---

---

+ 5 more quotes (click to expand)

---

---

---

---

blacksox said:

---

I am impressed that the Texags cabal has managed to review and weigh the Trump evidence, and reach firm conclusions as to what it means with respect to the applicable criminal statutes, before that evidence has been released or presented, and with nary a mention of the criminal statutes he is alleged to have violated. That's quality legal work right there.

---

HowdyTexasAggies said:

Quality work by you ignoring unethical behavior by Democrats.

---

Neehau said:

What exactly do Democrats have to do with Donald Trump paying a hooker to have sex with him and then paying her to not talk about it?

---

Reginald Cousins said:

Hypocrisy. That's what.

Whataboutism is fine when it's been illustrated that one side doesn't face the same scrutiny. Clinton perjured himself as a sitting president on infidelity.

---

Neehau said:

This isn't Democrats. This is a grand jury indictment. No one is above the law. This time, The Donald doesn't have the Constitution and partisanship covering his crimes. He will be treated like any other citizen who breaks the law.

---

Reginald Cousins said:

What would you qualify the major population of New York as?

Edit: Nice ignore of Clinton.

---

Neehau said:

What does Clinton have to do with Donald Trump paying a hooker for sex and lying about it? What does Clinton have to do with Donald Trump paying the same hooker to not reveal the above and lying about it?

---

What does Clinton lying under oath about sexual misconduct have to do with this? That's your question?

I'll let you sit down and figure it out.

fka ftc said:

---

Ari Fleischer on Faulkner confirmed Secret Service has the decision on whether Trump is handcuffed.

Lots of folks gonna be mad they will not get the pics of him in the silver bracelets.

This is exactly how obtuse and absurd libs are. You going to put Trump in prison? Where? With SS protection? So now you are sentencing innocent government employees to prison with Trump?

Dems are colossally stupid and have not thought this through well.

---

You're ASSUMING that SS would go with trump. Seriously? You're entire accusation is based on that, and that's ridiculous. And no, the consensus is that trump will NOT be in handcuffs, so no one is going to be surprised. I, personally, am looking forward to the mugshot though!

---

Neehau said:

---

What does Clinton have to do with Donald Trump paying a hooker for sex and lying about it? What does Clinton have to do with Donald Trump paying the same hooker to not reveal the above and lying about it?

---

fka ftc said:

Trump did not pay a hooker for sex. Please stop repeating lies over and over. Pretty sure its against the rules. And if he did not pay her, which there is not even an allegation of, then its fair to say he was not lying.

---

Actually, that is not known to be true.

We do know he paid her $130,000, allegedly, to not talk about it during the election.

---

---

+ 1 more quotes (click to expand)

Ag CPA said:

---

Nobody cares about this except MAGAs and Progressives. Bang ugly porn stars and this is what can happen.

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

The weaponization of the justice system should terrify everyone.

This means there is no longer a rule of law.

---

DukeMu said:

That's bullsh*t and desperate talking points.

---

Nope. The feds passed the prior DA passed. This is Soros bull**** and you're a minion.

May you suffer the same fate you wish on others.

---

---

+ 6 more quotes (click to expand)

---

---

---

---

---

blacksox said:

---

I am impressed that the Texags cabal has managed to review and weigh the Trump evidence, and reach firm conclusions as to what it means with respect to the applicable criminal statutes, before that evidence has been released or presented, and with nary a mention of the criminal statutes he is alleged to have violated. That's quality legal work right there.

---

HowdyTexasAggies said:

Quality work by you ignoring unethical behavior by Democrats.

---

Neehau said:

What exactly do Democrats have to do with Donald Trump paying a hooker to have sex with him and then paying her to not talk about it?

---

Reginald Cousins said:

Hypocrisy. That's what.

Whataboutism is fine when it's been illustrated that one side doesn't face the same scrutiny. Clinton perjured himself as a sitting president on infidelity.

---

Neehau said:

This isn't Democrats. This is a grand jury indictment. No one is above the law. This time, The Donald doesn't have the Constitution and partisanship covering his crimes. He will be treated like any other citizen who breaks the law.

---

Reginald Cousins said:

What would you qualify the major population of New York as?

Edit: Nice ignore of Clinton.

---

Neehau said:

What does Clinton have to do with Donald Trump paying a hooker for sex and lying about it? What does Clinton have to do with Donald Trump paying the same hooker to not reveal the above and lying about it?

---

Reginald Cousins said:

What does Clinton lying under oath about sexual misconduct have to do with this? That's your question?

I'll let you sit down and figure it out.

---

Clinton was impeached for it. Again, what does it have to do with this? A state crime during an election?

---

---

+ 1 more quotes (click to expand)

Neehau said:

---

What does Clinton have to do with Donald Trump paying a hooker for sex and lying about it? What does Clinton have to do with Donald Trump paying the same hooker to not reveal the above and lying about it?

---

fka ftc said:

Trump did not pay a hooker for sex. Please stop repeating lies over and over. Pretty sure its against the rules. And if he did not pay her, which there is not even an allegation of, then its fair to say he was not lying.

---

Neehau said:

Actually, that is not known to be true.

We do know he paid her $130,000, allegedly, to not talk about it during the election.

---

He paid a hooker $130,000? What was the hooker's name?

As the great Charlie sheen once said, he didn't pay them to have sex with him…..he paid them to go away afterwards.

---

---

+ 7 more quotes (click to expand)

---

---

---

---

---

---

blacksox said:

---

I am impressed that the Texags cabal has managed to review and weigh the Trump evidence, and reach firm conclusions as to what it means with respect to the applicable criminal statutes, before that evidence has been released or presented, and with nary a mention of the criminal statutes he is alleged to have violated. That's quality legal work right there.

---

HowdyTexasAggies said:

Quality work by you ignoring unethical behavior by Democrats.

---

Neehau said:

What exactly do Democrats have to do with Donald Trump paying a hooker to have sex with him and then paying her to not talk about it?

---

Reginald Cousins said:

Hypocrisy. That's what.

Whataboutism is fine when it's been illustrated that one side doesn't face the same scrutiny. Clinton perjured himself as a sitting president on infidelity.

---

Neehau said:

This isn't Democrats. This is a grand jury indictment. No one is above the law. This time, The Donald doesn't have the Constitution and partisanship covering his crimes. He will be treated like any other citizen who breaks the law.

---

Reginald Cousins said:

What would you qualify the major population of New York as?

Edit: Nice ignore of Clinton.

---

Neehau said:

What does Clinton have to do with Donald Trump paying a hooker for sex and lying about it? What does Clinton have to do with Donald Trump paying the same hooker to not reveal the above and lying about it?

---

Reginald Cousins said:

What does Clinton lying under oath about sexual misconduct have to do with this? That's your question?

I'll let you sit down and figure it out.

---

Neehau said:

Clinton was impeached for it. Again, what does it have to do with this? A state crime during an election?

---

And perjured himself. Where was his indictment?

---

fka ftc said:

---

Ari Fleischer on Faulkner confirmed Secret Service has the decision on whether Trump is handcuffed.

Lots of folks gonna be mad they will not get the pics of him in the silver bracelets.

This is exactly how obtuse and absurd libs are. You going to put Trump in prison? Where? With SS protection? So now you are sentencing innocent government employees to prison with Trump?

Dems are colossally stupid and have not thought this through well.

---

Opalka said:

You're ASSUMING that SS would go with trump. Seriously? You're entire accusation is based on that, and that's ridiculous. And no, the consensus is that trump will NOT be in handcuffs, so no one is going to be surprised. I, personally, am looking forward to the mugshot though!

---

Ari Fleischer would seem to be one in the know on this.

Pretty sure gets round the clock SS protection for life. Someone would have to pull the law on that, it should not be that old.

I am thinking Congress even a few years ago put in procedures should a President be falsely accused and imprisoned by a corrupt DA for a misdemeanor well beyond the statute of limitations.

Yet here we are/

MaxPower said:

---

As the great Charlie sheen once said, he didn't pay them to have sex with him…..he paid them to go away afterwards.

---

Making ex-wifes the priciest hookers of all as most any divorcee will tell you.

Since people like sources and such. Not only does Trump get SS in prison, he still receives his pension, office staff and other covered expenses.

Don't like it, impeach him again and then see if SCOTUS says that counts under Section (f) (2) below.

Quote:

---

Former Presidents Act
(3 U.S.C. 102 note)

(a) Each former President shall be entitled for the remainder of his life to receive from the United States a monetary allowance at a rate per annum, payable monthly by the Secretary of the Treasury, which is equal to the annual rate of basic pay, as in effect from time to time, of the head of an executive department, as defined in section 101 of title 5, United States Code [section 101 of Title 5]. However, such allowance shall not be paid for any period during which such former President holds an appointive or elective office or position in or under the Federal Government or the government of the District of Columbia to which is attached a rate of pay other than a nominal rate.

(b) The Administrator of General Services shall, without regard to the civil-service and classification laws, provide for each former President an office staff. Persons employed under this subsection shall be selected by the former President and shall be responsible only to him for the performance of their duties. Each former President shall fix basic rates of compensation for persons employed for him under this paragraph which in the aggregate shall not exceed $96,000 per annum, except that for the first 30-month period during which a former President is entitled to staff assistance under this subsection, such rates of compensation in the aggregate shall not exceed $150,000 per annum. The annual rate of compensation payable to any such person shall not exceed the highest annual rate of basic pay now or hereafter provided by law for positions at level II of the Executive Schedule under section 5313 of title 5. United States Code [section 5313 of Title 5. Government Organization and Employees]. Amounts provided for "Allowances and Office Staff for Former Presidents" may be used to pay fees of an independent contractor who is not a member of the staff of the office of a former President for the review of Presidential records of a former President in connection with the transfer of such records to the National Archives and Records Administration or a Presidential Library without regard to the limitation on staff compensation set forth herein.

(c) The Administrator of General Services shall furnish for each former President suitable office space appropriately furnished and equipped, as determined by the Administrator, at such place within the United States as the former President shall specify.

(d) [Repealed. Pub. L. 86-682, 12(c), Sept. 2, 1960, 74 Stat. 730. See sections 3214 and 3216 of Title 39.]

(e) The widow of each former President shall be entitled to receive from the United States a monetary allowance at a rate of $20,000 per annum, payable monthly by the Secretary of the Treasury, if such widow shall waive the right to each other annuity or pension to which she is entitled under any other Act of Congress. The monetary allowance of such widow--

(1) commences on the day after the former President dies;

(2) terminates on the last day of the month before such widow--

(A) dies; or

(B) remarries before becoming 60 years of age; and

(3) is not payable for any period during which such widow holds an appointive or elective office or position in or under the Federal Government or the government of the District of Columbia to which is attached a rate of pay other than a nominal rate.

(f) As used in this section, the term "former President" means a person--

(1) who shall have held the office of President of the United States of America;

(2) whose service in such office shall have terminated other than by removal pursuant to section 4 of article II of the Constitution of the United States of America; and

(3) who does not then currently hold such office.

(g) There are authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator of General Services up to $1,000,000 for each former President and up to $500,000 for the spouse of each former President each fiscal year for security and travel related expenses: Provided, That under the provisions set forth in section 3056, paragraph (a), subparagraph (3) of title 18, United States Code [section 3056(a)(3) of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure], the former President and/or spouse was not receiving protection for a lifetime provided by the United States Secret Service under section 3056 paragraph (a) subparagraph (3) of title 18, United States Code; the protection provided by the United States Secret Service expired at its designated time; or the protection provided by the United States Secret Service was declined prior to authorized expiration in lieu of these funds.

---

---

---

+ 1 more quotes (click to expand)

Neehau said:

---

What does Clinton have to do with Donald Trump paying a hooker for sex and lying about it? What does Clinton have to do with Donald Trump paying the same hooker to not reveal the above and lying about it?

---

fka ftc said:

Trump did not pay a hooker for sex. Please stop repeating lies over and over. Pretty sure its against the rules. And if he did not pay her, which there is not even an allegation of, then its fair to say he was not lying.

---

Neehau said:

Actually, that is not known to be true.

We do know he paid her $130,000, allegedly, to not talk about it during the election.

---

The $130,000 was, by your post, for silence, not for sex.

I understand it is a gray area and the sexual service and porn world are full of ick. Whatbhave you seen that makes her a hooker in addition to being a porn star? Moreover, what evidence presented so far makes her sex with Donald Trump transactional?

It's the fact they actually went through with it. Despite sitting on it for years, and being passed up by the SDNY and Mueller. Trying to artificially twist a misdemeanor into a felony is asinine.

Rapier108 said:

---

So who is this Nate Basil troglodyte?

---

Former student that is fully into manmade climate change and transgender rights. A true believer.

Shooting the bird in his smug profile pic. Seems classy.

The one thing I can't get past....

This is a state prosecutor, filing what really is a federal charge not state related. Other than a biased judge not following the law, how will a motion to dismiss not immediately be granted if Trumps people file one.

[Be very clear with your statement. If you have proof of payment for sex, present it. If you don't and want to articulate that thought as an opinion, be clear that it's an unproven opinion. Do not represent a salacious opinion about someone as fact, or you will be banned -- Staff]

---

---

+ 3 more quotes (click to expand)

---

---

blacksox said:

---

I am impressed that the Texags cabal has managed to review and weigh the Trump evidence, and reach firm conclusions as to what it means with respect to the applicable criminal statutes, before that evidence has been released or presented, and with nary a mention of the criminal statutes he is alleged to have violated. That's quality legal work right there.

---

HowdyTexasAggies said:

Quality work by you ignoring unethical behavior by Democrats.

---

Neehau said:

What exactly do Democrats have to do with Donald Trump paying a hooker to have sex with him and then paying her to not talk about it?

---

Reginald Cousins said:

Hypocrisy. That's what.

Whataboutism is fine when it's been illustrated that one side doesn't face the same scrutiny. Clinton perjured himself as a sitting president on infidelity.

---

Neehau said:

This isn't Democrats. This is a grand jury indictment. No one is above the law. This time, The Donald doesn't have the Constitution and partisanship covering his crimes. He will be treated like any other citizen who breaks the law.

---

Except Democrats. Who are clearly above the law if you read the news over last several years.

Let's say trump did something technically illegal here with payments.....my response is - I don't care.

I don't understand why any Republican or conservative should care anymore. If democrats are going to no longer be held accountable then we shouldn't either.

So break some white collar laws, Trump. Pay a hooker and don't pay taxes on it or whatever the claim is. Don't care.

Gyles Marrett said:

---

The one thing I can't get past....

This is a state prosecutor, filing what really is a federal charge not state related. Other than a biased judge not following the law, how will a motion to dismiss not immediately be granted if Trumps people file one.

---

There was a discussion on this on one of the other 627 threads.

The New York statute that its believed to be at issue says "when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit

another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof"

The question is whether "another crime" is limited to violations of New York state law or if it extends to any law of the United States.

I have no idea what the answer is, and doubt any one here knows either. But I bet if there is a definitive case on that question, we will know in short order!

BaitShack said:

---

Anyone up for looting a Footlocker?

---

maybe a tool store, hardware, store, or outdoors store.

are these allowed? do i need to refer to the looters handbook?

Have any of the former Presidents made a public statement about the indictment?

In their hear of hearts Clinton and Obama have to be sweating this. They know the GOP is going to go on the warpath of revenge and those two will be the primary focus. The GOP doesn't even have to come up with anything remotely reasonable. Just have to find one tidbit of malfeasance that can be used to convince some random DA somewhere to push for charges.

Within five years we will see Clinton or Obama charged and handcuffed. Thanks for opening this Pandoras Box leftists........enjoy the **** show you started.

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

Have any of the former Presidents made a public statement about the indictment?

In their hear of hearts Clinton and Obama have to be sweating this. They know the GOP is going to go on the warpath of revenge and those two will be the primary focus. The GOP doesn't even have to come up with anything remotely reasonable. Just have to find one tidbit of malfeasance that can be used to convince some random DA somewhere to push for charges.

Within five years we will see Clinton or Obama charged and handcuffed. Thanks for opening this Pandoras Box leftists........enjoy the **** show you started.

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

Have any of the former Presidents made a public statement about the indictment?

In their hear of hearts Clinton and Obama have to be sweating this. They know the GOP is going to go on the warpath of revenge and those two will be the primary focus. The GOP doesn't even have to come up with anything remotely reasonable. Just have to find one tidbit of malfeasance that can be used to convince some random DA somewhere to push for charges.

Within five years we will see Clinton or Obama charged and handcuffed. Thanks for opening this Pandoras Box leftists........enjoy the **** show you started.

---

See my post above. This will never happen. Democrats are above the law at this point. That has been proven over and over.

Pipe dream.

---

Gyles Marrett said:

---

The one thing I can't get past....

This is a state prosecutor, filing what really is a federal charge not state related. Other than a biased judge not following the law, how will a motion to dismiss not immediately be granted if Trumps people file one.

---

Im Gipper said:

There was a discussion on this on one of the other 627 threads.

The New York statute that its believed to be at issue says "when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit

another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof"

The question is whether "another crime" is limited to violations of New York state law or if it extends to any law of the United States.

I have no idea what the answer is, and doubt any one here knows either. But I bet if there is a definitive case on that question, we will know in short order!

---

I'll go with all the other legal scholars that said "Nope! Nuh-uh!" when this bull**** was floated previously. It took this ****tard to turn the Derp to 11.

---

---

+ 1 more quotes (click to expand)

Neehau said:

---

What does Clinton have to do with Donald Trump paying a hooker for sex and lying about it? What does Clinton have to do with Donald Trump paying the same hooker to not reveal the above and lying about it?

---

fka ftc said:

Trump did not pay a hooker for sex. Please stop repeating lies over and over. Pretty sure its against the rules. And if he did not pay her, which there is not even an allegation of, then its fair to say he was not lying.

---

Neehau said:

Actually, that is not known to be true.

We do know he paid her $130,000, allegedly, to not talk about it during the election.

---

Today's the anniversary of Hillary having to pay a $113,000 fine for her part in the Russia/Steele dossier. It was a campaign finance violation. I don't see Hillary being indicted.

Quote:

---

I'll go with all the other legal scholars that said "Nope! Nuh-uh!" when this bull**** was floated previously. It took this ****tard to turn the Derp to 11.

---

Who were those scholars?

In my opinion, it a massive stretch to the point of lacking any credibility to try to tie the fraudulent document to a campaign finance violation, but I have not seen anywhere that the issue of using a federal law as the "crime" in this statute was looked at by any one else.

---

Quote:

---

I'll go with all the other legal scholars that said "Nope! Nuh-uh!" when this bull**** was floated previously. It took this ****tard to turn the Derp to 11.

---

Im Gipper said:

Who were those scholars?

In my opinion, it a massive stretch to the point of lacking any credibility to try to tie the fraudulent document to a campaign finance violation, but I have not seen anywhere that the issue of using a federal law as the "crime" in this statute was looked at by any one else.

---

The previous DA floated it, and researched it, only to figure out it wasn't worth it.

Do you have a link to that?

Interesting you think that previous DA was a legal scholar!

Im Gipper said:

---

Do you have a link to that?

Interesting you think that previous DA was a legal scholar!

---

LOL

It's been posted on the many threads prior to the current ****stick's dumb****ery, that's where I read it.

[Be very clear with your statement. If you have proof of payment for sex, present it. If you don't and want to articulate that thought as an opinion, be clear that it's an unproven opinion. Do not represent a salacious opinion about someone as fact, or you will be banned -- Staff]

Regarding the Celebrity Apprentice claim, I found this article.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/who-is-stormy-daniels-what-did-she-say-happened-with-trump-2023-03-30/

The article mentions Celebrity Apprentice multiple times. However, it never explicitly states that the appearance would be in exchange for sex. It also says sex was consensual, but says nothing of it being transactional. I can only assume a respected [sic] new outlet like Reuters would make that clear if that were the case.

I never watched Celebrity Apprentice. Was she ever on it? If not, then that can't be considered a payment. The worst that could be assumed specific to that claim is that Trump lied to her in order to bag her.

Oh dear, a man lied in order to have sex with a woman.

In other words HeeHaw is again making a case based on his own inferences without having facts.

Who says crime doesn't pay??

New: Trump campaign says it raised over $4m in the 24hrs after the Manhattan grand jury returned an indictment and 25 percent of donations came from first-time donors, per release

— Hugo Lowell (@hugolowell) March 31, 2023

Loading full tweet…

J/K

The man can raise money. They have t shirts with next Tuesday indictment made already. 36 bucks.

They know they have nothing

But it helps two goals at once:

1) make Trump the GOP nominee so Biden doesn't have to face DeSantis

2) Get Transhooter out of the public consciousness and into the memory hole where they want her

Ags77 said:

---

The man can raise money. They have t shirts with next Tuesday indictment made already. 36 bucks.

---

Its called capitalism. There are a lot of CMs and RINOs around here who could take note.

Vs scammers who use micro donations and noname giftcards to buy votes.

GD Trump for being such an American loving capitalist!