The Frankish Reich Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 1 hour ago, B-Man said: Again the irony of his statement goes right over his head. Anytime he is faced with a contrary view here, by an author way more educated about a subject than him, he is reduced to ridicule. ( I should have wrote "every time", not anytime) I think you'll find that unlike most posters here, I am open to reliable news sources of both a Republican and Democratic bent. Just today I posted something critical of Biden's new China tariffs. When is the last time you posted something critical of Trump and/or his policies? 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted May 15 Author Share Posted May 15 Yet, Conald wants you to know he had nothing to do with the hush payments. Oh, and ignore those checks I signed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted May 15 Share Posted May 15 14 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said: Ahh, to read and hear only the news that’s tailored to confirm your priors. Nope. When I heard Hope Hicks, the only person who has/had any credibility of the witnesses the prosecution produced, say that Trump was worried mostly about the affair affecting Melania, it gave the reasonable doubt needed. Then Daniels and Cohen go on the stand and admit they hate Trump, further eroding their lack of credibility. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted May 15 Author Share Posted May 15 The lack of self-awareness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted May 15 Share Posted May 15 (edited) 5 hours ago, Doc said: Nope. When I heard Hope Hicks, the only person who has/had any credibility of the witnesses the prosecution produced, say that Trump was worried mostly about the affair affecting Melania, it gave the reasonable doubt needed. Then Daniels and Cohen go on the stand and admit they hate Trump, further eroding their lack of credibility. Hope Hicks, ex-Trump adviser, recounts fear in 2016 campaign over impact of ‘Access Hollywood’ tape “Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign was seized with worry about the potential political damage from a tape that showed Trump bragging about grabbing women sexually without their permission, longtime Trump adviser Hope Hicks testified Friday at his hush money trial.” *** “Once one of Trump’s closest confidants, Hicks provided a window into the chaotic fallout over the tape’s release just days before a crucial debate with Democrat Hillary Clinton. It was recorded in 2005 but was not seen by the public until Oct. 7, 2016, about a month before Election Day. Hicks described being stunned and huddling with other Trump advisers after learning about the tape’s existence from the Washington Post reporter who broke the story. Hicks forwarded the reporter’s request to campaign leadership with the recommendation to “deny, deny, deny,” she said.” *** ““I had a good sense to believe this was going to be a massive story and that it was going to dominate the news cycle for the next several days,” Hicks testified. “This was a damaging development.” She added: “This was just pulling us backwards in a way that was going to be hard to overcome.”” *** “But, Hicks said, Trump eventually came to believe that burying Daniels’ story was prudent, saying he thought “it would have been bad to have that story come out before the election.” *** “But when asked if Trump was also worried about the story’s impact on the campaign, Hicks responded that everything they spoke about during that time was viewed through the lens of the campaign. Trump would often asking her, “How is it playing?” as a way of gauging how his appearances, speeches and policies were landing with voters, she said.” Wow. When you read what she actually said it does seem that Trump was concerned about the impact to the campaign, not just Melania. If you find Hope Hicks believable, I’m guessing you might now be thinking Trump did violate election laws… Edited May 15 by ChiGoose 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted May 15 Share Posted May 15 32 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Hope Hicks, ex-Trump adviser, recounts fear in 2016 campaign over impact of ‘Access Hollywood’ tape “Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign was seized with worry about the potential political damage from a tape that showed Trump bragging about grabbing women sexually without their permission, longtime Trump adviser Hope Hicks testified Friday at his hush money trial.” *** “Once one of Trump’s closest confidants, Hicks provided a window into the chaotic fallout over the tape’s release just days before a crucial debate with Democrat Hillary Clinton. It was recorded in 2005 but was not seen by the public until Oct. 7, 2016, about a month before Election Day. Hicks described being stunned and huddling with other Trump advisers after learning about the tape’s existence from the Washington Post reporter who broke the story. Hicks forwarded the reporter’s request to campaign leadership with the recommendation to “deny, deny, deny,” she said.” *** ““I had a good sense to believe this was going to be a massive story and that it was going to dominate the news cycle for the next several days,” Hicks testified. “This was a damaging development.” She added: “This was just pulling us backwards in a way that was going to be hard to overcome.”” *** “But, Hicks said, Trump eventually came to believe that burying Daniels’ story was prudent, saying he thought “it would have been bad to have that story come out before the election.” *** “But when asked if Trump was also worried about the story’s impact on the campaign, Hicks responded that everything they spoke about during that time was viewed through the lens of the campaign. Trump would often asking her, “How is it playing?” as a way of gauging how his appearances, speeches and policies were landing with voters, she said.” Wow. When you read what she actually said it does seem that Trump was concerned about the impact to the campaign, not just Melania. If you find Hope Hicks believable, I’m guessing you might now be thinking Trump did violate election laws… Did she state where she saw or witnessed anything about trump ordering Cohen to pay the money that she never claimed on her taxes? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted May 15 Share Posted May 15 (edited) 56 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Hope Hicks, ex-Trump adviser, recounts fear in 2016 campaign over impact of ‘Access Hollywood’ tape “Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign was seized with worry about the potential political damage from a tape that showed Trump bragging about grabbing women sexually without their permission, longtime Trump adviser Hope Hicks testified Friday at his hush money trial.” *** “Once one of Trump’s closest confidants, Hicks provided a window into the chaotic fallout over the tape’s release just days before a crucial debate with Democrat Hillary Clinton. It was recorded in 2005 but was not seen by the public until Oct. 7, 2016, about a month before Election Day. Hicks described being stunned and huddling with other Trump advisers after learning about the tape’s existence from the Washington Post reporter who broke the story. Hicks forwarded the reporter’s request to campaign leadership with the recommendation to “deny, deny, deny,” she said.” *** ““I had a good sense to believe this was going to be a massive story and that it was going to dominate the news cycle for the next several days,” Hicks testified. “This was a damaging development.” She added: “This was just pulling us backwards in a way that was going to be hard to overcome.”” *** “But, Hicks said, Trump eventually came to believe that burying Daniels’ story was prudent, saying he thought “it would have been bad to have that story come out before the election.” *** “But when asked if Trump was also worried about the story’s impact on the campaign, Hicks responded that everything they spoke about during that time was viewed through the lens of the campaign. Trump would often asking her, “How is it playing?” as a way of gauging how his appearances, speeches and policies were landing with voters, she said.” Wow. When you read what she actually said it does seem that Trump was concerned about the impact to the campaign, not just Melania. If you find Hope Hicks believable, I’m guessing you might now be thinking Trump did violate election laws… www.newsweek.com/hope-hicks-donald-trump-melania-mindset-trial-1897221 Quote Hicks handed a gift to Trump when she testified on direct examination that the reaction of his wife Melania was his biggest concern on the morning that the Wall Street Journal article detailing the hush-money payments came out three days before the 2016 election. Edited May 15 by Doc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted May 15 Share Posted May 15 40 minutes ago, Doc said: www.newsweek.com/hope-hicks-donald-trump-melania-mindset-trial-1897221 Yes, Hicks testified that Trump was concerned about Melania. She also testified that he was worried it would hurt the campaign. Does that mean that burying the story would benefit the campaign? 1 hour ago, Tommy Callahan said: Did she state where she saw or witnessed anything about trump ordering Cohen to pay the money that she never claimed on her taxes? I don’t understand this question. Are you asking about Hicks claiming Cohen’s payment on her taxes? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted May 15 Share Posted May 15 3 hours ago, ChiGoose said: Yes, Hicks testified that Trump was concerned about Melania. She also testified that he was worried it would hurt the campaign. Does that mean that burying the story would benefit the campaign? Obviously it would benefit the campaign. But if his primary concern was Melania, as Hicks says, that's reasonable doubt that it was done just for the election. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted May 15 Share Posted May 15 19 minutes ago, Doc said: Obviously it would benefit the campaign. But if his primary concern was Melania, as Hicks says, that's reasonable doubt that it was done just for the election. the point is that he was protecting the campaign. Was it 50/50? Doesn't matter if some of his motivation was the campaign. Interestingly, Melania's close aide quoted her with "I know who I married" in ref to the porn star fling. Hope Hicks also said this on the stand: But when asked if Trump was also worried about the story’s impact on the campaign, Hicks responded that everything they spoke about during that time was viewed through the lens of the campaign. Trump would often asking her, “How is it playing?” as a way of gauging how his appearances, speeches and policies were landing with voters, she said. Source AP. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokebball Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 34 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: the point is that he was protecting the campaign. Was it 50/50? Doesn't matter if some of his motivation was the campaign. Interestingly, Melania's close aide quoted her with "I know who I married" in ref to the porn star fling. Hope Hicks also said this on the stand: But when asked if Trump was also worried about the story’s impact on the campaign, Hicks responded that everything they spoke about during that time was viewed through the lens of the campaign. Trump would often asking her, “How is it playing?” as a way of gauging how his appearances, speeches and policies were landing with voters, she said. Source AP. My understanding is NY needs to prove an intent to conceal AND that it was done to hide another crime. What is the other crime? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 29 minutes ago, Pokebball said: My understanding is NY needs to prove an intent to conceal AND that it was done to hide another crime. What is the other crime? my understanding is that it's biz fraud. i think they've proven that with cancelled checks and a note from weisenberg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 (edited) 35 minutes ago, Pokebball said: My understanding is NY needs to prove an intent to conceal AND that it was done to hide another crime. What is the other crime? Violation of election laws for an undisclosed contribution. The intent to conceal to avoid disclosure to the FEC is a crime. Edited May 16 by ChiGoose 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokebball Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: my understanding is that it's biz fraud. i think they've proven that with cancelled checks and a note from weisenberg. NDAs aren't fraud 6 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Violation of election laws for an undisclosed contribution. The intent to conceal to avoid disclosure to the FEC is a crime. They didn't use campaign funds, so no. It's clear you guys are talking shyt, IMO Edited May 16 by Pokebball 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Pokebball said: NDAs aren't fraud no, but booking a hush money payoff as a legal expense is. If I booked a cruise as a continuing medical expense but there was no actual CME available on the ship, that would be illegal, right? 12 minutes ago, Pokebball said: They didn't use campaign funds, so no. he used his own money protect his campaign. Not illegal unless it wasn't declared as such, which it wasn't. Edited May 16 by Joe Ferguson forever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 27 minutes ago, Pokebball said: NDAs aren't fraud They didn't use campaign funds, so no. It's clear you guys are talking shyt, IMO Ironically, they would be in less trouble if they had used campaign funds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 (edited) 2 hours ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: the point is that he was protecting the campaign. Was it 50/50? Doesn't matter if some of his motivation was the campaign. Interestingly, Melania's close aide quoted her with "I know who I married" in ref to the porn star fling. Hope Hicks also said this on the stand: But when asked if Trump was also worried about the story’s impact on the campaign, Hicks responded that everything they spoke about during that time was viewed through the lens of the campaign. Trump would often asking her, “How is it playing?” as a way of gauging how his appearances, speeches and policies were landing with voters, she said. Source AP. Hicks, a witness for the prosecution mind you, made it clear the NDA was primarily to keep it secret from Melania. Preventing it from affecting his election was a side-benefit. And in all this, I'm surprised Trump's campaign never went after Daniels for extortion. Edited May 16 by Doc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 10 minutes ago, Doc said: Trump's campaign never went after Daniels for extortion. That would be the campaign admitting guilt. You're saying trump's personal money and his campaign are the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 1 hour ago, ChiGoose said: Ironically, they would be in less trouble if they had used campaign funds. splain please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokebball Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 1 hour ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: no, but booking a hush money payoff as a legal expense is. If I booked a cruise as a continuing medical expense but there was no actual CME available on the ship, that would be illegal, right? he used his own money protect his campaign. Not illegal unless it wasn't declared as such, which it wasn't. You're wrong on both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts