Trump Lawyer Arranged $130,000 Payment for Adult-Film Star’s Silence

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I think offering/accepting hush money is ok if all we are talking about is consensual sex. It's none of my business what two consenting adults do.

Sure.

No, the WSJ, NYT, WaPO did not write stories on this. But you better believe they would report allegations like this about Trump.

Actually, I remember the press covering the issue, including his press conference he held the National Press Club, I believe.

Unfortunately, he discredited himself in a variety of ways. Not only did he not have anything to support his claims, he acted like a complete idiot and presented himself as a nutbag of epic proportions.

Not saying his accusations were not true or untrue, but he was the type of person you try to make sure you back away from very slowly and put quite a bit of distance between him and yourself.

a reply to: Cutepants

If there was truth to the claim, like the woman said, you would read it in her book.

She could get paid big time, more than she would be obligated to under an NDA, yet she denies it. I wonder why?

originally posted by: YungMahn
a reply to: Vector99

Kathy Griffin has nothing to do with leftist ideology.

Yes she does, bigly!

Is this the left eating the left?

Nom nom, mmmm liberals.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I think offering/accepting hush money is ok if all we are talking about is consensual sex. It's none of my business what two consenting adults do.

Sure.

No, the WSJ, NYT, WaPO did not write stories on this. But you better believe they would report allegations like this about Trump.

Actually, I remember the press covering the issue, including his press conference he held the National Press Club, I believe.

Unfortunately, he discredited himself in a variety of ways. Not only did he not have anything to support his claims, he acted like a complete idiot and presented himself as a nutbag of epic proportions.

Not saying his accusations were not true or untrue, but he was the type of person you try to make sure you back away from very slowly and put quite a bit of distance between him and yourself.

Politico (and the Slate if you consider them mainstream) was the only mainstream outlet to report Larry's arrest and they used it as an opportunity to smear Larry.

And you are correct...Larry didn't have Gloria Allred to take him under her wing...he didn't have any major news interested in hearing him or taking him seriously, at all. He had to do his own PR and he didn't present himself well. Big deal.

BUT, Obama also NEVER denied any of Larry's claims. So why should you or anyone else deny them on his behalf and why would any media simply assume that Larry's story was not credible enough to report on?

Given Trump's ego, it is probably to keep her quiet about how he is hung.

One thing is for sure, Trump is no LBJ when it comes to being well endowed.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Cutepants

If there was truth to the claim, like the woman said, you would read it in her book.

She could get paid big time, more than she would be obligated to under an NDA, yet she denies it. I wonder why?

And if it's FALSE...

Why hasn't a libel lawsuit been filed against the reporters?

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: YungMahn
a reply to: Vector99

Kathy Griffin has nothing to do with leftist ideology.

Yes she does, bigly!

Is this the left eating the left?

Nom nom, mmmm liberals.

NOT REALLY.

No one in "liberal" social media was LAMENTING her absence on New Years bro. No one.

No one misses her. Liberal OR conservative.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Politico (and the Slate if you consider them mainstream) was the only mainstream outlet to report Larry's arrest and they used it as an opportunity to smear Larry.

From what I can recall, he was worthy of smearing. He had a history of making very bad choices and blaming others for his problems.

And you are correct...Larry didn't have Gloria Allred to take him under her wing...he didn't have any major news interested in hearing him or taking him seriously, at all. He had to do his own PR and he didn't present himself well. Big deal.

I think the big deal was that he made claims against Obama that he could not even begin to prove.

BUT, Obama also NEVER denied any of Larry's claims.

Why should he have to? When it comes to crazies, it's best to just ignore them and him not denying those claims is not proof of guilt or innocence.

So why should you or anyone else deny them on his behalf

Did I not say that I was not making any claim to whether the accusations were true or not?

and why would any media simply assume that Larry's story was not credible enough to report on?

Ask the media. I don't know.

originally posted by: introvert

Ask the media. I don't know.

Are you being serious with that?

Like, even if I "asked the media" do you think I would get an honest answer if the truth is that they didn't want to report negatively on Obama about sex scandals?

You think they would give me that answer if it was the truth?

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Are you being serious with that?

Yes. I cannot speak for them. Perhaps they are completely biased. Perhaps they thought the guy was a nutbag and when you combine that with unsubstantiated claims, they found it a waste of time.

This story on Trump does not appear to be coming from a nutter, as far as I know, and it's good for webhits and such to run stories about Trump. IE: Not a waste of their time.

Like, even if I "asked the media" do you think I would get an honest answer if the truth is that they didn't want to report negatively on Obama about sex scandals?

You think they would give me that answer if it was the truth?

I suspect that it wouldn't matter what they told you, honest or not. You are only going to believe what you want to believe.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Are you being serious with that?

Yes. I cannot speak for them. Perhaps they are completely biased. Perhaps they thought the guy was a nutbag and when you combine that with unsubstantiated claims, they found it a waste of time.

This story on Trump does not appear to be coming from a nutter, as far as I know, and it's good for webhits and such to run stories about Trump. IE: Not a waste of their time.

Like, even if I "asked the media" do you think I would get an honest answer if the truth is that they didn't want to report negatively on Obama about sex scandals?

You think they would give me that answer if it was the truth?

I suspect that it wouldn't matter what they told you, honest or not. You are only going to believe what you want to believe.

I don't like that you call some people nutters/nutbags arbitrarily.

***

This woman claims the WSJ report isn't even true and yet they reported on it.

Larry Sinclair makes claims that Obama doesn't deny and they don't even ask him about it...they just bury the story for him.

But, you're right, I wouldn't believe 'the media' if I asked them...unless they said, "We drive the public's thinking and we did not want them thinking about Larry Sinclair."

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I don't like that you call some people nutters arbitrarily.

I don't like the fact that I have to walk the same streets with people that believe some of the absolute craziest nonsense imaginable. For all I know, they could snap for no reason. Or they could be like that guy that shot up a pizza parlor because of what he believed. But what can I do? People have the right to believe what they want and I have the right to call em nutters.

This woman claims the WSJ report isn't even true and yet they reported on it.

Like I said, probably good for business.

Larry Sinclair makes claims that Obama doesn't deny

Why does he have to deny it? If he did, would it change anything, other than to show he acknowledged the conspiracy?

and they don't even ask him about it...they just bury the story for him.

Was it buried, or simply not taken seriously?

But, you're right, I wouldn't believe 'the media' if I asked them...unless they said, "We drive the public's thinking and we did not want them thinking about Larry Sinclair."

See. You're only going to believe that which fits your confirmation bias.

originally posted by: gimcrackery
More corrupt liberal B.S. because they are in the Trumps line of sight. a reply to: DanteGaland

The WSJ is Liberal?

originally posted by: DanteGaland

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Cutepants

If there was truth to the claim, like the woman said, you would read it in her book.

She could get paid big time, more than she would be obligated to under an NDA, yet she denies it. I wonder why?

And if it's FALSE...

Why hasn't a libel lawsuit been filed against the reporters?

Good question! Trump wants to sue everyone and yet he hasn't even tweeted a denial? No lawsuit against the WSJ?

This story had multiple sources with details on the transaction. The WSJ is not messing around.

originally posted by: Arnie123
Political gossip, especially considering this was Pre-election. I'd imagine tying up loose ends that would otherwise be used by opponets for nefarious reasons.

If you think charity funds were used, then research it and come back to us, that would be a much more engaging topic, this? come on man. Mad props if he scored a pornstar.

I told people that some Trump supporters would say this.

Look, friend, YOU could definitely score a porn star if you paid them enough and/or they thought they saw $$$$ on the end of it.

It's not like he was some broke college guy who was good-looking, charming and sweet.

Too funny.

The hero of the evangelical right will be forgiven for anything, shooting someone on 5th Avenue, or paying some porn star for sex and then paying for her to keep her mouth shut about it.

Mad props to the girl for working Donald over for serious cash. Not like it is hard, though.

a reply to: introvert

Everything confirms my bias with regard to this topic. Including this WSJ report. What can I say? I think all the evidence suggests my bias against the media is correct/justifiable.

And, I disagree with all kinds of 'beliefs,' as an atheist. But I don't call people nutters/nutbags because they belong to religions that people have killed 'in the name of.' I don't worry every Muslim, Christian, etc. may snap and kill me.

Eh, I agree with you to some degree on the p-gate stuff. I've even starred some of your comments about it believe it or not.

a reply to: DanteGaland

a reply to: DanteGaland


Actually, I think there's TOO much of this "Oops, I did something saucy, guess I'm not worthy of holding any position above busboy" thing that's so popular these days.

Trump's a dude - he wears pants. He likes women. So what if he's paid someone for this, that or the other?

I'm still waiting for the first man in some elevated position to have the balls to frankly say "I'm a man, I like beyotches. Blow me".

In the name of equality, I would like to hear a female public figure boast that she hired 15 guys to gangbang her while dressed as firemen. Why not?

Live a little.

originally posted by: carewemust

Yep.. $130k is too little. Clinton Foundation offered $750k to a FAKE Trump accuser. She chickened-out 3 days before the Presidential election. The day before she was supposed to make the announcement.

What makes you so sure that was fake? IMO it screamed she got paid dearly to keep her mouth shut at the last minute.

a reply to: Uberdoubter

That’s fine. But people like that should not get married and make vows. A spouse who expects vows to be one way, want to own you.