|
Saturday, 10 March 2018
quote [ This episode examines the Complaint filed by Stormy Daniels seeking a legal determination that the Settlement Agreement entered into between her, Donald Trump’s lawyer, and (allegedly) Donald Trump is not legally binding.
We honestly believe that this is a much bigger bombshell than is being portrayed by the press. Listen and find out why. ] It's OA154 in case this moves.
|
Taxman said @ 3:04pm GMT on 10th March
No angle. Not sure why you think someone can only be in trouble for one thing at a time.
The “Russian thing” hasn’t been released, so not sure how it can be “not panning out”.
Listen to the podcast, they bring up Clinton. You know what makes this different? Paying money, through an LLC created solely to pay hush money, to prevent Election Day embarrassment. That’s a crime. He could have just admitted the affair and probably would have been fine (no one prosecutes adultery). However, he apparently felt it necessary to commit a bunch of crimes to hide it.
They couldn’t get Clinton to stick because verbally lying (no monetary/intimidation fueled cover-up) about something embarrassing didn’t appear to rise to the level. Paying large sums of money to influence an election 11 days prior? I guess we’ll see.
Taxman said @ 3:05pm GMT on 10th March
No angle. Not sure why you think someone can only be in trouble for one thing at a time.
The “Russian thing” hasn’t been released, so not sure how it can be “not panning out”.
Listen to the podcast, they bring up Clinton. You know what makes this different? Paying money, through an LLC created solely to pay hush money, to prevent Election Day embarrassment. That’s a crime. He could have just admitted the affair and probably would have been fine (no one prosecutes adultery). However, he apparently felt it necessary to commit a bunch of crimes to hide it.
They couldn’t get Clinton to stick because verbally lying (no monetary/intimidation fueled cover-up) about something embarrassing didn’t appear to rise to the level. Paying large sums of money to influence an election 11 days prior? I guess we’ll see.
<-- Entry / Current Comment
Taxman said @ 3:04pm GMT on 10th March [Score:1]
No angle. Not sure why you think someone can only be in trouble for one thing at a time.
The “Russian thing” hasn’t been released, so not sure how it can be “not panning out”.
Listen to the podcast, they bring up Clinton. You know what makes this different? Paying money, through an LLC created solely to pay hush money, to prevent Election Day embarrassment. That’s a crime. He could have just admitted the affair and probably would have been fine (no one prosecutes adultery). However, he apparently felt it necessary to commit a bunch of crimes to hide it.
They couldn’t get Clinton to stick because verbally lying (no monetary/intimidation fueled cover-up) about something embarrassing didn’t appear to rise to the level. Paying large sums of money to influence an election 11 days prior? I guess we’ll see.
This really goes into depth about how the whole situation is bigger than even I thought it was.