Hypocrites at See BS
 

It turns out they are enforcing the same kind of NDAs that they
criticize Trump for, to cover up the activities of Charley Rose.

Hypocrites at See BS
 

On 4/10/18 10:33 AM, wrote:
It turns out they are enforcing the same kind of NDAs that they
criticize Trump for, to cover up the activities of Charley Rose.



Were those NDAs issued two weeks before a national election in order to
hide the hush money payoff and thereby not influence aforementioned
election?

Hypocrites at See BS
 

It turns out they are enforcing the same kind of NDAs that they
criticize Trump for, to cover up the activities of Charley Rose.

Charlie Rose? The guy on NPR?

Hypocrites at See BS
 

On 4/10/2018 10:43 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/10/18 10:33 AM, wrote:
It turns out they are enforcing the same kind of NDAs that they
criticize Trump for, to cover up the activities of Charley Rose.





Were those NDAs issued two weeks before a national election in order to
hide the hush money payoff and thereby not influence aforementioned
election?

Wait a minute.

If "Stormy" broke the NSA two weeks before a national election in order
to influence aforementioned election wouldn't *that* be a crime?

The NDA was about an alleged affair, as a private citizen, consensual in
nature that happened in 2006.

This whole thing is ridiculous.

Hypocrites at See BS
 

On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 10:43:31 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 4/10/18 10:33 AM, wrote:
It turns out they are enforcing the same kind of NDAs that they
criticize Trump for, to cover up the activities of Charley Rose.



Were those NDAs issued two weeks before a national election in order to
hide the hush money payoff and thereby not influence aforementioned
election?

No they were executed when their anchor thought showing his dick to
interns was part of their introduction to journalism.
CBS was trying to protect their profits at the expense of young women
who were abused and I though you believed profits were wrong. I am
still not sure how you feel about abusing young women. Democrats seem
to think that deserves a pass.

Hypocrites at See BS
 

On 4/10/18 11:16 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/10/2018 10:43 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/10/18 10:33 AM, wrote:
It turns out they are enforcing the same kind of NDAs that they
criticize Trump for, to cover up the activities of Charley Rose.





Were those NDAs issued two weeks before a national election in order
to hide the hush money payoff and thereby not influence aforementioned
election?

Wait a minute.

If "Stormy" broke the NSA two weeks before a national election in order
to influence aforementioned election wouldn't *that* be a crime?

The NDA was about an alleged affair, as a private citizen, consensual in
nature that happened in 2006.

This whole thing is ridiculous.






Richard, I have no idea what laws Stormy might have broken, if any.
Again, I don't think anyone gives a **** who Trump ****ed, or when. The
trip wire is, as is usual in these sorts of cases, the cover-up. But, of
course, Trump claims he never ****ed Stormy and "had no knowledge" of
his lawyer's payoff for the cover-up or the NDA before they were
executed and the cash changed hands.

My guess is that Stormy will not face any criminal prosecution on these
matters. It is a civil matter, not a criminal matter. For Stormy. For
Lawyer Cohen and Client Trump, well, who knows, eh?

And let's not forget the $150,000 payment made by a publisher friend of
Trump's to another young lady.

:)

Hypocrites at See BS
 

On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 08:05:25 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:


It turns out they are enforcing the same kind of NDAs that they
criticize Trump for, to cover up the activities of Charley Rose.

Charlie Rose? The guy on NPR?

Yup same guy. He had a PBS show, and one on NPR but he was also a CBS
personality doing 60 minutes and the daytime show along with a number
of drop in pieces for CBS news. The allegation was women would come to
his dressing room bringing him scripts and other "copy" to be met by
him standing there naked wondering if they "wanted to do something".

Hypocrites at See BS
 

On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 11:16:41 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/10/2018 10:43 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/10/18 10:33 AM, wrote:
It turns out they are enforcing the same kind of NDAs that they
criticize Trump for, to cover up the activities of Charley Rose.





Were those NDAs issued two weeks before a national election in order to
hide the hush money payoff and thereby not influence aforementioned
election?

Wait a minute.

If "Stormy" broke the NSA two weeks before a national election in order
to influence aforementioned election wouldn't *that* be a crime?

The NDA was about an alleged affair, as a private citizen, consensual in
nature that happened in 2006.

This whole thing is ridiculous.

I think so too. All Cohen has to say is he did this for the good of
the GOP in general or even the country as a whole and it is not a FEC
violation. Nobody can tell a private citizen what he can or can't do
with their money for the good of the country, in their opinion.
If they could, Tom Steyer would be in trouble.

..

Hypocrites at See BS
 

On 4/10/2018 11:42 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/10/18 11:16 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/10/2018 10:43 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/10/18 10:33 AM, wrote:
It turns out they are enforcing the same kind of NDAs that they
criticize Trump for, to cover up the activities of Charley Rose.





Were those NDAs issued two weeks before a national election in order
to hide the hush money payoff and thereby not influence
aforementioned election?

Wait a minute.

If "Stormy" broke the NSA two weeks before a national election in order
to influence aforementioned election wouldn't *that* be a crime?

The NDA was about an alleged affair, as a private citizen, consensual in
nature that happened in 2006.

This whole thing is ridiculous.






Richard, I have no idea what laws Stormy might have broken, if any.
Again, I don't think anyone gives a **** who Trump ****ed, or when. The
trip wire is, as is usual in these sorts of cases, the cover-up. But, of
course, Trump claims he never ****ed Stormy and "had no knowledge" of
his lawyer's payoff for the cover-up or the NDA before they were
executed and the cash changed hands.

My guess is that Stormy will not face any criminal prosecution on these
matters. It is a civil matter, not a criminal matter. For Stormy. For
Lawyer Cohen and Client Trump, well, who knows, eh?

And let's not forget the $150,000 payment made by a publisher friend of
Trump's to another young lady.

:)


My point is that if somehow Stormy the Slut started threatening that she
was going public with information about their "affair" just before the
election, isn't that blackmail?

So, two weeks before the election Trump's lawyer says, "What will it
take for you to shut up?"

"Oh, a $130K ought to do it."

But then, as I recall she started saying (through her lawyer of course)
that the NDA wasn't enforceable because Trump didn't sign it and a fake
name was used on it. I don't think this is Stormy conspiring. It's her
lawyer.

I don't care who Trump screwed in the past in consensual relationships.
It isn't my lifestyle and I certainly don't condone it but it isn't a crime.

Nor is collusion, BTW.

You will argue this of course but I think it's a damn shame because as
POTUS I think he's doing a good job so far. Just because he's a "pig"
in the eyes of you and others should not be judgement of his performance
as the president.

Hypocrites at See BS
 

On 4/10/18 12:16 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/10/2018 11:42 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/10/18 11:16 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/10/2018 10:43 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/10/18 10:33 AM, wrote:
It turns out they are enforcing the same kind of NDAs that they
criticize Trump for, to cover up the activities of Charley Rose.





Were those NDAs issued two weeks before a national election in order
to hide the hush money payoff and thereby not influence
aforementioned election?

Wait a minute.

If "Stormy" broke the NSA two weeks before a national election in order
to influence aforementioned election wouldn't *that* be a crime?

The NDA was about an alleged affair, as a private citizen, consensual in
nature that happened in 2006.

This whole thing is ridiculous.






Richard, I have no idea what laws Stormy might have broken, if any.
Again, I don't think anyone gives a **** who Trump ****ed, or when.
The trip wire is, as is usual in these sorts of cases, the cover-up.
But, of course, Trump claims he never ****ed Stormy and "had no
knowledge" of his lawyer's payoff for the cover-up or the NDA before
they were executed and the cash changed hands.

My guess is that Stormy will not face any criminal prosecution on
these matters. It is a civil matter, not a criminal matter. For
Stormy. For Lawyer Cohen and Client Trump, well, who knows, eh?

And let's not forget the $150,000 payment made by a publisher friend
of Trump's to another young lady.

:)


My point is that if somehow Stormy the Slut started threatening that she
was going public with information about their "affair" just before the
election, isn't that blackmail?

So, two weeks before the election Trump's lawyer says, "What will it
take for you to shut up?"

"Oh, a $130K ought to do it."

But then, as I recall she started saying (through her lawyer of course)
that the NDA wasn't enforceable because Trump didn't sign it and a fake
name was used on it.Â* I don't think this is Stormy conspiring.Â* It's her
lawyer.

I don't care who Trump screwed in the past in consensual relationships.
It isn't my lifestyle and I certainly don't condone it but it isn't a
crime.

Nor is collusion, BTW.

You will argue this of course but I think it's a damn shame because as
POTUS I think he's doing a good job so far.Â* Just because he's a "pig"
in the eyes of you and others should not be judgement of his performance
as the president.


As always, I think he is the worse president and worst human being to
ever hold that high office. :)

Hypocrites at See BS
 

Keyser Soze Wrote in message:
On 4/10/18 12:16 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/10/2018 11:42 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/10/18 11:16 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/10/2018 10:43 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/10/18 10:33 AM, wrote:
It turns out they are enforcing the same kind of NDAs that they
criticize Trump for, to cover up the activities of Charley Rose.





Were those NDAs issued two weeks before a national election in order
to hide the hush money payoff and thereby not influence
aforementioned election?

Wait a minute.

If "Stormy" broke the NSA two weeks before a national election in order
to influence aforementioned election wouldn't *that* be a crime?

The NDA was about an alleged affair, as a private citizen, consensual in
nature that happened in 2006.

This whole thing is ridiculous.






Richard, I have no idea what laws Stormy might have broken, if any.
Again, I don't think anyone gives a **** who Trump ****ed, or when.
The trip wire is, as is usual in these sorts of cases, the cover-up.
But, of course, Trump claims he never ****ed Stormy and "had no
knowledge" of his lawyer's payoff for the cover-up or the NDA before
they were executed and the cash changed hands.

My guess is that Stormy will not face any criminal prosecution on
these matters. It is a civil matter, not a criminal matter. For
Stormy. For Lawyer Cohen and Client Trump, well, who knows, eh?

And let's not forget the $150,000 payment made by a publisher friend
of Trump's to another young lady.

:)


My point is that if somehow Stormy the Slut started threatening that she
was going public with information about their "affair" just before the
election, isn't that blackmail?

So, two weeks before the election Trump's lawyer says, "What will it
take for you to shut up?"

"Oh, a $130K ought to do it."

But then, as I recall she started saying (through her lawyer of course)
that the NDA wasn't enforceable because Trump didn't sign it and a fake
name was used on it. I don't think this is Stormy conspiring. It's her
lawyer.

I don't care who Trump screwed in the past in consensual relationships.
It isn't my lifestyle and I certainly don't condone it but it isn't a
crime.

Nor is collusion, BTW.

You will argue this of course but I think it's a damn shame because as
POTUS I think he's doing a good job so far. Just because he's a "pig"
in the eyes of you and others should not be judgement of his performance
as the president.


As always, I think he is the worse president and worst human being to
ever hold that high office. :)



What you think only matters to you and Donnie.
--
x


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

Hypocrites at See BS
 

Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/10/18 12:16 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/10/2018 11:42 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/10/18 11:16 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/10/2018 10:43 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/10/18 10:33 AM, wrote:
It turns out they are enforcing the same kind of NDAs that they
criticize Trump for, to cover up the activities of Charley Rose.





Were those NDAs issued two weeks before a national election in order
to hide the hush money payoff and thereby not influence
aforementioned election?

Wait a minute.

If "Stormy" broke the NSA two weeks before a national election in order
to influence aforementioned election wouldn't *that* be a crime?

The NDA was about an alleged affair, as a private citizen, consensual in
nature that happened in 2006.

This whole thing is ridiculous.






Richard, I have no idea what laws Stormy might have broken, if any.
Again, I don't think anyone gives a **** who Trump ****ed, or when.
The trip wire is, as is usual in these sorts of cases, the cover-up.
But, of course, Trump claims he never ****ed Stormy and "had no
knowledge" of his lawyer's payoff for the cover-up or the NDA before
they were executed and the cash changed hands.

My guess is that Stormy will not face any criminal prosecution on
these matters. It is a civil matter, not a criminal matter. For
Stormy. For Lawyer Cohen and Client Trump, well, who knows, eh?

And let's not forget the $150,000 payment made by a publisher friend
of Trump's to another young lady.

:)


My point is that if somehow Stormy the Slut started threatening that she
was going public with information about their "affair" just before the
election, isn't that blackmail?

So, two weeks before the election Trump's lawyer says, "What will it
take for you to shut up?"

"Oh, a $130K ought to do it."

But then, as I recall she started saying (through her lawyer of course)
that the NDA wasn't enforceable because Trump didn't sign it and a fake
name was used on it.Â* I don't think this is Stormy conspiring.Â* It's her
lawyer.

I don't care who Trump screwed in the past in consensual relationships.
It isn't my lifestyle and I certainly don't condone it but it isn't a
crime.

Nor is collusion, BTW.

You will argue this of course but I think it's a damn shame because as
POTUS I think he's doing a good job so far.Â* Just because he's a "pig"
in the eyes of you and others should not be judgement of his performance
as the president.


As always, I think he is the worse president and worst human being to
ever hold that high office. :)



You think Hillary was a great person. Your thinks ain’t very good.

Hypocrites at See BS
 

Kalif Swill guzzles...

"You think Hillary was a great person. Â*Your thinks ain’t very good."


Sigh!
So many mistakes...so little time.

Hypocrites at See BS
 

True North wrote:
Kalif Swill guzzles...

"You think Hillary was a great person. Â*Your thinks ain’t very good."


Sigh!
So many mistakes...so little time.


Bilious is just an old right-winger filled with hate

--
Posted with my iPhone 8+.

Hypocrites at See BS
 

Keyser Söze wrote:
True North wrote:
Kalif Swill guzzles...

"You think Hillary was a great person. Â*Your thinks ain’t very good."


Sigh!
So many mistakes...so little time.


Bilious is just an old right-winger filled with hate


Both of you are hateful. Really full of hate. And Donnie, you think
Hillary was a good person? Why?
Harry is a hateful lefty. Unless it is free from the government teat, it
is bad. Some corporations made money. Actually I am pretty far left
socially. But a very definite fiscal conservative. Pay your own way.
Temporary Welfare if you are temporarily unable to make a living. Unable
to function in modern society because of health problems, and drugs are not
included, or you are mentally unable to cope. Welfare is good. Lazy. NO
WELFARE. When you have multiple generations on welfare of,the same family,
it is a lifestyles, not a safety net. Probably do more real help,for the
poor than both of you combined, and getting paid to write a grant request
is business, not helping.

Hypocrites at See BS
 

On 4/10/2018 8:26 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
True North wrote:
Kalif Swill guzzles...

"You think Hillary was a great person. Â*Your thinks ain’t very good."


Sigh!
So many mistakes...so little time.


Bilious is just an old right-winger filled with hate


Both of you are hateful. Really full of hate. And Donnie, you think
Hillary was a good person? Why?
Harry is a hateful lefty. Unless it is free from the government teat, it
is bad. Some corporations made money. Actually I am pretty far left
socially. But a very definite fiscal conservative. Pay your own way.
Temporary Welfare if you are temporarily unable to make a living. Unable
to function in modern society because of health problems, and drugs are not
included, or you are mentally unable to cope. Welfare is good. Lazy. NO
WELFARE. When you have multiple generations on welfare of,the same family,
it is a lifestyles, not a safety net. Probably do more real help,for the
poor than both of you combined, and getting paid to write a grant request
is business, not helping.



I don't think Hillary is a "left" as you described Bill. By nature
I think she's more moderate but I also think she will grab any leftist
views and promote them if she thinks it gives her an advantage.

My problem with Hillary is that I think she is one of the most deceitful
and dishonest people to have ever been involved in our political system
in any capacity. She's more of what Harry complains of when he talks of
"corporate greed" and such. Hillary is out for Hillary in terms of
power and money and she'll take any position that's popular at the time
to pursue those goals.

If an honest investigation is ever conducted of
her activities as Secretary of State and as a candidate for POTUS, the
truth will become known.

Hypocrites at See BS
 

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/10/2018 8:26 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
True North wrote:
Kalif Swill guzzles...

"You think Hillary was a great person. Â*Your thinks ain’t very good."


Sigh!
So many mistakes...so little time.


Bilious is just an old right-winger filled with hate


Both of you are hateful. Really full of hate. And Donnie, you think
Hillary was a good person? Why?
Harry is a hateful lefty. Unless it is free from the government teat, it
is bad. Some corporations made money. Actually I am pretty far left
socially. But a very definite fiscal conservative. Pay your own way.
Temporary Welfare if you are temporarily unable to make a living. Unable
to function in modern society because of health problems, and drugs are not
included, or you are mentally unable to cope. Welfare is good. Lazy. NO
WELFARE. When you have multiple generations on welfare of,the same family,
it is a lifestyles, not a safety net. Probably do more real help,for the
poor than both of you combined, and getting paid to write a grant request
is business, not helping.



I don't think Hillary is a "left" as you described Bill. By nature
I think she's more moderate but I also think she will grab any leftist
views and promote them if she thinks it gives her an advantage.

My problem with Hillary is that I think she is one of the most deceitful
and dishonest people to have ever been involved in our political system
in any capacity. She's more of what Harry complains of when he talks of
"corporate greed" and such. Hillary is out for Hillary in terms of
power and money and she'll take any position that's popular at the time
to pursue those goals.

If an honest investigation is ever conducted of
her activities as Secretary of State and as a candidate for POTUS, the
truth will become known.






I did not mean to imply Hillary was leftist. I meant that for Harry’s
leanings. I agree completely with your description of Hillary.