be legally considered as a witness to an event, and not the central focus of the investigation. A witness is what you hope to obtain, but is not KEY to your Investigation if you are not legally “the target” of one. This also plays into the legal issue between Trump and Mullier, to force through subpoena a sitting president who has not been found to be connected to any crime. Mullier would have to provide evidence to the contrary and put his cards on the table.

All that aside, the leaking of information to the press surrounding what they find through documents obtained in the raid against Cohen’s Office, shows the lack of any real credibility with this investigation. What does Sean Hannity have to do with Russia Collusion, or the release of details surrounding Trump’s encounter with Stormy Daniels? This adds to the proof this is more “opposition research” than any real serious collusion investigation. Mullier’s credibility and effort will be more tarnished the more they leak, so keep it up if you want to lose your clear cut legal position of impeachment.

Is this Rudy?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Actually no. It specifically refers to those who have taken “an oath of office” and those who attained an official government status position. It’s very clear. Are you really THAT unclear between what is termed as a “government office” from those which are categorized as a private sector position?

If Trump paid Stormy Daniels to influence the election and didn't report it, he broke the law... period.

I'm sorry you can't get this simple concept.

Sorry joe that I have to educate you in these matters of High Crimes and Misdemeanors. The facts are the democrats are desperate to now prove a case of campaign contributions of a billionaire, who spent a lot less than Hillary did in running for office. They have to have clear documented evidence of intentionally using campaign funds, there is none, which is why Mullier is resorting to a set of questions. If there was clear evidence, Trump’s participation in a set of questions would not be warranted.

Try harder Joe, if you were that knowledgeable you would not respond as you did in your last post. Instead I just have to shake my head and laugh.

We already have a case. If we didn’t this would be over. We are still in the discovery phases. More evidence is good.

Trump could end this by testifying tomorrow

Which case? How Russia and Trump conspired together to effect an election? No pursuit there to convict. Obstruction by firing Comey? That’s right, Rosenstein who initiated the process to begin special council Mueller’s Investigation over the firing of James Comey, had IN FACT recommended that firing himself and passed that recommendation along to Trump. Is it the adulterous affair with Stormy Daniels prior to Trump serving political office? That does not qualify under the interpretation and definition of “High Crimes” as he was a private citizen not a politician who has taken “an oath” for a government position earning a taxpayer salary. If it’s campaign contributions, that has to be clearly proven, as well as it does not appear to be under the clear definition and conditions of impeachment given for High Crimes and Misdemeanors”.

The best liberals and Mueller can hope for is perjury which, if Trump is not by legal definition “a Target”, is not under legal obligation to testify to satisfy an investigation. No crime has been clearly established through evidence against Trump, which goes with Mueller’s own words in not labeling President Trump as the “Target” of this or any investigation. Trump would only be legally considered as a witness to an event, and not the central focus of the investigation. A witness is what you hope to obtain, but is not KEY to your Investigation if you are not legally “the target” of one. This also plays into the legal issue between Trump and Mullier, to force through subpoena a sitting president who has not been found to be connected to any crime. Mullier would have to provide evidence to the contrary and put his cards on the table.

All that aside, the leaking of information to the press surrounding what they find through documents obtained in the raid against Cohen’s Office, shows the lack of any real credibility with this investigation. What does Sean Hannity have to do with Russia Collusion, or the release of details surrounding Trump’s encounter with Stormy Daniels? This adds to the proof this is more “opposition research” than any real serious collusion investigation. Mullier’s credibility and effort will be more tarnished the more they leak, so keep it up if you want to lose your clear cut legal position of impeachment.

Is this Rudy?

It’s called stating the facts from doing research on the subject. If you care to do any of your own research to try and dispute what I provided, give it your best shot.

 

[WEATHER53]

It's a fact so no they can't accept it
Instead they meander down the feelungs spectrum

 

[ph3iron]

Looking at the continual stream of liberal threads on the Stormy Daniels scandal, one wonders if liberals realize that Daniels' alleged hookup with Trump supposedly occurred in 2006, 12 years ago, and that Cohen's payoff to her occurred in 2016, 10 years after the alleged encounter and long before Donald Trump even ran for president?

But the money q was 2 weeks before the election
Looked up the def of liberal yet?
No Latin in college?
Helps if you know the meaning of the words you regurgitate

 

[sealybobo]

If Trump paid Stormy Daniels to influence the election and didn't report it, he broke the law... period.

I'm sorry you can't get this simple concept.

Sorry joe that I have to educate you in these matters of High Crimes and Misdemeanors. The facts are the democrats are desperate to now prove a case of campaign contributions of a billionaire, who spent a lot less than Hillary did in running for office. They have to have clear documented evidence of intentionally using campaign funds, there is none, which is why Mullier is resorting to a set of questions. If there was clear evidence, Trump’s participation in a set of questions would not be warranted.

Try harder Joe, if you were that knowledgeable you would not respond as you did in your last post. Instead I just have to shake my head and laugh.

We already have a case. If we didn’t this would be over. We are still in the discovery phases. More evidence is good.

Trump could end this by testifying tomorrow

Which case? How Russia and Trump conspired together to effect an election? No pursuit there to convict. Obstruction by firing Comey? That’s right, Rosenstein who initiated the process to begin special council Mueller’s Investigation over the firing of James Comey, had IN FACT recommended that firing himself and passed that recommendation along to Trump. Is it the adulterous affair with Stormy Daniels prior to Trump serving political office? That does not qualify under the interpretation and definition of “High Crimes” as he was a private citizen not a politician who has taken “an oath” for a government position earning a taxpayer salary. If it’s campaign contributions, that has to be clearly proven, as well as it does not appear to be under the clear definition and conditions of impeachment given for High Crimes and Misdemeanors”.

The best liberals and Mueller can hope for is perjury which, if Trump is not by legal definition “a Target”, is not under legal obligation to testify to satisfy an investigation. No crime has been clearly established through evidence against Trump, which goes with Mueller’s own words in not labeling President Trump as the “Target” of this or any investigation. Trump would only be legally considered as a witness to an event, and not the central focus of the investigation. A witness is what you hope to obtain, but is not KEY to your Investigation if you are not legally “the target” of one. This also plays into the legal issue between Trump and Mullier, to force through subpoena a sitting president who has not been found to be connected to any crime. Mullier would have to provide evidence to the contrary and put his cards on the table.

All that aside, the leaking of information to the press surrounding what they find through documents obtained in the raid against Cohen’s Office, shows the lack of any real credibility with this investigation. What does Sean Hannity have to do with Russia Collusion, or the release of details surrounding Trump’s encounter with Stormy Daniels? This adds to the proof this is more “opposition research” than any real serious collusion investigation. Mullier’s credibility and effort will be more tarnished the more they leak, so keep it up if you want to lose your clear cut legal position of impeachment.

Is this Rudy?

It’s called stating the facts from doing research on the subject. If you care to do any of your own research to try and dispute what I provided, give it your best shot.

Weren’t you a birthed?

 

[bodecea]

Odd, the woman on the left, the one time she was under oath said Clinton DID NOT rape her.

 

[Rustic]

Looking at the continual stream of liberal threads on the Stormy Daniels scandal, one wonders if liberals realize that Daniels' alleged hookup with Trump supposedly occurred in 2006, 12 years ago, and that Cohen's payoff to her occurred in 2016, 10 years after the alleged encounter and long before Donald Trump even ran for president?

Bribery happened less than 2 years ago. No one really cares about the sex and perversions. Bribery is what counts.

Says a Clinton supporter... lol

 

[Rustic]

Doesn't matter. This country has sunk so low that nothing is too absurd that we can't go full drama queen over it.

Like a birth certificate.

It's just an ongoing food fight, like in elementary school.
.

I know, Stupid John McCain did not realize he did not qualify to run for president because he was not born here...

 

[Rustic]

Looking at the continual stream of liberal threads on the Stormy Daniels scandal, one wonders if liberals realize that Daniels' alleged hookup with Trump supposedly occurred in 2006, 12 years ago, and that Cohen's payoff to her occurred in 2016, 10 years after the alleged encounter and long before Donald Trump even ran for president?

The payoff is the problem, not him ******* a porn star. The payoff took place in the heart of the campaign


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

And still he did not do anything while in office… Unlike slick Willy. Quit your bitching

 

[Manonthestreet]

Odd, the woman on the left, the one time she was under oath said Clinton DID NOT rape her.

even if she did it doesn't matter according to new feminist rules consent can be revoked yrs after the incident.......try to keep up

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Looking at the continual stream of liberal threads on the Stormy Daniels scandal, one wonders if liberals realize that Daniels' alleged hookup with Trump supposedly occurred in 2006, 12 years ago, and that Cohen's payoff to her occurred in 2016, 10 years after the alleged encounter and long before Donald Trump even ran for president?

The establishment is getting desperate,the Russia collusion story failed which is why you dont hear any of that anymore so they are grasping at straws trying to invent a NEW one to try and get him impeached but they keep failing every single time.

 

[Rustic]

Odd, the woman on the left, the one time she was under oath said Clinton DID NOT rape her.

Yes he did, among many, many others. Slick Willy and his Hildabeast enabler molested and raped many children and run a sex trafficking ring...
We all can tell you have slick Willy on the mind…

 

[Rustic]

Looking at the continual stream of liberal threads on the Stormy Daniels scandal, one wonders if liberals realize that Daniels' alleged hookup with Trump supposedly occurred in 2006, 12 years ago, and that Cohen's payoff to her occurred in 2016, 10 years after the alleged encounter and long before Donald Trump even ran for president?

So why did Crooked Donnie have to pay her off two years ago?

Irrelevant, he was not an office at the time… Unlike slick Willy