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

Also, gotta love how the MSM is calling this chick a "porn star", while they label that poor alleged victim Jessica Drake an "Adult Entertainer/Entrepreneur".


This is hilarious. CNN is running a story of Stormy Daniels denying it, and even making fun of how if it actually happened, it would be in her book. I think a few people at the WSJ just never heard of this rumor before, and just ran with it like it was fresh. All the rest of the vultures in the MSM are just like "Oh' ,something bad about Trump? Oh' it's old and fake? Well, we'll run what we can."

LOL. What a joke.

She signed a non-disclosure when she got paid out, so she can't talk about it or put it in her book. Didn't you notice how none of the chicks O'loofah harassed talked about it? It was the revelation of all the settlements that got him canned after public backlash.
 
You on your period or something? Why you getting all worked up over a racist degenerate compulsive liar?
Just tired, of all of it.

The longer I frequent this forum the more poisonous I realize it actually is and yet, I find myself coming back to it everyday. It's willfully swimming in
 
Just tired, of all of it.

The longer I frequent this forum the more poisonous I realize it actually is and yet, I find myself coming back to it everyday. It's willfully swimming in

He's a lying racist mutt, get used to it.
 
He's a lying racist mutt, get used to it.
I have no real issue with your opinion of him or any other politician to be honest. It's your opinion and as such has no real bearing on my own. Personally, I believe most politicians are liars to one degree or another and therefor don't trust them as a matter of course.

As far as Trump, I didn't vote for him but I'm also not threatened by him or even the idea of him. But then, it's not really personal to me so much of his shtick does nothing to or for me other than make me shake my head at times and wish someone would turn his phone off.

I believe he's going to get his four years though unless Democrats can run a miracle in elections this year and gain back enough power to push him out. At best, it's likely they'll just keep him tied up in courts to neutralize him. So be it.
 
I have no real issue with your opinion of him or any other politician to be honest. It's your opinion and as such has no real bearing on my own. Personally, I believe most politicians are liars to one degree or another and therefor don't trust them as a matter of course.

As far as Trump, I didn't vote for him but I'm also not threatened by him or even the idea of him. But then, it's not really personal to me so much of his shtick does nothing to or for me other than make me shake my head at times and wish someone would turn his phone off.

I believe he's going to get his four years though unless Democrats can run a miracle in elections this year and gain back enough power to push him out. At best, it's likely they'll just keep him tied up in courts to neutralize him. So be it.

It's not my opinion, it's fact. He's a proud racist and his constant lies are well documented.
 
This means nothing other than he may have slept with a hooker.
 
G1Z8FR4.png


<{fry}>
Divorce incoming...
 
It's not my opinion, it's fact. He's a proud racist and his constant lies are well documented.
As I said, your opinion. Don't get me wrong, I also believe he's a liar, but then as I said, I believe most politicians are liars to one degree or another so in that he's really no different than any of the rest. As far as racist, I would agree as far as his opinion on American vs Non-American or Rich vs Poor or Western vs Non-Western but then that's not really classic racism. That's more Ameracentric bigotry, classism and Western culture bigotry than classic racial bigotry.
 
I doubt Melania cares. She's just waiting for him to drop dead so she can collect her winnings and go back to having sex with normal looking people.
 
If Republicans supported a child molester why would they care about Trump banging a porn star?

Just like the rest of his cabinet "only the best people" he hired a shitty washed up one.

Charlie Sheen > Trump.
He'd make a better President too.
 
God you people are dense.

The allegation is that she was paid 130k to deny having sex with Trump. If in fact that allegation were true, she would literally be doing the exact thing she is doing now, which is denying it happened. Or do you think Trump's lawyers are dumb enough to draw up a nondisclosure agreement that allows someone to publicly discuss the nondisclosure agreement?

Personally I hate Trump for a multitude of reasons but this is what any sensible person in his position would do so I can't knock it.

So let me get this straight. This now gives you license to believe any bullshit story that goes to print and gets denied, as long as the story is that "something...something" happened, but it can't be confirmed and never will be confirmed, because one of the people in question was allegedly paid hush money?

As long as it's reported that someone allegedly got paid to keep quiet, the allegation being made must be true. This is where we're at now. Christ.
 
As I said, your opinion. Don't get me wrong, I also believe he's a liar, but then as I said, I believe most politicians are liars to one degree or another so in that he's really no different than any of the rest. As far as racist, I would agree as far as his opinion on American vs Non-American or Rich vs Poor or Western vs Non-Western but then that's not really classic racism. That's more Ameracentric bigotry, classism and Western culture bigotry than classic racial bigotry.

As I said, it's not my opinion, it's fact. He's a documented racist and liar.
 
As I said, it's not my opinion, it's fact. He's a documented racist and liar.
Opinion and your entitled to it. However if you want to continue upping your post count with this back and forth I can do this all day too. It's not going to change your position or mine either way.
 
So let me get this straight. This now gives you license to believe any bullshit story that goes to print and gets denied, as long as the story is that "something...something" happened, but it can't be confirmed and never will be confirmed, because one of the people in question was allegedly paid hush money?

As long as it's reported that someone allegedly got paid to keep quiet, the allegation being made must be true. This is where we're at now. Christ.

Well it's pretty straightforward if you use common sense.

You might not like it but the reality of it is that when an allegation is made (that is difficult to prove or disprove) against someone or something who is known to be likely to have been guilty of the allegation, then it is going to both be seen as true in the court of public opinion, and likely is in fact is true as well.

Think of the recent case in Texas where the three year old adopted Indian girl went missing. Her parents gave a bizarre story about having her stand outside at 3 am for not drinking milk. Public opinion (including yours truly) believed the parents were making up the story and were guilty long before any evidence was found because in these cases it usually IS a parent. You'd have to be a fool to not automatically assume the parents despite their denial.

In this case, the allegation is that a rich, litigious, serial adulterer had sex with a porn star and paid her money to not blab about. You'd have to be a fool to not assume the allegation has merit when this sounds exactly like something Trump would do.

Again, it's just common sense. If this same allegation was made against Mike Pence most people would find it dubious. If this same allegation was made against Bill Clinton most people would find it credible. That's the reality of things when you're dealing with allegations that aren't going to be proven/disproven in a court of law -- reputation really does matter in the court of public opinion.

Ultimately believe what you want, I just think it's ridiculously dumb to take someone's denial of an allegation (which, if true, would legally require them to deny it) as some sort of exhonoration.
 
Well it's pretty straightforward if you use common sense.

You might not like it but the reality of it is that when an allegation is made (that is difficult to prove or disprove) against someone or something who is known to be likely to have been guilty of the allegation, then it is going to both be seen as true in the court of public opinion, and likely is in fact is true as well.

Think of the recent case in Texas where the three year old adopted Indian girl went missing. Her parents gave a bizarre story about having her stand outside at 3 am for not drinking milk. Public opinion (including yours truly) believed the parents were making up the story and we're guilty long before any evidence was found because in these cases it usually IS a parent. You'd have to be a fool to not automatically assume the parents despite their denial.

In this case, the allegation is that a rich, litigious, serial adulterer had sex with a porn star and paid her money to not blab about. You'd have to be a fool to not assume the allegation has merit.

Again, it's just common sense. If this same allegation was made against Mike Pence most people would find it dubious. If this same allegation was made against Bill Clinton most people would find it credible. That's the reality of things when you're dealing with allegations that aren't going to be proven/disproven in a court of law.

Ultimately believe what you want, I just think it's ridiculously dumb to take someone's denial of an allegation (which, if true, would legally require them to deny it) as some sort of exhonoration.

I don't care what you believe. It's normal to speculate. What I do take issue with, are news agencies like the WSJ printing a story with nothing to back it up. Literally nothing. Unnamed source who alleges it, with flat out denials by everyone involved. It's ridiculous that this type of journalism is just accepted. This is tabloid shit, nobody would pay any mind to if it was on the cover of some rag at the checkout at a grocery store. WSJ though? This must have attention paid to it now. Those guys are real professionals.

It's all rather pathetic at how low the standards have sunk.
 
I don't care what you believe. It's normal to speculate. What I do take issue with, are news agencies like the WSJ printing a story with nothing to back it up. Literally nothing. Unnamed source who alleges it, with flat out denials by everyone involved. It's ridiculous that this type of journalism is just accepted. This is tabloid shit, nobody would pay any mind to if it was on the cover of some rag at the checkout at a grocery store. WSJ though? This must have attention paid to it now. Those guys are real professionals.

It's all rather pathetic at how low the standards have sunk.
He's a tabloid president.

Trump can sue the writer, Stormy can sue, Cohen can sue....guess what, they dont dare.
 
Eh it is normal for rich people to have appointments with women that provide companionship.
 
Back
Top