I confess to back pedaling into Trump territory when I wanted to leave discussions about him in the garbage can. My thread on the read-only break room site has 9,600 replies so I thought I'd bring up a new one.
He's not going away.
Haberman's book is out based on interviews. I won't read it, but the excerpts are interesting. Especially what he says about McConnell, a description that's against the Terms of Service here, but I actually don't disagree with. LOL
Quote
“At one point, Trump made a candid admission that was as jarring as it was ultimately unsurprising. ‘The question I get asked more than any other question: “If you had it to do again, would you have done it?”’Trump said of running for president. ‘The answer is, yeah, I think so. Because here’s the way I look at it. I have so many rich friends and nobody knows who they are.’ … Reflecting on the meaning of having been president of the United States, his first impulse was not to mention public service, or what he felt he’d accomplished, only that it appeared to be a vehicle for fame, and that many experiences were only worth having if someone else envied them.”
I wonder how Ivanka liked hearing that her 60 year old dad compared the adult film actress to her as he was trying to convince her to have sex with him. This stuff is weird.
Is that what the porn actress said? She is a credible person to you?
I offered up a plausible (perhaps even credible) explanation as to why. Apparently you scrolled past the quotes and didn't read the linked material. It's normal then, to question the intention behind the question.
Earlier, you referred to this current trial as a "hush money" case. First you mischaracterized the case and then projected some ignorance of the case onto me when the mischaracterization was questioned. As you are aware, we're discussing Trump and his legal troubles here and Trump is especially good at spreading lies and misinformation. That means that it is entirely possible that you or any Trump voter might actually believe that this trial is about a hush money payment or another Trump sexual misbehavior.
Why do you suppose the prosecution called Stormy Daniels as a witness? It doesn't seem that it's Trump's team that is spreading the lies or misinformation. Or that they are the side making the case about hush money and sex, does it?
I'm eagerly awaiting another fascinating and plausible explanation.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
Why do you suppose the prosecution called Stormy Daniels as a witness? It doesn't seem that it's Trump's team that is spreading the lies or misinformation. Or that they are the side making the case about hush money and sex, does it?
I'm eagerly awaiting another fascinating and plausible explanation.
Maybe they called her because Trump denied even having a sexual encounter with her. Her testimony had to be embarrassing Trump's family and friends to listen to.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
The testimony of the Trump assistant who brought business related documents to Trump for his signature was interesting. It sure does seem to highlight how Trump melded his private business interests with presidential duties.
Maybe they called her because Trump denied even having a sexual encounter with her. Her testimony had to be embarrassing Trump's family and friends to listen to.
As you said, this case has nothing to do with hush money or a sexual encounter.
You said that me and other Trump voters would be the only ones who would believe that.
You almost got to the real reason she was called to testify. That is, it was to embarras him. Not so much to friends and family, but to the voters.
Sounds like a weaponization of the legal system to influence an election, doesn't it?
" May 7 (Reuters) - Donald Trump's trial in Florida on charges of illegally keeping classified documents after leaving office has been indefinitely postponed, a judge decided on Tuesday, greatly reducing the odds he will face a jury in either of the two federal criminal cases against him before the Nov. 5 U.S. election."
As you said, this case has nothing to do with hush money or a sexual encounter.
You said that me and other Trump voters would be the only ones who would believe that.
You almost got to the real reason she was called to testify. That is, it was to embarras him. Not so much to friends and family, but to the voters.
Sounds like a weaponization of the legal system to influence an election, doesn't it?
Did you find her testimony to be credible?
Right. I'm sure the democrats will find her self admission of hating Trump and open admission that she will not pay the court ordered money she owes Trump credible some how.... especially with the terrible accusation of getting spanked with a magazine by a washout out porn star!! Loool 😆
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
As you said, this case has nothing to do with hush money or a sexual encounter.
You said that me and other Trump voters would be the only ones who would believe that.
You almost got to the real reason she was called to testify. That is, it was to embarras him. Not so much to friends and family, but to the voters.
Sounds like a weaponization of the legal system to influence an election, doesn't it?
Did you find her testimony to be credible?
Quite right. It was likely an excuse to embarrass Trump after the defense attorney's opening statement flat out denied the sex. That opened the door for the prosecution to bring her as a witness. It's debatable as to whether her testimony helped the fraud case, but it certainly seemed to be a mistake for the defense open the door in their open.
No, I would say that it sounds like bread and butter legal tactics in high profile cases. The prosecution put her on the list of potential witnesses. They didn't really have any reason to call her other than to counter that lie about the sex. I think she was bait, intentional or not. The defense couldn't help but include that denial in the opening statement because Trump likely required it.
Why don't you tell me what you thought about her testimony? She certainly is not a fan of Trump. Probably most women wouldn't appreciate having an older man, who happens to be POTUS, calling her HORSEFACE while denying the sexual encounter that he arranged years before.
I know that I don't find much about Trump's story to be credible.
" May 7 (Reuters) - Donald Trump's trial in Florida on charges of illegally keeping classified documents after leaving office has been indefinitely postponed, a judge decided on Tuesday, greatly reducing the odds he will face a jury in either of the two federal criminal cases against him before the Nov. 5 U.S. election."
The American people are watching this inexperienced judge in Florida delay an important case of huge significance. The evidence against Trump in this case is nearly open and shut. The question is whether the judge is a partisan actor or incompetent or a combination.
Keeping information about Trump out of the public eye while he claims victimhood is a feature of Trumpian politics. He started out with the Enquirer and now he has a judge or two helping him.
Be careful what you wish for in the quest to make some Americans cry.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Crusades said:
Right. I'm sure the democrats will find her self admission of hating Trump and open admission that she will not pay the court ordered money she owes Trump credible some how.... especially with the terrible accusation of getting spanked with a magazine by a washout out porn star!! Loool 😆
None of that really matters in the fraud charges. She added lots of color about the encounter that night. The defense never should have denied that "dinner date" and they should have been more careful in their cross and objections.
Her testimony probably didn't help the prosecution but it may have hurt Trump with the jury.
I downloaded and read her testimony. The pdf is too big to share here. You could read it and decide for yourself.
Quite right. It was likely an excuse to embarrass Trump after the defense attorney's opening statement flat out denied the sex. That opened the door for the prosecution to bring her as a witness. It's debatable as to whether her testimony helped the fraud case, but it certainly seemed to be a mistake for the defense open the door in their open.
No, I would say that it sounds like bread and butter legal tactics in high profile cases. The prosecution put her on the list of potential witnesses. They didn't really have any reason to call her other than to counter that lie about the sex. I think she was bait, intentional or not. The defense couldn't help but include that denial in the opening statement because Trump likely required it.
Why don't you tell me what you thought about her testimony? She certainly is not a fan of Trump. Probably most women wouldn't appreciate having an older man, who happens to be POTUS, calling her HORSEFACE while denying the sexual encounter that he arranged years before.
I know that I don't find much about Trump's story to be credible.
Hmmmmm? I wonder? She also said it was consensual but "blacked out" for the sex part. So she doesn't even know herself. He denies it She admits she hates him and on the stand, openly declared she was not going to comply with court order award she owes Trump. So she proved right there she is not credible.
Totally credibility in the toilet. Expect the part where she found it necessary to share that she "spanked him with a magazine" . She can't remember sex but she can remember the spanking. Pleeease
Beerman, BSN
4,428 Posts
Is that what the porn actress said? She is a credible person to you?