She also owes him a crap ton of money.Daniels went on a strip club tour called “make america horny again”?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
She also owes him a crap ton of money.Daniels went on a strip club tour called “make america horny again”?
Don’t overlook he’s not wearing pantsWe need to thread about this gif. That's amazing.
He also sides w/Rep on the border.That dirty politicized Biden DOJ is taking down a rare dem Texan:
Well, that's the thing. Typically, an actual crime happens and the LE types seek to obtain evidence of that crime. Sometimes they come across evidence of a crime and then charge accordingly. What they almost never do, unless the person in charge desires to seek a criminal charge against a particular individual for whatever reason (it doesn't have to be national politics), is take "evidence" of something, change the rules of the crime, and make that "crime" fit the square peg into a round hole. Look, I've acknowledged that he's a sleaze ball, but you are very naive if you think this very same prosecution would be happening if the R and the D were reversed.So they shouldn't indict him if they have evidence that he's guilty? If they can put a political hit on him, they will. Like I said, he's the one that chose to get in this ring. He's hardly some victim. He'll be fine, no matter what.
I was being facetious about the 10 and made that clear. But there are those who will swing (noir, don't get all excited) between R and D. They will determine the election (if all is fair and on the up and up). They can certainly be influenced by all of this. We'll have to wait and see how that all works out.You said yourself that there were only about 10 people that hadn't made up their minds who they were going to vote for. Both names will be on the ballot in november. So those 10 people I guess are going to make or break the whole election. I can't help it if you don't see that both of these parties are institutionalized screw jobs. If you're dumb enough to think one of them actually cares about you, that's not my fault.
So sometimes they do? Like in instances where the person is a repeat offender who keeps criming, so they're trying to protect Americans from that criminal?What they almost never do, unless the person in charge desires to seek a criminal charge against a particular individual for whatever reason (it doesn't have to be national politics), is take "evidence" of something, change the rules of the crime, and make that "crime" fit the square peg into a round hole.
See, here's that little problem with reality again. Thus far, all the evidence has actually indicated his innocence. You've got to actually pay attention to more than gifs. And you can rail all you want about Stormy, she has offered nothing towards an actual crime with which Trump is charged. No one disputes that Cohen paid her the 130K, the issue is from what, why, how it was accounted for, etc. Thus, it doesn't matter what the details are of the events in 2006. That's just the prosecution trying to smear him in front of the jury as if a really rich guy banging someone besides his wife is unusual. If that offends you in so deeply, you should probably stay away from the internet completely.You remind me of the mother on the courthouse steps screaming her son's innocence although all the evidence indicates his guilt. It's time to grow up and own it.
Oh wait,.... i know, i know..... you are going to say crime stats aren't believable, but then somehow, without stats, you claim crime is worse now.If only you liberals were as interested in violent crimes against regular ol citizens. Oh wait,...I know, I know...you're going to tell us how violent crime is down. We've seen that lie before.
Oh wait,.... i know, i know..... you are going to say crime stats aren't believable, but then somehow, without stats, you claim crime is worse now.
You can't illegally hide damaging info from voters. That's the big no-no.See, here's that little problem with reality again. Thus far, all the evidence has actually indicated his innocence. You've got to actually pay attention to more than gifs. And you can rail all you want about Stormy, she has offered nothing towards an actual crime with which Trump is charged. No one disputes that Cohen paid her the 130K, the issue is from what, why, how it was accounted for, etc. Thus, it doesn't matter what the details are of the events in 2006. That's just the prosecution trying to smear him in front of the jury as if a really rich guy banging someone besides his wife is unusual. If that offends you in so deeply, you should probably stay away from the internet completely.
Election/campaign laws are federal and handled by the FEC. When did a state DA acquire that ability? Maybe when the FEC decided there was no there there.You can't illegally hide damaging info from voters. That's the big no-no.
Is there evidence he did that? Well there is the hush-money, the catch & kill agreements with Pecker, is there fraudulent accounting here yet that breaks election/campaign oriented laws... TBD.
No, when the person in charge has a reason or even a personal issue with the individual. People have long memories and I'll give you an actual example.So sometimes they do? Like in instances where the person is a repeat offender who keeps criming, so they're trying to protect Americans from that criminal?
So sometimes they do? Like in instances where the person is a repeat offender who keeps criming, so they're trying to protect Americans from that criminal?
Aren't you rejecting evidence by holding on to this tiny snippet regarding crime stats that only apply to a small dataset from a particular point in time? Crime is down. https://apnews.com/article/crime-fbi-violence-murder-8f47df4e8cf1917e6d8032e19dc1b4c9
Aren't you rejecting evidence by holding on to this tiny snippet regarding crime stats that only apply to a small dataset from a particular point in time? Crime is down. https://apnews.com/article/crime-fbi-violence-murder-8f47df4e8cf1917e6d8032e19dc1b4c9
It is misinfo that repubs are somehow tougher on crime.
"You are a blind, misguided, bamboozled, gullible idiot, i hope you didn't really buy that bible, the shoes and those NFTs""It's not a lie if you believe it"
- George Costanza
"You are a blind, misguided, bamboozled, gullible idiot, i hope you didn't really buy that bible, the shoes and those NFTs"
- Mickey Mouse
Anyone that thinks trump didn’t pay Daniels to keep her story quiet to benefit his campaign is an orange kool aid guzzling idiot. I’m the first to admit so far that there’s not been any evidence presented to prove that beyond doubt mainly due to the lack of credibility in the people trump surrounded himself with but as @bluetoe says sometimes reading between theSee, here's that little problem with reality again. Thus far, all the evidence has actually indicated his innocence. You've got to actually pay attention to more than gifs. And you can rail all you want about Stormy, she has offered nothing towards an actual crime with which Trump is charged. No one disputes that Cohen paid her the 130K, the issue is from what, why, how it was accounted for, etc. Thus, it doesn't matter what the details are of the events in 2006. That's just the prosecution trying to smear him in front of the jury as if a really rich guy banging someone besides his wife is unusual. If that offends you in so deeply, you should probably stay away from the internet completely.
Except you are living in a bubble and only hearing what you want to hear because...TDS. The evidence was that he had done catch & kill, etc. before he'd ever run for president. There are other reasons that is done and it's perfectly legal. Rich people do it all the time. And that basic problem with the claimed evidence is before you even get to the legal argument wrangling involved.You can't illegally hide damaging info from voters. That's the big no-no.
Is there evidence he did that? Well there is the hush-money, the catch & kill agreements with Pecker, is there fraudulent accounting here yet that breaks election/campaign oriented laws... TBD.
Yeah, I guess those scads of business owners in blue states/cities aren't really experiencing more crime.
Trump has soiled and smeared himself more than any court can. Outside of some funny posts from @heelmanwilm i had no idea what Stormy has said... most Americans aren't really tuning into the details of the trial, just some headlines and the outcome. Also, if the charges are conspiracy, then there are going to be lots of pieces woven together.Except you are living in a bubble and only hearing what you want to hear because...TDS. The evidence was that he had done catch & kill, etc. before he'd ever run for president. There are other reasons that is done and it's perfectly legal. Rich people do it all the time. And that basic problem with the claimed evidence is before you even get to the legal argument wrangling involved.
Answer this. If it's so easy and clear that he violated "election/campaign oriented laws", why much it up with all this irrelevant testimony that could well lead to a mistrial and/or overturned conviction? Think of it this way. If Trump was drunk and ran over a person in a crosswalk while the light was red such that he got charged with vehicular manslaughter, at the trial, instead of just asking about how much he had to drink and the color of the light, why would the prosecution ask the porn star passenger to testify about how much Trump had paid her to have sex the week before? It has nothing to do with the crime charged and is only about smearing him. That's a basis for a new trial due to the prejudice it creates and completely unnecessary.
Per capita NYC is less dangerous than rural (RED) america https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...w-york-city-more-dangerous-than-rural-america - cuz poverty.
Generally looking across numbers:
Red state + blue city = higher crime rates
Blue state + blue city = lower crime rates
Red/Blue isn't what causes crime. Poverty is the source (Red states across the south have more poverty.). But you are too dumb to get that. Sucks for you.
Great, an opinion piece...Per capita NYC is less dangerous than rural (RED) america https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...w-york-city-more-dangerous-than-rural-america - cuz poverty.
Generally looking across numbers:
Red state + blue city = higher crime rates
Blue state + blue city = lower crime rates
Red/Blue isn't what causes crime. Poverty is the source (Red states across the south have more poverty.). But you are too dumb to get that. Sucks for you.
Chicago, Illinois is a great example for your BS.Per capita NYC is less dangerous than rural (RED) america https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...w-york-city-more-dangerous-than-rural-america - cuz poverty.
Generally looking across numbers:
Red state + blue city = higher crime rates
Blue state + blue city = lower crime rates
Red/Blue isn't what causes crime. Poverty is the source (Red states across the south have more poverty.). But you are too dumb to get that. Sucks for you.
please tell me where that is nowHe also sides w/Rep on the border.
It's the imaginary boundary between texas, new mexico, arizona , california and Mexico. It is suppose to distinguish us as a sovereign nation. Let me know if you need another geography lesson. I'm trained in biology but I know a little geography as well.please tell me where that is now
wait, someone once believed his bullshit?You seem bent that no one believes your bullshit anymore.
That's good because Trump is worried about himself, not at all worried about the rest of us... or any of us, for that matter.And, I agree that he will be fine. I am not at all worried about him. I am concerned for the rest of us.
wait, someone once believed his bullshit?
Not sure... we better ask Trump first.please tell me where that is now
FIFYI was speaking more about the liberals and their constant lies regarding crime, immigration and a plethora of other stuff. Yes, many believed it. But the tide has turned. Many plan to hold their nose and vote for Trump. And @blazers is obviously upset about it.
Something, something, chickens, roost, tik toc etc.
She prays?Ole Stormy is truly believable now, she says she can talk to dead people.
andwhy the f is Daniel’s even testifying. It’s totally irrelevant and does absolutely nothing to address the charge.
Are they painting a picture of conspiracy? If so, then it's a giant web of snippets of evidence that the prosecution is supposed to weave into a picture of conspiracy to use illegal book-cooking (and skirting campaign finance rules ) for the sake of hiding election-impacting-info from the public.If it's so easy and clear that he violated "election/campaign oriented laws", why much it up with all this irrelevant testimony that could well lead to a mistrial and/or overturned conviction?
"Hiding election-impacting info from the public", where have I heard that before?and
Are they painting a picture of conspiracy? If so, then it's a giant web of snippets of evidence that the prosecution is supposed to weave into a picture of conspiracy to use illegal book-cooking (and skirting campaign finance rules ) for the sake of hiding election-impacting-info from the public.
That's my guess, i haven't paid a ton of attn. I'm 99% sure that the "power that be" on the Dem side want Trump to run in Nov rather than anybody else. I'm not sure what the "powers that be" on the R side want, they aren't really a cohesive thing anymore and probably aren't sure what they want.