Stormy Daniels

Originally Posted by TSA

inbound Trump takedown letdown #17

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

Another woman, another lawsuit

New Subpoena ... because (m)any of Trump's Apprentice outtakes could be defamatory



Loose sphincter lips sink ships… perhaps Tom Arnold can get in on this new variation on Trump’s social humiliation.

Polly Sigh@dcpoll

MONEY SHOT:

Summer Zervos subpoenas ‘The Apprentice’ recordings to prove Trump defamed her by calling her a liar.

The subpoena seeks ANY recording in which Trump speaks of women “in any sexual or inappropriate manner.”

#Maddow https://nyti.ms/2Krmuqd

5:05 PM - May 2, 2018

PRUITT: I tweeted, as a producer of seasons one and two of "The Apprentice," hashtag,

when it comes to, hashtag, Trump tapes,

I assure you there are far worse.

And then I hashtag-ed just the beginning, and I misspelled beginning.

And what I meant by that was that we recorded constantly.

We went into the boardroom to set up discussions about how and who should get fired without talking and saying directly who should get fired.

So there was a big long exchange, all of which was recorded.

And out of those exchanges came from really unfathomably de able words said by this guy who is a TV star.

I heard it. I watched it.

And those things are somewhere in some warehouse.

www.npr.org/...

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/201...-be-defamatory

Whoa! Trump said mean horrible stuff about people! True if Huge!

Originally Posted by AaronY

Felonies good now.

Nothing matters unless you can get 67 votes to impeach lol. Economy would have to tank and Republicans would have to abandon him

He's got a 40% approval with a great economy and no major foreign wars so if it did tank really bad he might go down but otherwise its just pissing in the wind. And I don't want the economy to tank just to get Drumpf out

Originally Posted by AaronY

Nothing matters unless you can get 67 votes to impeach lol. Economy would have to tank and Republicans would have to abandon him

Just remember. Rosenstein said in the past DOJ said a sitting President couldn't be indicted, but in his words "don't draw any inference from that as it pertains to current matters" . Indictments come first. If congress refuses to act, SCOTUS may get involved. Again, this is without precedent.

Damn Rudy. Just tellin everything

Like Spurraider was saying

Tranny wannabe Julie Annie just said on F&F that the payoff was to protect Trash's campaign

Originally Posted by AaronY

Whoa! Trump said mean horrible stuff about people! True if Huge!

So are you a Trump supporter or just trolling. Come out one way or the other already.

Giuliani Saying Trump fired Comey because he didn't tell him he wasn't a target of the investigation only strengthen the obstruction case, no?

That's corrupt intent. Oh hey, you're investigating me, either exonerate me or I'll fire you!

Originally Posted by Reck

Giuliani Saying Trump fired Comey because he didn't tell him he wasn't a target of the investigation only strengthen the obstruction case, no?

No

Originally Posted by DarrinS

No

Then what is it Darrin? That's not a justifiable firing.

Originally Posted by Reck

Giuliani Saying Trump fired Comey because he didn't tell him he wasn't a target of the investigation only strengthen the obstruction case, no?

That's corrupt intent. Oh hey, you're investigating me, either exonerate me or I'll fire you!

Yes.

Originally Posted by djohn2oo8

Then what is it Darrin? That's not a justifiable firing.

He could fire Comey for any reason.

Originally Posted by DarrinS

He could fire Comey for any reason.

Not for investigating him Darrin. That is corrupt intent. Hence why the the Obstruction of Justice law exists.

Originally Posted by djohn2oo8

Like Spurraider was saying

One of your tweets since then said payments were 35k. So it wouldn’t apply. Also it has nothing to do with the patriot act crofl

its usually done to hide money laundering, not necessarily to support terrorism like that tweet. Done a lot in Medicare fraud schemes, wtc

Originally Posted by djohn2oo8

Not for investigating him Darrin. That is corrupt intent. Hence why the the Obstruction of Justice law exists.

He wasn't the subject of the investigation.


I don't know why you guys think this is some earth shattering revelation.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post9042505

Originally Posted by DarrinS

No

Originally Posted by DarrinS

He could fire Comey for any reason.

Not a lawyer here but I'm pretty sure you cant fire someone investigating you because they refuse to exonerate you in the middle of said investigation. And neither do you Darrin.

We'll let Mueller decide this. It sure looks like corrupt intent to me.

You know, aside from changing the cause of the firing from: It was because he was too mean to Hillary to I fired Comey because of the Russia thingy to I fired Comey but it wasn't because of the Russia investigation to now, I fired him because he wouldn't clear me.

Jesus Christ.

Originally Posted by Reck

Not a lawyer here but I'm pretty sure you cant fire someone investigating you because they refuse to exonerate you in the middle of said investigation. And neither do you Darrin.

We'll let Mueller decide this. It sure looks like corrupt intent to me.

You know, aside from changing the cause of the firing from: It was because he was too mean to Hillary to I fired Comey because of the Russia thingy to I fired Comey but it wasn't because of the Russia investigation to now, I fired him because he wouldn't clear me.

Jesus Christ.

I don't know how you exonerate someone who isn't the subject of an investigation.

Originally Posted by DarrinS

He wasn't the subject of the investigation.


I don't know why you guys think this is some earth shattering revelation.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post9042505

Sorry. His own lawyer said it. Then the WH before said they fired him because he was too mean to Hillary. Lol. Then Trump told the Russians in the WH that firing Comey took pressure off.