*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10549
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10180 on: March 23, 2023, 07:44:24 PM »
It's possible that there is a conspiracy there, but it brings your first hand witness count from 1 to 0.

Rama Set

Re: Trump
« Reply #10181 on: March 23, 2023, 08:28:18 PM »
It took awhile for Lackey to realize Trump is a liar, but hey, we got there.

Although, it may be the case that Trump's announcement caused plans to indict him to change, or that Trump was simply mistaken.
Trump is a lifelong democrat.

Lifelong pals of the Clintons.

Dogs and ponies.

He was a democrat and isn't anymore.  Trump's affiliation is not idealogical though, he's a shill and it's easier to shill to the GOP base.

It's possible that there is a conspiracy there, but it brings your first hand witness count from 1 to 0.

The payments to Stormy Daniels are not in dispute.  They happened whether there was an affair or not.  The NY investigation (imagine having to specify which criminal investigation is being referred to lol) is in to whether or not the payment violated campaign finance law.

Of course, you know this and are trolling.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 15995
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10182 on: March 23, 2023, 08:31:23 PM »
Imagine unironically paying someone for the fact you didn't have sex with them.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8509
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10183 on: March 23, 2023, 08:35:59 PM »
Imagine unironically paying someone for the fact you didn't have sex with them.

It could be that she was lying with the intent of making it into the news and then getting paid.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10549
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10184 on: March 23, 2023, 09:55:43 PM »
Trump said that Stormy Daniels was trying to extort him.



"The agreement was used to stop the false and extortionist accusations made by her about an affair"

Not sure why a Porn Star is credible here.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2023, 10:44:35 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4149
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10185 on: March 23, 2023, 10:44:22 PM »
Trump said that Stormy Daniels was trying to extort him.

Of course he did.  ::)
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3274
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10186 on: March 23, 2023, 10:55:06 PM »
Is there something about being a porn star that indicates a lack of credibility? It's a perfectly honest profession. I'd argue that Daniels is far more credible than a notorious liar than Trump.

But again, this is all of very limited relevance given that Trump is facing charges over his payment to Daniels, not his alleged affair with her.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 15995
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10187 on: March 23, 2023, 11:21:59 PM »
I'd argue that Daniels is far more credible than a notorious liar than Trump.
Who's more credible? Daniels, who repeatedly said she didn't sleep with Trump, or Daniels, who repeatedly said she did sleep with Trump?

After all, she is very credible. So credible, in fact, that maybe both statements are true. Yes, that has to be it.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2023, 11:27:16 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Rama Set

Re: Trump
« Reply #10188 on: March 24, 2023, 12:08:57 AM »
I'd argue that Daniels is far more credible than a notorious liar than Trump.
Who's more credible? Daniels, who repeatedly said she didn't sleep with Trump, or Daniels, who repeatedly said she did sleep with Trump?

After all, she is very credible. So credible, in fact, that maybe both statements are true. Yes, that has to be it.

Regardless, it’s irrelevant to Trump’s legal woes. He did pay her money in a possibly illegal manner.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8509
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10189 on: March 24, 2023, 01:36:16 AM »
With everything that Trump supposedly did that was illegal, it feels like going after him for a campaign finance issue is grasping for illegal straws.

Rama Set

Re: Trump
« Reply #10190 on: March 24, 2023, 02:29:42 AM »
There are several investigations he is under.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10191 on: March 24, 2023, 03:38:37 AM »

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 15995
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10192 on: March 24, 2023, 08:16:27 AM »
Regardless, it’s irrelevant to Trump’s legal woes. He did pay her money in a possibly illegal manner.
Sure. I'm just responding to honk's bizarre suggestion that Daniels is more credible than Trump on this matter. I suspect she only is because honk personally dislikes Trump.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7536
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10193 on: March 24, 2023, 08:27:42 AM »
Regardless, it’s irrelevant to Trump’s legal woes. He did pay her money in a possibly illegal manner.
Sure. I'm just responding to honk's bizarre suggestion that Daniels is more credible than Trump on this matter. I suspect she only is because honk personally dislikes Trump.

Well that got me thinking.  Is she?

She lied about a single subject: the affair.  And we don't know which thing she said is the lie and which is the truth. But she has said the truth. 

Trump has lied.  Then he's doubled down on lies.  Then he made up a new chart to justify his lie. (One example). The man doesn't like saying the truth and often will simply double down on a lie, even if its easy to disprove, just to save face.


So on one hand we have SD who has lied and told the truth about one thing (that we know of) but we aren't sure which is true based only on her testemony.  We can infurr if we take Trump's payment into account.

On the other hand, we have Trump who will lie consistently and stick to it.  So by being a consistent liar, we can trust that he's likely lying when he presents information.


So I guess the question is: who is more trust worthy?  A liar who keeps lying, or a liar who also admits the truth without revealing which is which?
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2606
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10194 on: March 24, 2023, 08:28:40 AM »
...he's a shill and it's easier to shill to the GOP base.
All democrats are shills, of course.
It's possible that there is a conspiracy there, but it brings your first hand witness count from 1 to 0.

The payments to Stormy Daniels are not in dispute.  They happened whether there was an affair or not.  The NY investigation (imagine having to specify which criminal investigation is being referred to lol) is in to whether or not the payment violated campaign finance law.

Of course, you know this and are trolling.
Democrats do not get indicted for paying off women to keep silent.

A' la Trump's good buddy, Clinton...

Of course, you know this and are trolling.
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2606
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10195 on: March 24, 2023, 09:43:53 AM »
Has anyone bothered to check whether a county DA can prosecute a federal crime?
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6439
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10196 on: March 24, 2023, 10:07:31 AM »
Trump said
lol.

You doubt the credibility of a porn star but you're hanging your hat on Trump?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/24/trumps-false-or-misleading-claims-total-30573-over-four-years/

Again, I don't really know or care whether they had an affair. But I raise an eyebrow at him paying her if they didn't. If it was to make the whole thing go away then that's not worked out very well for him.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7536
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10197 on: March 24, 2023, 10:57:28 AM »
Has anyone bothered to check whether a county DA can prosecute a federal crime?

Unless there's more evidence we don't know about, that is exactly what the county DA is checking.  Its a lot of confusing nuances.  Hence why he hasn't been indited.

He may not be able to be indited in New York and this criminal case goes nowhere.  But Trump is playing it up like he's definitely going to be arrested.

If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10198 on: March 24, 2023, 11:30:13 AM »
...he's a shill and it's easier to shill to the GOP base.
All democrats are shills, of course.
It's possible that there is a conspiracy there, but it brings your first hand witness count from 1 to 0.

The payments to Stormy Daniels are not in dispute.  They happened whether there was an affair or not.  The NY investigation (imagine having to specify which criminal investigation is being referred to lol) is in to whether or not the payment violated campaign finance law.

Of course, you know this and are trolling.
Democrats do not get indicted for paying off women to keep silent.

A' la Trump's good buddy, Clinton...

Of course, you know this and are trolling.

It's not that he paid hush money. He could have just written her a personal check or handed her a bag full of money from under his mattress and that would have been that. It's far more complicated in regard to where the money came from and how it was recorded/claimed, so to speak. Basically all the stuff Cohen got a three year sentence for; campaign finance illegalities, tax stuff, etc. Here's the short version...

Bragg’s case reportedly alleges that the Trump Organization falsely logged the payment to Daniels as legal expenses so it wouldn’t have to be disclosed as money benefiting Trump’s presidential campaign. One specific charge would likely be falsification of business records, a misdemeanor offense in New York. But, per the Times, Bragg’s team has considered arguing that these business records were falsified to cover up another crime — which could mean Trump would be charged with a felony.

I have no idea what this "cover up another crime" is. I think that's what the grand jury stuff was about.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7536
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10199 on: March 24, 2023, 11:41:46 AM »
Legal Eagle has a good breakdown.

If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.