goldfish21
Veteran
Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
30 Mar 2018, 10:36 pm
EzraS wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
EzraS wrote:
How did you not hear that in the interview?
I haven't watched it, that's how.
So you don't know what you're talking about then.
No, no, I'm very certain that $130K in illegal campaign contributions intended to influence the outcome of the election is in fact political.
_________________
No
for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.
30 Mar 2018, 11:03 pm
goldfish21
Veteran
Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
30 Mar 2018, 11:24 pm
EzraS wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
EzraS wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
EzraS wrote:
How did you not hear that in the interview?
I haven't watched it, that's how.
So you don't know what you're talking about then.
No, no, I'm very certain that $130K in illegal campaign contributions intended to influence the outcome of the election is in fact political.
What does that have to do with your rebuttal to me saying, it seems obvious the whole thing is politically motivated, after hearing Daniels lawyer emphatically denying it was politically motivated? I mean my comment was based on the 60 Minutes interview this thread is about. So how can you rebut what I have to say regarding it, when you didn't even watch it?
What rebuttal?
I said I think it's politically motivated. It doesn't get more political than illegal political campaign contributions intended to influence the outcome of a democratic election.
_________________
No
for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.31 Mar 2018, 12:58 am
goldfish21 wrote:
EzraS wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
EzraS wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
EzraS wrote:
How did you not hear that in the interview?
I haven't watched it, that's how.
So you don't know what you're talking about then.
No, no, I'm very certain that $130K in illegal campaign contributions intended to influence the outcome of the election is in fact political.
What does that have to do with your rebuttal to me saying, it seems obvious the whole thing is politically motivated, after hearing Daniels lawyer emphatically denying it was politically motivated? I mean my comment was based on the 60 Minutes interview this thread is about. So how can you rebut what I have to say regarding it, when you didn't even watch it?
What rebuttal?
I said I think it's politically motivated. It doesn't get more political than illegal political campaign contributions intended to influence the outcome of a democratic election.I said it looks politically motivated on Daniels and Avenatti's end of things, that's what the OP is about, that's what Sara Connell's tweet I posted that under is about. You said they've been transparent about that from the beginning. However that's not the case since Avenatti said it's not politically motivated on their end.
goldfish21
Veteran
Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
31 Mar 2018, 2:23 am
EzraS wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
EzraS wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
EzraS wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
EzraS wrote:
How did you not hear that in the interview?
I haven't watched it, that's how.
So you don't know what you're talking about then.
No, no, I'm very certain that $130K in illegal campaign contributions intended to influence the outcome of the election is in fact political.
What does that have to do with your rebuttal to me saying, it seems obvious the whole thing is politically motivated, after hearing Daniels lawyer emphatically denying it was politically motivated? I mean my comment was based on the 60 Minutes interview this thread is about. So how can you rebut what I have to say regarding it, when you didn't even watch it?
What rebuttal?
I said I think it's politically motivated. It doesn't get more political than illegal political campaign contributions intended to influence the outcome of a democratic election.I said it looks politically motivated on Daniels and Avenatti's end of things, that's what the OP is about, that's what Sara Connell's tweet I posted that under is about. You said they've been transparent about that from the beginning. However that's not the case since Avenatti said it's not politically motivated on their end.
And that's the first I'd heard of anyone from their camp saying it's not politically motivated. What do they claim their motivation is? Trying to keep Stormy Daniels in the spotlight for a few more minutes? Justice?
I haven't seen the interview & never will. I doubt their motivation is anything more than wanting to bring Trump down for being a piece of s**t President & human being in general. Those would be plenty enough motive for me if I were her.
_________________
No
for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.31 Mar 2018, 3:21 am
goldfish21 wrote:
EzraS wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
EzraS wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
EzraS wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
EzraS wrote:
How did you not hear that in the interview?
I haven't watched it, that's how.
So you don't know what you're talking about then.
No, no, I'm very certain that $130K in illegal campaign contributions intended to influence the outcome of the election is in fact political.
What does that have to do with your rebuttal to me saying, it seems obvious the whole thing is politically motivated, after hearing Daniels lawyer emphatically denying it was politically motivated? I mean my comment was based on the 60 Minutes interview this thread is about. So how can you rebut what I have to say regarding it, when you didn't even watch it?
What rebuttal?
I said I think it's politically motivated. It doesn't get more political than illegal political campaign contributions intended to influence the outcome of a democratic election.I said it looks politically motivated on Daniels and Avenatti's end of things, that's what the OP is about, that's what Sara Connell's tweet I posted that under is about. You said they've been transparent about that from the beginning. However that's not the case since Avenatti said it's not politically motivated on their end.
And that's the first I'd heard of anyone from their camp saying it's not politically motivated. What do they claim their motivation is? Trying to keep Stormy Daniels in the spotlight for a few more minutes? Justice?
I haven't seen the interview & never will. I doubt their motivation is anything more than wanting to bring Trump down for being a piece of s**t President & human being in general. Those would be plenty enough motive for me if I were her.
Justice for Stormy is basically the angle. Probably if a judge decides they're not being honest about that, there won't be a case.
goldfish21
Veteran
Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
31 Mar 2018, 3:23 am
EzraS wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
EzraS wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
EzraS wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
EzraS wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
EzraS wrote:
How did you not hear that in the interview?
I haven't watched it, that's how.
So you don't know what you're talking about then.
No, no, I'm very certain that $130K in illegal campaign contributions intended to influence the outcome of the election is in fact political.
What does that have to do with your rebuttal to me saying, it seems obvious the whole thing is politically motivated, after hearing Daniels lawyer emphatically denying it was politically motivated? I mean my comment was based on the 60 Minutes interview this thread is about. So how can you rebut what I have to say regarding it, when you didn't even watch it?
What rebuttal?
I said I think it's politically motivated. It doesn't get more political than illegal political campaign contributions intended to influence the outcome of a democratic election.I said it looks politically motivated on Daniels and Avenatti's end of things, that's what the OP is about, that's what Sara Connell's tweet I posted that under is about. You said they've been transparent about that from the beginning. However that's not the case since Avenatti said it's not politically motivated on their end.
And that's the first I'd heard of anyone from their camp saying it's not politically motivated. What do they claim their motivation is? Trying to keep Stormy Daniels in the spotlight for a few more minutes? Justice?
I haven't seen the interview & never will. I doubt their motivation is anything more than wanting to bring Trump down for being a piece of s**t President & human being in general. Those would be plenty enough motive for me if I were her.
Justice for Stormy is basically the angle. Probably if a judge decides they're not being honest about that, there won't be a case.
I wonder why she couldn't have just said "Justice for the American people. This money changed the outcome of the election and that's not right."? Now she may have just ruined her chances of ruining him.
_________________
No
for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.31 Mar 2018, 3:37 am
goldfish21 wrote:
EzraS wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
EzraS wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
EzraS wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
EzraS wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
EzraS wrote:
How did you not hear that in the interview?
I haven't watched it, that's how.
So you don't know what you're talking about then.
No, no, I'm very certain that $130K in illegal campaign contributions intended to influence the outcome of the election is in fact political.
What does that have to do with your rebuttal to me saying, it seems obvious the whole thing is politically motivated, after hearing Daniels lawyer emphatically denying it was politically motivated? I mean my comment was based on the 60 Minutes interview this thread is about. So how can you rebut what I have to say regarding it, when you didn't even watch it?
What rebuttal?
I said I think it's politically motivated. It doesn't get more political than illegal political campaign contributions intended to influence the outcome of a democratic election.I said it looks politically motivated on Daniels and Avenatti's end of things, that's what the OP is about, that's what Sara Connell's tweet I posted that under is about. You said they've been transparent about that from the beginning. However that's not the case since Avenatti said it's not politically motivated on their end.
And that's the first I'd heard of anyone from their camp saying it's not politically motivated. What do they claim their motivation is? Trying to keep Stormy Daniels in the spotlight for a few more minutes? Justice?
I haven't seen the interview & never will. I doubt their motivation is anything more than wanting to bring Trump down for being a piece of s**t President & human being in general. Those would be plenty enough motive for me if I were her.
Justice for Stormy is basically the angle. Probably if a judge decides they're not being honest about that, there won't be a case.
I wonder why she couldn't have just said "Justice for the American people. This money changed the outcome of the election and that's not right."? Now she may have just ruined her chances of ruining him.
I don't think they can pursue the hush money angle on their end since she broke the agreement so she's in breach of contract. Plus she signed a statement denying anything took place.
goldfish21
Veteran
Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
31 Mar 2018, 3:57 am
Why can't she pursue the hush money thing? Isn't the agreement null & void since DJT didn't sign it and denies being DD?
So, is she now saying that she signed that January 10th statement under duress?
_________________
No
for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.31 Mar 2018, 5:05 am
01 Apr 2018, 4:53 am
01 Apr 2018, 6:31 am
