|
The Score
Trump: 1 Stormy: 0 and a California judge, no less ! |
The Score
On 3/29/18 4:20 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
Trump:Â* 1 Stormy: 0 and a California judge, no less ! A delay,nothing more. But have heart...plenty of new ****storms are coming Trump's way. Will a divorce suit from Melania be among them? :) |
The Score
Keyser Soze Wrote in message:
On 3/29/18 4:20 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: Trump: 1 Stormy: 0 and a California judge, no less ! A delay,nothing more. But have heart...plenty of new ****storms are coming Trump's way. Will a divorce suit from Melania be among them? :) What if, god forbid, one of her boobs explodes and she can't stand up straight. Do you think she will be still motivated to **** over Trump and his family. I xuppoxe if there is enough money in it she'd do anything. She is, after all, for sale. -- x |
The Score
4:47 PMKeyser Soze - show quoted text - A delay,nothing more. But have heart...plenty of new ****storms are coming Trump's way. Will a divorce suit from Melania be among them? :) ::: Harry, methinks you wallow too much in CNN. Though they usually don’t go any where, They love to make speculative and wishful thinking questions like that. |
The Score
On 3/29/2018 5:47 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 3/29/18 4:20 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: Trump:Â* 1 Stormy: 0 and a California judge, no less ! A delay,nothing more. But have heart...plenty of new ****storms are coming Trump's way. Will a divorce suit from Melania be among them? :) I suppose. Her suit will be delayed like Mueller finding collusion with the Russians. |
The Score
On 3/29/18 7:21 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/29/2018 5:47 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 3/29/18 4:20 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: Trump:Â* 1 Stormy: 0 and a California judge, no less ! A delay,nothing more. But have heart...plenty of new ****storms are coming Trump's way. Will a divorce suit from Melania be among them? :) I suppose.Â* Her suit will be delayed like Mueller finding collusion with the Russians. I think it would be surprising if she doesn't dump her sleazeball hubby. Of course, she knew what he was before she married him, but the scumbag cheated on her right after the new Lil Trump was born, and apparently with quite a few other women since then. No wonder she brushes his hand away...no telling what that hand has been on...or in. As for Mueller, it's up to Mueller to disclose his findings and he's also in charge of the schedule. What are you going to do if Trump is slammed with a bunch of charges or is an unindicted co-conspirator on some serious ****? Defend him until the death? Claim it is "trumped up"? Fake news? Hillary's fault? |
The Score
On 3/29/2018 7:26 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 3/29/18 7:21 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 3/29/2018 5:47 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 3/29/18 4:20 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: Trump:Â* 1 Stormy: 0 and a California judge, no less ! A delay,nothing more. But have heart...plenty of new ****storms are coming Trump's way. Will a divorce suit from Melania be among them? :) I suppose.Â* Her suit will be delayed like Mueller finding collusion with the Russians. I think it would be surprising if she doesn't dump her sleazeball hubby. Of course, she knew what he was before she married him, but the scumbag cheated on her right after the new Lil Trump was born, and apparently with quite a few other women since then. No wonder she brushes his hand away...no telling what that hand has been on...or in. As for Mueller, it's up to Mueller to disclose his findings and he's also in charge of the schedule. What are you going to do if Trump is slammed with a bunch of charges or is an unindicted co-conspirator on some serious ****? Defend him until the death? Claim it is "trumped up"? Fake news? Hillary's fault? I have said several times that if Trump is indicted and found guilty of any crimes I will concede that I have been wrong. I should qualify the "crimes" as being serious enough to put National Security at risk ... and if so, they would be impeachable. As for Melania, it's her business, not mine to judge. Who was it who once said: “You know, I'm not sitting here, some little woman standing by my man like Tammy Wynette .... I’m sitting here because I love him, and I respect him, and I honor what he’s been through and what we’ve been through together." Who was *that* woman? |
The Score
On 3/29/18 7:37 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/29/2018 7:26 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 3/29/18 7:21 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 3/29/2018 5:47 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 3/29/18 4:20 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: Trump:Â* 1 Stormy: 0 and a California judge, no less ! A delay,nothing more. But have heart...plenty of new ****storms are coming Trump's way. Will a divorce suit from Melania be among them? :) I suppose.Â* Her suit will be delayed like Mueller finding collusion with the Russians. I think it would be surprising if she doesn't dump her sleazeball hubby. Of course, she knew what he was before she married him, but the scumbag cheated on her right after the new Lil Trump was born, and apparently with quite a few other women since then. No wonder she brushes his hand away...no telling what that hand has been on...or in. As for Mueller, it's up to Mueller to disclose his findings and he's also in charge of the schedule. What are you going to do if Trump is slammed with a bunch of charges or is an unindicted co-conspirator on some serious ****? Defend him until the death? Claim it is "trumped up"? Fake news? Hillary's fault? I have said several times that if Trump is indicted and found guilty of any crimes I will concede that I have been wrong.Â* I should qualify the "crimes" as being serious enough to put National Security at risk ... and if so, they would be impeachable. As for Melania, it's her business, not mine to judge.Â* Who was it who once said: “You know, I'm not sitting here, some little woman standing by my man like Tammy Wynette .... I’m sitting here because I love him, and I respect him, and I honor what he’s been through and what we’ve been through together." Who was *that* woman? It is an unsettled question as to whether a sitting president can be indicted and if indicted, tried. Therefore you are giving yourself a hell of an out. Also, so long as the Republicans control the House, I don't see a possibility of impeachment, no matter what. I suppose so long as the evangelical christians have given trump a pass on his various immoralities, melania might, too. |
The Score
On 3/29/2018 7:56 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 3/29/18 7:37 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 3/29/2018 7:26 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 3/29/18 7:21 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 3/29/2018 5:47 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 3/29/18 4:20 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: Trump:Â* 1 Stormy: 0 and a California judge, no less ! A delay,nothing more. But have heart...plenty of new ****storms are coming Trump's way. Will a divorce suit from Melania be among them? :) I suppose.Â* Her suit will be delayed like Mueller finding collusion with the Russians. I think it would be surprising if she doesn't dump her sleazeball hubby. Of course, she knew what he was before she married him, but the scumbag cheated on her right after the new Lil Trump was born, and apparently with quite a few other women since then. No wonder she brushes his hand away...no telling what that hand has been on...or in. As for Mueller, it's up to Mueller to disclose his findings and he's also in charge of the schedule. What are you going to do if Trump is slammed with a bunch of charges or is an unindicted co-conspirator on some serious ****? Defend him until the death? Claim it is "trumped up"? Fake news? Hillary's fault? I have said several times that if Trump is indicted and found guilty of any crimes I will concede that I have been wrong.Â* I should qualify the "crimes" as being serious enough to put National Security at risk ... and if so, they would be impeachable. As for Melania, it's her business, not mine to judge.Â* Who was it who once said: “You know, I'm not sitting here, some little woman standing by my man like Tammy Wynette .... I’m sitting here because I love him, and I respect him, and I honor what he’s been through and what we’ve been through together." Who was *that* woman? It is an unsettled question as to whether a sitting president can be indicted and if indicted, tried. Therefore you are giving yourself a hell of an out. Also, so long as the Republicans control the House, I don't see a possibility of impeachment, no matter what. I suppose so long as the evangelical christians have given trump a pass on his various immoralities, melania might, too. I've listened to many legal types trying to define what is an impeachable offense and what isn't. Seems the consensus is that if the crime results in putting national security at risk, it is impeachable. If the crime does *not* put national security at risk it is probably *not* impeachable. Same crime can have different results in other words. Lying under oath may or may not be an impeachable offense depending on what the person is lying about. If, as the left claims, Trump worked with the Russians during the campaign and the results of that collusion influenced the outcome of the election ... it still probably is not an impeachable offense, much to the dismay of some of your party members. That's why this whole fiasco is a waste of time and money. Your party should be focusing on winning the next elections rather than trying to oust Trump. As for giving him a "pass", didn't your party give Bill Clinton a pass, more than once? Getting a blow job in the Oval Office didn't seem to bother many people. Why should Trump's alleged roll in the sack 12 years ago with a consenting bimbo matter? Lastly, you are giving yourself just as much as an "out" as I am .. perhaps more so. You complain daily about how horrible and incompetent Trump is, claiming he's going to start a nuclear war, yet concede that there's not much your party can do about it in the short term ... especially those calling for his impeachment. |
The Score
|
The Score
On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 16:20:55 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: Trump: 1 Stormy: 0 and a California judge, no less ! What was the decision about. NBC had nothing on this tonight. |
The Score
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 00:27:16 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote: So you say cooperating with the Russian government to fix a Presidential election is not an impeachable offense I have not seen any proof that the election was "fixed" in any way. Certainly there was some damaging information released but isn't that what news organizations are supposed to do? Nobody has said the released emails were not true and they indicated the Hillary team was trying to hurt Sanders as much if not more than Trump. I would think democrats would like to know that, particularly Sanders democrats. Only a democrat could call the truth "meddling". As for the trolling on Facebook, the dossier and the data mining, you have to blame Zuckerberg along with a russian company and the Brits. Why aren't you saying the Brits meddled in the election too? One of their intelligence officers was involved along with one of their corporations. Isn't that pretty much what you say about Russia? |
The Score
|
The Score
|
The Score
|
The Score
On 3/30/2018 9:26 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 3/30/18 1:59 AM, wrote: On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 16:20:55 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Trump:Â* 1 Stormy: 0 and a California judge, no less ! What was the decision about. NBC had nothing on this tonight. Are you talking about the half hour network news show? Those shows don't cover a lot. It certainly was covered on the NBC cable outlet, MSNBC. Basically, the judge said it wasn't timely yet for Stormy's case against the Trump goniffs to proceed. In another development, Trump's lawyer's lawyer claimed Trump had no knowledge of the $130,000 settlement, which is fake news believed only on Fox, by its watchers, and Luddite here. Would you mind citing when I ever said that? Talk about Fake News. Must be in a liberal's DNA. |
The Score
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 06:00:58 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote: In article , says... On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 00:27:16 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: So you say cooperating with the Russian government to fix a Presidential election is not an impeachable offense I have not seen any proof that the election was "fixed" in any way. "So you say cooperating with the Russian government to fix a Presidential election is not an impeachable offense - if it's Trump? Note, you said it, not me. You're ****ing crazy." Chopping as you did is a very poor practice. I just questioned the "fixed election" part of your rant so we could take your points one at a time. When you preface an entire scenario on a lie, the rest does not rise to the level of being taken seriously. How was it "fixed"? If you can't describe the "fix" the rest falls from it's own weight. |
The Score
On 3/30/2018 12:10 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 06:00:58 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 00:27:16 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: So you say cooperating with the Russian government to fix a Presidential election is not an impeachable offense I have not seen any proof that the election was "fixed" in any way. "So you say cooperating with the Russian government to fix a Presidential election is not an impeachable offense - if it's Trump? Note, you said it, not me. You're ****ing crazy." Chopping as you did is a very poor practice. I just questioned the "fixed election" part of your rant so we could take your points one at a time. When you preface an entire scenario on a lie, the rest does not rise to the level of being taken seriously. How was it "fixed"? If you can't describe the "fix" the rest falls from it's own weight. It's progressive liberal tactic. |
The Score
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 09:26:13 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote: On 3/30/18 1:59 AM, wrote: On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 16:20:55 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Trump: 1 Stormy: 0 and a California judge, no less ! What was the decision about. NBC had nothing on this tonight. Are you talking about the half hour network news show? Those shows don't cover a lot. It certainly was covered on the NBC cable outlet, MSNBC. Basically, the judge said it wasn't timely yet for Stormy's case against the Trump goniffs to proceed. I did not see it on the local or network show. I also did not see it in 2 hours of the CNN "newsroom". All they said was Trump was likely to be deposed and giggling about that. They had no reports about a setback in that case. I don't watch Cooper or Lemon. In another development, Trump's lawyer's lawyer claimed Trump had no knowledge of the $130,000 settlement, which is fake news believed only on Fox, by its watchers, and Luddite here. The legal opinions I have heard say it might actually be better if he did know but it really does not change the validity of the NDA. I do feel bad for Stormy because she is the one who is going to get ground up in this case. I doubt the extra 15 minutes of fame she gets will cover her legal expenses and the breach of contract suit Trump is likely to win. I am still curious how she is getting along with the IRS. I bet Trump is telling them to lay back, just for the optics (if he has any influence at all) but they have a long memory and if she has not been declaring all of this money as income she will be in serious trouble. I doubt any of her legal expenses are deductible and all of that money, including the original buck thirty, is income. The problem with the IRS "laying back" is that interest keeps piling up. |
The Score
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 12:26:11 -0400, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 09:26:13 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 3/30/18 1:59 AM, wrote: On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 16:20:55 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Trump: 1 Stormy: 0 and a California judge, no less ! What was the decision about. NBC had nothing on this tonight. Are you talking about the half hour network news show? Those shows don't cover a lot. It certainly was covered on the NBC cable outlet, MSNBC. Basically, the judge said it wasn't timely yet for Stormy's case against the Trump goniffs to proceed. I did not see it on the local or network show. I also did not see it in 2 hours of the CNN "newsroom". All they said was Trump was likely to be deposed and giggling about that. They had no reports about a setback in that case. I don't watch Cooper or Lemon. In another development, Trump's lawyer's lawyer claimed Trump had no knowledge of the $130,000 settlement, which is fake news believed only on Fox, by its watchers, and Luddite here. The legal opinions I have heard say it might actually be better if he did know but it really does not change the validity of the NDA. I do feel bad for Stormy because she is the one who is going to get ground up in this case. I doubt the extra 15 minutes of fame she gets will cover her legal expenses and the breach of contract suit Trump is likely to win. I am still curious how she is getting along with the IRS. I bet Trump is telling them to lay back, just for the optics (if he has any influence at all) but they have a long memory and if she has not been declaring all of this money as income she will be in serious trouble. I doubt any of her legal expenses are deductible and all of that money, including the original buck thirty, is income. The problem with the IRS "laying back" is that interest keeps piling up. I have to admit that we differ in this case. I do *not* feel bad for Stormy. :) |
The Score
|
The Score
On 3/30/2018 1:16 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article , says... On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 06:00:58 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 00:27:16 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: So you say cooperating with the Russian government to fix a Presidential election is not an impeachable offense I have not seen any proof that the election was "fixed" in any way. "So you say cooperating with the Russian government to fix a Presidential election is not an impeachable offense - if it's Trump? Note, you said it, not me. You're ****ing crazy." Chopping as you did is a very poor practice. I just questioned the "fixed election" part of your rant so we could take your points one at a time. When you preface an entire scenario on a lie, the rest does not rise to the level of being taken seriously. How was it "fixed"? If you can't describe the "fix" the rest falls from it's own weight. "If, as the left claims, Trump worked with the Russians during the campaign and the results of that collusion influenced the outcome of the election ... it still probably is not an impeachable offense, much to the dismay of some of your party members." Luddite described the fix, not me. Like I said, he's crazy. What scenario? What's to fall of it's own weight? You mean that he's crazy? You can have your own opinion on that. I won't be surprised at all at whatever the outcome of this "hunt" is. Our country has gone nuts. |
The Score
On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 12:26:49 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 09:26:13 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 3/30/18 1:59 AM, wrote: On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 16:20:55 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Trump: 1 Stormy: 0 and a California judge, no less ! What was the decision about. NBC had nothing on this tonight. Are you talking about the half hour network news show? Those shows don't cover a lot. It certainly was covered on the NBC cable outlet, MSNBC. Basically, the judge said it wasn't timely yet for Stormy's case against the Trump goniffs to proceed. I did not see it on the local or network show. I also did not see it in 2 hours of the CNN "newsroom". All they said was Trump was likely to be deposed and giggling about that. They had no reports about a setback in that case. I don't watch Cooper or Lemon. In another development, Trump's lawyer's lawyer claimed Trump had no knowledge of the $130,000 settlement, which is fake news believed only on Fox, by its watchers, and Luddite here. The legal opinions I have heard say it might actually be better if he did know but it really does not change the validity of the NDA. I do feel bad for Stormy because she is the one who is going to get ground up in this case. I doubt the extra 15 minutes of fame she gets will cover her legal expenses and the breach of contract suit Trump is likely to win. I am still curious how she is getting along with the IRS. I bet Trump is telling them to lay back, just for the optics (if he has any influence at all) but they have a long memory and if she has not been declaring all of this money as income she will be in serious trouble. I doubt any of her legal expenses are deductible and all of that money, including the original buck thirty, is income. The problem with the IRS "laying back" is that interest keeps piling up. All she has to do is amend her filing before the IRS comes after her and she's good. There's no doubt that one of her lawyers has already mentioned the matter of the money to her. |
The Score
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 12:52:56 -0400, John H.
wrote: On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 12:26:11 -0400, wrote: On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 09:26:13 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 3/30/18 1:59 AM, wrote: On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 16:20:55 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Trump: 1 Stormy: 0 and a California judge, no less ! What was the decision about. NBC had nothing on this tonight. Are you talking about the half hour network news show? Those shows don't cover a lot. It certainly was covered on the NBC cable outlet, MSNBC. Basically, the judge said it wasn't timely yet for Stormy's case against the Trump goniffs to proceed. I did not see it on the local or network show. I also did not see it in 2 hours of the CNN "newsroom". All they said was Trump was likely to be deposed and giggling about that. They had no reports about a setback in that case. I don't watch Cooper or Lemon. In another development, Trump's lawyer's lawyer claimed Trump had no knowledge of the $130,000 settlement, which is fake news believed only on Fox, by its watchers, and Luddite here. The legal opinions I have heard say it might actually be better if he did know but it really does not change the validity of the NDA. I do feel bad for Stormy because she is the one who is going to get ground up in this case. I doubt the extra 15 minutes of fame she gets will cover her legal expenses and the breach of contract suit Trump is likely to win. I am still curious how she is getting along with the IRS. I bet Trump is telling them to lay back, just for the optics (if he has any influence at all) but they have a long memory and if she has not been declaring all of this money as income she will be in serious trouble. I doubt any of her legal expenses are deductible and all of that money, including the original buck thirty, is income. The problem with the IRS "laying back" is that interest keeps piling up. I have to admit that we differ in this case. I do *not* feel bad for Stormy. :) She has been quiet for 11 years. It was the media that sought her out and it really sounds like her attorney started the "let's make a deal" negotiation with Cohen. She still seemed to want to deny the whole thing until that was not an option. |
The Score
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 12:16:18 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote: In article , says... On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 06:00:58 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 00:27:16 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: So you say cooperating with the Russian government to fix a Presidential election is not an impeachable offense I have not seen any proof that the election was "fixed" in any way. "So you say cooperating with the Russian government to fix a Presidential election is not an impeachable offense - if it's Trump? Note, you said it, not me. You're ****ing crazy." Chopping as you did is a very poor practice. I just questioned the "fixed election" part of your rant so we could take your points one at a time. When you preface an entire scenario on a lie, the rest does not rise to the level of being taken seriously. How was it "fixed"? If you can't describe the "fix" the rest falls from it's own weight. "If, as the left claims, Trump worked with the Russians during the campaign and the results of that collusion influenced the outcome of the election ... it still probably is not an impeachable offense, much to the dismay of some of your party members." Luddite described the fix, not me. Like I said, he's crazy. What scenario? What's to fall of it's own weight? You mean that he's crazy? You can have your own opinion on that. So now you admit the election wasn't "fixed"? It is pretty clear that no election district has said a single vote was altered and the count seemed to be pretty much uncontested. I am not sure where the fix would be. Was there some bull**** and backstabbing? certainly but it seemed to be more on the DNC side. All the hacks/leaks did was inform the voter. The DNC never denied any of it. Don't we want informed voters? Well maybe not if the truth makes your candidate look bad. |
The Score
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 12:31:31 -0700 (PDT), Its Me
wrote: On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 12:26:49 PM UTC-4, wrote: On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 09:26:13 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 3/30/18 1:59 AM, wrote: On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 16:20:55 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Trump: 1 Stormy: 0 and a California judge, no less ! What was the decision about. NBC had nothing on this tonight. Are you talking about the half hour network news show? Those shows don't cover a lot. It certainly was covered on the NBC cable outlet, MSNBC. Basically, the judge said it wasn't timely yet for Stormy's case against the Trump goniffs to proceed. I did not see it on the local or network show. I also did not see it in 2 hours of the CNN "newsroom". All they said was Trump was likely to be deposed and giggling about that. They had no reports about a setback in that case. I don't watch Cooper or Lemon. In another development, Trump's lawyer's lawyer claimed Trump had no knowledge of the $130,000 settlement, which is fake news believed only on Fox, by its watchers, and Luddite here. The legal opinions I have heard say it might actually be better if he did know but it really does not change the validity of the NDA. I do feel bad for Stormy because she is the one who is going to get ground up in this case. I doubt the extra 15 minutes of fame she gets will cover her legal expenses and the breach of contract suit Trump is likely to win. I am still curious how she is getting along with the IRS. I bet Trump is telling them to lay back, just for the optics (if he has any influence at all) but they have a long memory and if she has not been declaring all of this money as income she will be in serious trouble. I doubt any of her legal expenses are deductible and all of that money, including the original buck thirty, is income. The problem with the IRS "laying back" is that interest keeps piling up. All she has to do is amend her filing before the IRS comes after her and she's good. There's no doubt that one of her lawyers has already mentioned the matter of the money to her. There is still penalties and interest on the Buck thirty from 2016. Depending on how they want to rule on that, it could be up in 5 figures. It is yet to see how her 2017 and 18 will go. |
The Score
Its Me wrote:
On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 12:26:49 PM UTC-4, wrote: On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 09:26:13 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 3/30/18 1:59 AM, wrote: On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 16:20:55 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Trump: 1 Stormy: 0 and a California judge, no less ! What was the decision about. NBC had nothing on this tonight. Are you talking about the half hour network news show? Those shows don't cover a lot. It certainly was covered on the NBC cable outlet, MSNBC. Basically, the judge said it wasn't timely yet for Stormy's case against the Trump goniffs to proceed. I did not see it on the local or network show. I also did not see it in 2 hours of the CNN "newsroom". All they said was Trump was likely to be deposed and giggling about that. They had no reports about a setback in that case. I don't watch Cooper or Lemon. In another development, Trump's lawyer's lawyer claimed Trump had no knowledge of the $130,000 settlement, which is fake news believed only on Fox, by its watchers, and Luddite here. The legal opinions I have heard say it might actually be better if he did know but it really does not change the validity of the NDA. I do feel bad for Stormy because she is the one who is going to get ground up in this case. I doubt the extra 15 minutes of fame she gets will cover her legal expenses and the breach of contract suit Trump is likely to win. I am still curious how she is getting along with the IRS. I bet Trump is telling them to lay back, just for the optics (if he has any influence at all) but they have a long memory and if she has not been declaring all of this money as income she will be in serious trouble. I doubt any of her legal expenses are deductible and all of that money, including the original buck thirty, is income. The problem with the IRS "laying back" is that interest keeps piling up. All she has to do is amend her filing before the IRS comes after her and she's good. There's no doubt that one of her lawyers has already mentioned the matter of the money to her. Good? She will have a pile of interest and most likely a penalty. |
The Score
On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 9:18:24 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 12:31:31 -0700 (PDT), Its Me wrote: On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 12:26:49 PM UTC-4, wrote: On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 09:26:13 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 3/30/18 1:59 AM, wrote: On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 16:20:55 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Trump: 1 Stormy: 0 and a California judge, no less ! What was the decision about. NBC had nothing on this tonight. Are you talking about the half hour network news show? Those shows don't cover a lot. It certainly was covered on the NBC cable outlet, MSNBC. Basically, the judge said it wasn't timely yet for Stormy's case against the Trump goniffs to proceed. I did not see it on the local or network show. I also did not see it in 2 hours of the CNN "newsroom". All they said was Trump was likely to be deposed and giggling about that. They had no reports about a setback in that case. I don't watch Cooper or Lemon. In another development, Trump's lawyer's lawyer claimed Trump had no knowledge of the $130,000 settlement, which is fake news believed only on Fox, by its watchers, and Luddite here. The legal opinions I have heard say it might actually be better if he did know but it really does not change the validity of the NDA. I do feel bad for Stormy because she is the one who is going to get ground up in this case. I doubt the extra 15 minutes of fame she gets will cover her legal expenses and the breach of contract suit Trump is likely to win. I am still curious how she is getting along with the IRS. I bet Trump is telling them to lay back, just for the optics (if he has any influence at all) but they have a long memory and if she has not been declaring all of this money as income she will be in serious trouble. I doubt any of her legal expenses are deductible and all of that money, including the original buck thirty, is income. The problem with the IRS "laying back" is that interest keeps piling up. All she has to do is amend her filing before the IRS comes after her and she's good. There's no doubt that one of her lawyers has already mentioned the matter of the money to her. There is still penalties and interest on the Buck thirty from 2016. Depending on how they want to rule on that, it could be up in 5 figures. It is yet to see how her 2017 and 18 will go. What you and Bill don't seem to acknowledge is that since she initiated the "disclosure" of all this with the blessing and help of her lawyers, and the main one has a pretty sharp "fin", there is little doubt they have this stuff covered. She'll likely go down (oops, did I say that? :) ), but I really doubt it will be tax related. |
The Score
Its Me wrote:
On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 9:18:24 PM UTC-4, wrote: On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 12:31:31 -0700 (PDT), Its Me wrote: On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 12:26:49 PM UTC-4, wrote: On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 09:26:13 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 3/30/18 1:59 AM, wrote: On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 16:20:55 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Trump: 1 Stormy: 0 and a California judge, no less ! What was the decision about. NBC had nothing on this tonight. Are you talking about the half hour network news show? Those shows don't cover a lot. It certainly was covered on the NBC cable outlet, MSNBC. Basically, the judge said it wasn't timely yet for Stormy's case against the Trump goniffs to proceed. I did not see it on the local or network show. I also did not see it in 2 hours of the CNN "newsroom". All they said was Trump was likely to be deposed and giggling about that. They had no reports about a setback in that case. I don't watch Cooper or Lemon. In another development, Trump's lawyer's lawyer claimed Trump had no knowledge of the $130,000 settlement, which is fake news believed only on Fox, by its watchers, and Luddite here. The legal opinions I have heard say it might actually be better if he did know but it really does not change the validity of the NDA. I do feel bad for Stormy because she is the one who is going to get ground up in this case. I doubt the extra 15 minutes of fame she gets will cover her legal expenses and the breach of contract suit Trump is likely to win. I am still curious how she is getting along with the IRS. I bet Trump is telling them to lay back, just for the optics (if he has any influence at all) but they have a long memory and if she has not been declaring all of this money as income she will be in serious trouble. I doubt any of her legal expenses are deductible and all of that money, including the original buck thirty, is income. The problem with the IRS "laying back" is that interest keeps piling up. All she has to do is amend her filing before the IRS comes after her and she's good. There's no doubt that one of her lawyers has already mentioned the matter of the money to her. There is still penalties and interest on the Buck thirty from 2016. Depending on how they want to rule on that, it could be up in 5 figures. It is yet to see how her 2017 and 18 will go. What you and Bill don't seem to acknowledge is that since she initiated the "disclosure" of all this with the blessing and help of her lawyers, and the main one has a pretty sharp "fin", there is little doubt they have this stuff covered. She'll likely go down (oops, did I say that? :) ), but I really doubt it will be tax related. IRS is always the winner. And since she signed a NDA, financially she will be liable. Maybe for all Trumps legal costs. And the attorneys of Stormy may be named as deep pockets if they advised here in the first place to break the NDA. |
The Score
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 21:07:58 -0400, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 12:52:56 -0400, John H. wrote: On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 12:26:11 -0400, wrote: On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 09:26:13 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 3/30/18 1:59 AM, wrote: On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 16:20:55 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Trump: 1 Stormy: 0 and a California judge, no less ! What was the decision about. NBC had nothing on this tonight. Are you talking about the half hour network news show? Those shows don't cover a lot. It certainly was covered on the NBC cable outlet, MSNBC. Basically, the judge said it wasn't timely yet for Stormy's case against the Trump goniffs to proceed. I did not see it on the local or network show. I also did not see it in 2 hours of the CNN "newsroom". All they said was Trump was likely to be deposed and giggling about that. They had no reports about a setback in that case. I don't watch Cooper or Lemon. In another development, Trump's lawyer's lawyer claimed Trump had no knowledge of the $130,000 settlement, which is fake news believed only on Fox, by its watchers, and Luddite here. The legal opinions I have heard say it might actually be better if he did know but it really does not change the validity of the NDA. I do feel bad for Stormy because she is the one who is going to get ground up in this case. I doubt the extra 15 minutes of fame she gets will cover her legal expenses and the breach of contract suit Trump is likely to win. I am still curious how she is getting along with the IRS. I bet Trump is telling them to lay back, just for the optics (if he has any influence at all) but they have a long memory and if she has not been declaring all of this money as income she will be in serious trouble. I doubt any of her legal expenses are deductible and all of that money, including the original buck thirty, is income. The problem with the IRS "laying back" is that interest keeps piling up. I have to admit that we differ in this case. I do *not* feel bad for Stormy. :) She has been quiet for 11 years. It was the media that sought her out and it really sounds like her attorney started the "let's make a deal" negotiation with Cohen. She still seemed to want to deny the whole thing until that was not an option. I didn't see the CNN thing, but I've not heard of her crying any tears about being forced into this mess. Nope, I don't feel sorry for her. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:20 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com