Stormy Weather (Trump & Women)

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Tue Apr 17, 2018 1:19 pm

I was really hoping it would be a sketch of Rando Hatton.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Tue Apr 17, 2018 10:38 pm

Unagi wrote: ↑Mon Apr 16, 2018 11:57 pm
stimpy wrote: ↑Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:03 pm I'd bet that this feels very familiar to her....

FTFY

I love the look on Melania's face. She looks amused

pr0ner · Post by **pr0ner** » Wed Apr 18, 2018 9:08 am

This tweet seems extraordinarily wise coming from Donald J. Trump. Apparently some "deplorable" ID'd the person who threatened Stormy Daniels as her ex, and Trump bleats about the Fake News media.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Wed Apr 18, 2018 10:44 am

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Wed Apr 18, 2018 11:56 am

Well, I'm convinced. Maybe Drumpf is a good guy after all.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Fri Apr 20, 2018 2:44 pm

Popehat on the Stormy Daniels - Cohen stay hearing today.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Wed Apr 25, 2018 7:06 pm

El Guapo wrote: ↑Fri Apr 20, 2018 2:44 pm Popehat on the Stormy Daniels - Cohen stay hearing today.

Cohen taking the fifth.

geezer · Post by **geezer** » Wed Apr 25, 2018 8:58 pm

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Wed Apr 25, 2018 7:06 pm
El Guapo wrote: ↑Fri Apr 20, 2018 2:44 pm Popehat on the Stormy Daniels - Cohen stay hearing today.
Cohen taking the fifth.

I want Trump humiliated and gone as much as the next guy, but isn’t this exactly NOT how it’s supposed to work?

"The fact finder -- whether it be a jury or a judge -- can find what is called a negative inference and what that means is that you can presume that if the witness answered the question instead of invoking his Fifth Amendment right that the answer would incriminate him that it would not be positive for him or her and that's a very serious matter," Avenatti said on CNN's "Erin Burnett OutFront."

Ænima · Post by **Ænima** » Wed Apr 25, 2018 9:04 pm

geezer wrote: ↑Wed Apr 25, 2018 8:58 pm
Pyperkub wrote: ↑Wed Apr 25, 2018 7:06 pm
El Guapo wrote: ↑Fri Apr 20, 2018 2:44 pm Popehat on the Stormy Daniels - Cohen stay hearing today.
Cohen taking the fifth.
I want Trump humiliated and gone as much as the next guy, but isn’t this exactly NOT how it’s supposed to work?

"The fact finder -- whether it be a jury or a judge -- can find what is called a negative inference and what that means is that you can presume that if the witness answered the question instead of invoking his Fifth Amendment right that the answer would incriminate him that it would not be positive for him or her and that's a very serious matter," Avenatti said on CNN's "Erin Burnett OutFront."

My understanding is taking the fifth would protect him in his criminal case, but in the civil case with Daniels, he'd basically be unable to defend himself.

geezer · Post by **geezer** » Wed Apr 25, 2018 9:25 pm

That may be,legally speaking - I don’t know. What I meant is that from a philosophical and historical perspective I find Avenatti’s comment chilling. It’s sort of the equivalent of “if you have nothing to hide, why do you mind if we search your house?”

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:48 pm

geezer wrote: ↑Wed Apr 25, 2018 9:25 pm That may be,legally speaking - I don’t know. What I meant is that from a philosophical and historical perspective I find Avenatti’s comment chilling. It’s sort of the equivalent of “if you have nothing to hide, why do you mind if we search your house?”

The 5th protects you from the government; not from your fellow citizen.

Ralph-Wiggum · Post by **Ralph-Wiggum** » Thu Apr 26, 2018 10:27 am

Who had April 26 in the pool for when Trump would use the "barely know him" excuse for Cohen?

President Trump acknowledged on Thursday that his longtime attorney Michael Cohen had "represented" him in what he called the "crazy" deal in which Cohen paid $130,000 to buy the silence of a pornographic actress just before the 2016 election.

Trump's comments in an interview with Fox and Friends were the first time he has conceded his connection to Cohen's deal with Stormy Daniels, who says she had a sexual encounter with Trump in 2006, after Trump's marriage and the birth of his youngest son.

Previously, Trump has denied any relationship with Daniels and he told reporters he wasn't aware that Cohen paid Daniels....

But Trump on Thursday downplayed his relationship with Cohen, saying the attorney barely represented him. Cohen, Trump said, is mostly a businessman and federal investigators are looking at that aspect of his life, not his legal work that might be connected to Trump.

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Thu Apr 26, 2018 10:33 am

geezer wrote: ↑Wed Apr 25, 2018 9:25 pm That may be,legally speaking - I don’t know. What I meant is that from a philosophical and historical perspective I find Avenatti’s comment chilling. It’s sort of the equivalent of “if you have nothing to hide, why do you mind if we search your house?”

Because there's always a tweet, why don't we ask someone wise for perspective on this matter?

pr0ner · Post by **pr0ner** » Thu Apr 26, 2018 10:47 am

This didn't take long.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Thu Apr 26, 2018 11:08 am

pr0ner wrote:This didn't take long.

Poor impulse control.

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Thu Apr 26, 2018 11:12 am

I don't know - If I were Cohen's lawyers I would point out that a "tiny, tiny fraction" of Trump's legal work is a mountain for a normal person.

Ralph-Wiggum · Post by **Ralph-Wiggum** » Thu Apr 26, 2018 3:40 pm

Not that it would make a difference to his supporters if this were true, but...

The lawyer for porn actress Stormy Daniels suggested that a $1.6 million hush money payoff to a Playboy model was actually made on behalf of President Donald Trump — and not a Republican donor.

Attorney Michael Avenatti appeared Thursday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” where he gave a wide-ranging interview on the lawsuit against the president and a related criminal investigation of Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen — and he said reporting on the case had missed an important detail.

“So, Mika, you are familiar with the fact that a week ago, Judge (Kimba) Wood ordered Michael Cohen’s attorneys to disclose all of his clients for the last three years,” Avenatti said, “and there were three clients listed — three clients listed. Do you recall which three?”

Brzezinski listed Trump, Fox News host Sean Hannity and Republican donor Elliott Broidy — but Avenatti said she was making the same mistake everyone else had.

“No, no, no,” he said. “Mr. Trump, the Trump organization and Sean Hannity. Mr. Broidy was not disclosed in open court as one of Michael Cohen’s clients.”

Co-host Joe Scarborough asked the attorney what that meant.

“I think at some point we are going to find out, if in fact, the client in connection with the ($1.6 million) settlement was, in fact, Mr. Broidy. I’m going to leave it at that.”

Fitzy · Post by **Fitzy** » Thu Apr 26, 2018 5:53 pm

That might make a difference, given the gossip that the money was paid to cover an abortion.

Unagi · Post by **Unagi** » Thu Apr 26, 2018 6:27 pm

Why would Broidy take the fall though? Thought it was a given it was him.

I also don't think Cohen listed the first two clients as Trump and the Trump Campaign, as he is saying is the bases.... But, I do think Avenatti knows things we don't and can't speak of them directly....
so, who knows...

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Thu Apr 26, 2018 7:03 pm

I have to assume that Trump has paid for a number of abortions in his time. Didn't he used to hint as much to Howard Stern?

As much as I don't want to picture any of this more than I have to, didn't Stormy D suggest that Trump didn't use a condom?

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Thu Apr 26, 2018 7:08 pm

Unagi wrote: ↑Thu Apr 26, 2018 6:27 pm Why would Broidy take the fall though?

To try and hide the fact that the RNC used laundered money provided by the Russians to pay for the abortion of GOP nominated candidate's mistress. Instead, when the pressure is on Broidy steps forward and claims he paid for it on his own hoping that that people would believe it and never suspect he was running a smoke screen for Trump.

Totally crazy, but sure, let's go with that one. Because in this timeline, it makes perfect sense.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Thu Apr 26, 2018 7:29 pm

Holman wrote: ↑Thu Apr 26, 2018 7:03 pm I have to assume that Trump has paid for a number of abortions in his time. Didn't he used to hint as much to Howard Stern?

As much as I don't want to picture any of this more than I have to, didn't Stormy D suggest that Trump didn't use a condom?

She's appearing at a "gentlemen's" club in town on Saturday. You could come ask her.

Or not.

"If Stormy was going to do interviews they would NEVER take place in a strip club," her manager, Gina Rodriguez, wrote in an email Wednesday, days after she said her client is going to tell her story.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Thu Apr 26, 2018 7:57 pm

Holman wrote: ↑Thu Apr 26, 2018 7:03 pm I have to assume that Trump has paid for a number of abortions in his time. Didn't he used to hint as much to Howard Stern?

As much as I don't want to picture any of this more than I have to, didn't Stormy D suggest that Trump didn't use a condom?

Sounds like you guys should be applauding him. He is obviously pro-abortion.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Thu Apr 26, 2018 8:32 pm

Sounds like you should be condemning him. He is obviously pro-abortion.

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Thu Apr 26, 2018 8:34 pm

Can we all just agree that he's obviously pro-hypocrisy?

tjg_marantz · Post by **tjg_marantz** » Thu Apr 26, 2018 9:14 pm

Max Peck wrote:Can we all just agree that he's obviously pro-hypocrisy?

Who are we talking about?

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Thu Apr 26, 2018 9:26 pm

https://giphy.com/gifs/sUNqplVFtsctW

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Thu Apr 26, 2018 10:40 pm

tjg_marantz wrote: ↑Thu Apr 26, 2018 9:14 pm
Max Peck wrote:Can we all just agree that he's obviously pro-hypocrisy?
Who are we talking about?

Trump, of course.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Fri Apr 27, 2018 2:36 am

hepcat wrote: ↑Thu Apr 26, 2018 8:32 pm Sounds like you should be condemning him. He is obviously pro-abortion.

I am not against permitting abortion. I'm a little l libertarian. I don't believe in many personal decision restrictions at all. I would even legalize suicide/euthanasia.

That said I personally think it is abhorrent, wouldn't do it and would attempt to persuade anyone else not to. But in the end it is their decision.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Fri Apr 27, 2018 7:11 am

That may very well be my favorite equivocation post from you yet.

Unagi · Post by **Unagi** » Fri Apr 27, 2018 12:03 pm

Rip wrote: ↑Fri Apr 27, 2018 2:36 am
hepcat wrote: ↑Thu Apr 26, 2018 8:32 pm Sounds like you should be condemning him. He is obviously pro-abortion.
I am not against permitting abortion. I'm a little l libertarian. I don't believe in many personal decision restrictions at all. I would even legalize suicide/euthanasia.

That said I personally think it is abhorrent, wouldn't do it and would attempt to persuade anyone else not to. But in the end it is their decision.

Really? Under every circumstance - you would find it abhorrent if the woman decided to abort her pregnancy? I imagine every single time you had sex you were fully committed to the child it may have produced, is that also the case?

The phrase 'pro-abortion' is obnoxious, but you know that.

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Fri Apr 27, 2018 12:16 pm

Unagi wrote: ↑Fri Apr 27, 2018 12:03 pm Really? Under every circumstance - you would find it abhorrent if the woman decided to abort her pregnancy? I imagine every single time you had sex you were fully committed to the child it may have produced, is that also the case?

Rip never made the claim "under every circumstance."

Every single time I have had sex, I was fully committed to the child it may have produced.

The phrase 'pro-abortion' is obnoxious, but you know that.

Why? If there's nothing wrong with abortion, why is it obnoxious?

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Fri Apr 27, 2018 12:21 pm

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Fri Apr 27, 2018 12:16 pmWhy? If there's nothing wrong with abortion, why is it obnoxious?

Similar to calling 2A folks 'pro murder toy ownership.' One can be 'in favor' of abortion rights and not think highly of the act of abortion itself.

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Fri Apr 27, 2018 12:22 pm

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Fri Apr 27, 2018 12:21 pm
noxiousdog wrote: ↑Fri Apr 27, 2018 12:16 pmWhy? If there's nothing wrong with abortion, why is it obnoxious?
Similar to calling 2A folks 'pro murder toy ownership.' One can be 'in favor' of abortion rights and not think highly of the act of abortion itself.

Sure, but then why question his feelings about it being abhorrent?

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Fri Apr 27, 2018 12:23 pm

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Fri Apr 27, 2018 12:22 pm Sure, but then why question his feelings about it being abhorrent?

I didn't.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Fri Apr 27, 2018 12:32 pm

Unagi wrote: ↑Fri Apr 27, 2018 12:03 pm
Rip wrote: ↑Fri Apr 27, 2018 2:36 am
hepcat wrote: ↑Thu Apr 26, 2018 8:32 pm Sounds like you should be condemning him. He is obviously pro-abortion.
I am not against permitting abortion. I'm a little l libertarian. I don't believe in many personal decision restrictions at all. I would even legalize suicide/euthanasia.

That said I personally think it is abhorrent, wouldn't do it and would attempt to persuade anyone else not to. But in the end it is their decision.
Really? Under every circumstance - you would find it abhorrent if the woman decided to abort her pregnancy? I imagine every single time you had sex you were fully committed to the child it may have produced, is that also the case?

The phrase 'pro-abortion' is obnoxious, but you know that.

Side note, I also find the choice of abortion to be repugnant but hold desire of legal entitlements and I would take suicide/euthanasia one step further. I don't understand why we are so generally mortified against it. "I would even" to me sound like he sees that as being the more offensive action and for the life of me I can't see the problem with letting someone in torment find peace and yet we hold this view as so shameful that I'm afraid to bring it up when people OUTRAGE over the selfishness of the actions.

Unagi · Post by **Unagi** » Fri Apr 27, 2018 1:06 pm

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Fri Apr 27, 2018 12:16 pm
The phrase 'pro-abortion' is obnoxious, but you know that.
Why? If there's nothing wrong with abortion, why is it obnoxious?

Because it implies that people who support a woman's choice actually want/like/enjoy abortions. It's a subtle use of words that implies pro-choice advocates feel that abortion doesn't suck. That's why.

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Fri Apr 27, 2018 1:52 pm

Rip wrote: ↑Fri Apr 27, 2018 2:36 am
hepcat wrote: ↑Thu Apr 26, 2018 8:32 pm Sounds like you should be condemning him. He is obviously pro-abortion.
I am not against permitting abortion. I'm a little l libertarian. I don't believe in many personal decision restrictions at all. I would even legalize suicide/euthanasia.

That said I personally think it is abhorrent, wouldn't do it and would attempt to persuade anyone else not to. But in the end it is their decision.

Oh, so you're pro-abortion.

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Fri Apr 27, 2018 1:57 pm

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Fri Apr 27, 2018 12:16 pm Why? If there's nothing wrong with abortion, why is it obnoxious?

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Fri Apr 27, 2018 2:05 pm

Unagi wrote: ↑Fri Apr 27, 2018 12:03 pm
Rip wrote: ↑Fri Apr 27, 2018 2:36 am
hepcat wrote: ↑Thu Apr 26, 2018 8:32 pm Sounds like you should be condemning him. He is obviously pro-abortion.
I am not against permitting abortion. I'm a little l libertarian. I don't believe in many personal decision restrictions at all. I would even legalize suicide/euthanasia.

That said I personally think it is abhorrent, wouldn't do it and would attempt to persuade anyone else not to. But in the end it is their decision.
Really? Under every circumstance - you would find it abhorrent if the woman decided to abort her pregnancy? I imagine every single time you had sex you were fully committed to the child it may have produced, is that also the case?

The phrase 'pro-abortion' is obnoxious, but you know that.

Absolutely. I would never turn from a child. I would suggest the woman look into adoption. I have and still do raise/help raise many kids that aren't even mine.

So much for all the "think of the kids" rhetoric.