• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump trial updates

He won't admit it in public because he needs people like you to continue to believe in him.
hush-money payments are normally a good way to tell when someone is guilty of doing something.
NDA's don't indicate guilt in any way. They indicate, at most, a desire to settle a disagreement civilly instead of criminally. In the case of Trump and Daniels, Trump could have sued her for defamation but the cost of litigating that matter would have been roughly the same or more than the NDA cost AND, even if he won the defamation case, his likelihood of getting anything out of her would be minimal. That's where slimeballs like Cohen, Avenatti and Davidson make their money.
 
She says yes. Trump says no. She gives all sorts of detailed information that boosts her credibility. It’s not sufficient in and of itself, I suppose, but when added to what preceded and what may follow, i.e., Cohen, it can nail the case. But let’s see what the defense has to offer.
The details she provided were absurd. Some of the stuff, Trump inviting her to dinner, for example, may have actually happened but beyond that it all sounded rather contrived. Finding Old Spice in Trump's toiletries bag, for example, sounds more than a little fishy. The "no condom" stuff, likewise, makes no sense ass Trump is a renowned germophobe.
 
Cohen took a plea. He did so, presumably, because accepting the campaign charge got him a sweatheart deal on the tax charges that were the real crime. Since he took a plea the state never needed to prove the campaign charge but now, for pure propaganda purposes, bandies that plea about as a "conviction", as if a jury listened to the facts and then decided.

Are people that stupid that they really don't understand the ramifications for the above?
 
The details she provided were absurd. Some of the stuff, Trump inviting her to dinner, for example, may have actually happened but beyond that it all sounded rather contrived. Finding Old Spice in Trump's toiletries bag, for example, sounds more than a little fishy. The "no condom" stuff, likewise, makes no sense ass Trump is a renowned germophobe.

That whore is a lying sack of shit.
 
You're really hung up on that. Trump, whether he hit that cow or not, isn't being charged with ANYTHING related to what she testified to yesterday. As I said, the ONLY reason to put her on the stand was to slime Trump and give all the NeverTrumpers something to rub one out to in their free time. The good thing for Trump is that herr testimony was so ****ing shady as to throw the integrity of the whole case into question....unless you're one of those people so busy rubbing one out to "Yeah, his hit that shit" that you miss EVERYTHING else.
The totality of the circumstances, do you understand how it works? You are willfully ignorant to facts you dislike.
 
Not contesting payment and the NDA? Did he agree that he paid Daniels (or reimbursed someone who paid) in order to obtain the NDA from Daniels?
The prosecution alleges he intentional fudged the business records to hide the payment he made to keep her quiet about the tryst.
Defense says no. Ok, then why did he pay?

Who knows? Who cares? It has no bearing on the case.
Is someone more likely to hide a payment to a third party if it's known they had an affair with that person and want to keep it quiet?

Mr. Trump does not contest there was an NDA and that he paid her mney to keep her quiet.
Whether the two had a tryst...?
It doesnt matter.
Undoubtedly. And that makes her testimony relevant without question. No rationale jurist looking at it would say otherwise.
 
That whore is a lying sack of shit.
Based on the Davidson testimony, I have a sneaking suspicion that she bragged to someone about hooking up with Trump back in 2006, probably a lie to enhance her career. The story then went public in 2011 and, not wanting to get sued, she went to Davidson to get it taken down. Later, when Trump decided to run, she probably got talked in to pumping it out again to see if she could make a few bucks. Doesn't make much sense to be a whore if you're not gonna get paid!
 
Based on the Davidson testimony, I have a sneaking suspicion that she bragged to someone about hooking up with Trump back in 2006, probably a lie to enhance her career. The story then went public in 2011 and, not wanting to get sued, she went to Davidson to get it taken down. Later, when Trump decided to run, she probably got talked in to pumping it out again to see if she could make a few bucks. Doesn't make much sense to be a whore if you're not gonna get paid!

Exactly!
I just don't see him screwing a skank like her.
 
Seriously?
Yeah, seriously. Trump has a rather obvious thing for models but more the beauty pageant type of model than the "slip me a 5 spot and I'll show you my tits" kind of model.
 
Yeah, seriously. Trump has a rather obvious thing for models but more the beauty pageant type of model than the "slip me a 5 spot and I'll show you my tits" kind of model.
Haha my lord
 
Yeah, the other guy said there was no interference. I replied that there was interference.

Ask the other guy why he insists there was no interference. I was just batting balls.

Trump? All elections. All contests and golf games. Trump lives to cheat.

Ask the other guy. I'm just batting balls.
apologies
failed to 'read' the intended sarcasm
 
He won't admit it in public because he needs people like you to continue to believe in him.
hush-money payments are normally a good way to tell when someone is guilty of doing something.
then how does one explain away the $30,000 payment to the doorman who was pushing the story that tRump fathered an illegitimate child?
 
The details she provided were absurd. Some of the stuff, Trump inviting her to dinner, for example, may have actually happened but beyond that it all sounded rather contrived. Finding Old Spice in Trump's toiletries bag, for example, sounds more than a little fishy. The "no condom" stuff, likewise, makes no sense ass Trump is a renowned germophobe.
Go ahead, keep on defending a politician who is perhaps the most indefensible in modern times. What does it take to convince his supporters that he is a low life crook and abuser of women? Would yo go into business with him? Introduce him to your sister? Twenty-five women have accused him of a variety of sexual assault, and he has been found guilty once by a jury. He bragged about ***** grabbing women on camera.

Look at his record dating back to his stiffing suppliers, the absurd birtherism about Obama, his university and foundation… Need I go on to talk about his repeated claims that every election that disappointed him was rigged? Do you buy that stuff?

Any other republican would do the same pro-business stuff, be less regulatory than democrats about the environment, might even support torture as Trump does. Support them. Why back this loser?
 
Last edited:
then how does one explain away the $30,000 payment to the doorman who was pushing the story that tRump fathered an illegitimate child?
Yea, just as history has shown the world, Trump loves to spend money on everything. You got it.
 
Exactly!
I just don't see him screwing a skank like her.
Yea, cuz' when you think of guys who set high standards, Trump comes to mind.
And what a great defense: she's too ugly for me to have been interested in.
Certainly didn't work in his E Jean Carrol case particularly after he picked her out of a photograph identifying her as his 2nd wife Marla Maples.
 
She looks at Trump with love in her eyes
Weird thing, ain't it. I suspect there is some interesting psychology involved in becoming a MAGA.
 
Back
Top Bottom