Thursday, May 9

Stormy Daniels - Trump's Porn Star?

As you may know, there is an ongoing New York State criminal trial against ex-President Trump that very salaciously involves an ex porn star named Stormy Daniels. Many people seem to be confused about this case, as was I, so I took a deeper dive and read the court transcript to-date and will here present what I found.

First of all, let's meet Stormy!

Here she is having her brains fucked out by a co-star in one of her many porn movies

And here she is giving a tits out, legs spread blowjob to another 'fella.

And here she is taking it up the ass from yet another 'fella!

Needless to say, I could go on. Now you don't get that kind of coverage from the mainstream media, do you?

Her birth name was Stephanie A. Gregory, born in 1979 in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. She started exotic dancing while still in high school at age 17, running away from home, and then started appearing in adult films at age 23. She eventually moved on to direct more than 150 films and win many porn industry awards.

Here is Trump and Stormy around the time the alleged affair took place.

They met at a 2006 Lake Tahoe celebrity golf outing where her studio was a sponsor. She was 27 years old at the time. Trump had just turned 60 and enjoyed huge celebrity status as he had a mega-hit on his hands with The Apprentice.

Trump had recently married Melania 2005) and had just had his child Barron (2006). Apparently that golf tournament was flooded with high profile celebrities and porn stars.

According to Stormy's recent court testimony, they first met at the golf hole Wicked Pictures were sponsoring. The owner introduced another girl and Stormy to Trump (as they did with everybody that came through). He introduced Stormy as both actor and director. Trump commented "oh, you actually direct too? You must be the smart one."

Trump finished his practice round and then made his way back to the gift room where Stormy was. He talked to all the girls and had his photo taken with Stormy (the photo two above). He specifically remembered her from the course as "the smart one". He asked for a DVD that she had directed and she handed him "The Three Wishes".

Then she saw him talking to somebody she later learned was Trump's security guy, Keith, who later came up to her and asked "Mr. Trump would like to know if you would like to have dinner with him?" Initially she said "Fuck, no!". But she exchanged cell numbers with Keith regardless.

She later talked to her publicist who said she had another dinner she did not want to go to, and he said it would be amazing to go have dinner with Donald Trump and as a bonus she could use that as an excuse to ditch her other dinner.

Then she messaged with Keith and they set it up to meet at Trump's penthouse suite.

When she got there she was invited in by Keith. Trump is inside wearing silk or satin two-piece pajamas that she immediately made fun of him for, saying, "Does Mr. Hefner know you stole his pajamas?"

She told him to go change and he obliged her "very politely" rejoining her quite quickly in a dress shirt and pants. She describes the most magnificent hotel suite imaginable.

They sit together at a table and Trump says it's still a bit early for dinner and did she mind if they chatted a bit and later they could decide to go down to one of the restaurants or stay in his suite and eat in.

She describes a pleasant and amusing conversation, including Trump asking many insightful questions about her industry. This surprised her as most guys ask her about "the sexy stuff", but Trump asked these amazing questions about her industry. She was impressed by that aspect. But she also thought he was quite self-centered, a know-it-all, always wanted to impress, and kept cutting off her answers. So she was getting hungry and a bit fed up with that aspect, so when he bragged about him being on the cover of an important magazine that was about to come out for which he had an advance copy, she got fed up.

"Are you always this rude, arrogant, and pompous? You don't even know how to have a conversation!" He looked a bit taken aback (recall she was 27 at the time). She went on, "someone should spank you with that. That's the only interest I have in that magazine. Otherwise, I'm leaving."

He rolled it up and gave her the look that he dared her to do it. So, now she kind of had to, she testified. She took it from him, told him to stand up and turn around, and swatted him on the bum with it! Afterwards, they sat back down and continued the conversation with him being much more polite.

After another great conversation about all manner of things, he said he thought she'd be great for The Celebrity Apprentice. She said she doubted the network would go for having a porn star on the show. Trump said he thought he could make it happen.

He then said that she reminds him of his daughter because she is smart and blond and beautiful and people underestimate her as well. And, Stormy says,

"the way he framed it did actually make perfect sense, because he is all about like PR things, the spin. And he was like, that will really shake things up, and you can go on the show and prove that you are not just a dumb bimbo, you are more than people think and he would get a lot of attention for having this crazy idea."

They then phone a friend of hers to invite her up as well, but she declines.

Stormy has to use the bathroom at some point and uses the one off the main bedroom, which was huge and luxurious. While there she sees a leather toiletry bag of Trump's and snoops into it.

"I did look. I'm not proud of it. I wondered what is in here. And I noticed the toiletry was -- the items were Old Spice and Pert Plus. I thought that was both amusing and odd. And a manicure set, which was gold, gold tweezers and all gold things."

After that, her testimony gets EXTREMELY sketchy. When she comes out of the bathroom she's surprised to see Trump on the unmade bed in his boxers and a T-shirt. She claims she "blacked out" (but was not drunk, had not taken drugs, and testifies she was definitely not drugged, and testifies she was definitely not forced or threatened). She remembers having missionary sex without a condom. Apparently ex-President Trump was so good that he literally fucked her brains out, as she can't remember a thing other than his gold toenail clippers, if she is to be believed.

Mind you, in her later book she says she made Trump her bitch in their sexual encounter, but she now claims that even though she made him her bitch, now she is saying that the room was spinning and that she passed out on the bed after sex. Very conflicting testimony.

For the next year they speak frequently in a very friendly manner in front of multiple witnesses.Trump is trying to make The Apprentice happen and gives her updates. They met at a club in public and kissed with hundreds of witnesses present. In March of 2007 she visits him in Trump Tower. She accepts tickets from him for Miss USA Pageant and attends. She later meets him at his bungalow in LA. She claims he made advances but she claimed she was on her period.

He phones her a couple of more times, once saying he was unable to get her on the show, and then later calling her to apologize as soon as he heard a different porn actress, Jenna Jameson, was to do the show, and it was not his doing, he'd have preferred her. There was no further contact.

At no time was Trump ever embarrassed to be seen with her in public, and at no time did Trump ever ask her to keep anything they did confidential (according to her testimony).

In 2011 she's approached by a gossip magazine, In Touch, that is going to do a story about Trump at the golf tournament. She sells her story to them for $15K for a 15 minute phone interview. The article never comes out as Trump's lawyer/fixer/scumbag Michael Cohen threatens to sue them for defamation.

As a result, Stormy doesn't get paid.

Stormy then claims she was approached by a man in a parking lot she perceived as threatening telling her to stop talking about her relationship with Trump. She claims this happened in 2011, with no witnesses, and she didn't tell a soul, not police, not friends, not her husband, until an Anderson-Cooper interview in 2018 and later on The View. Cohen claims he never sent such a man and Stormy believes him, having appeared twice on his podcast and saying so. So who did? Or did it happen at all?

In 2015, with Trump now running for President, her agent convinces her to try selling her story again. She apparently has no takers until the Access Hollywood "grab 'em by the pussy" stuff comes out, and then there are takers in October 2016. She says she decided to let Cohen buy it from her for $130K as she would get the money and not have to go public and believes she would be free of any threats. Her agent and lawyers take $34K.

Stormy signs a non-disclosure agreement for the $130K. If she tells the story, she must pay them $1M each time in damages. She claims now she signed it out of fear based on the one vague threatening contact (with no proof) she claimed happened 5 years earlier.

In 2018 the Wall Street Journal is going to run a story about the $130K payment. She refuses to comment and in the fallout she issues the following note:

In court testimony she admits she signed it reluctantly but willingly, and now testifies it was a lie.

She then hires Michael Avenatti, a scummy lawyer who is currently doing time for stealing money from clients and for extortion.

He gets her freed from her NDA in a very anti-Trump California court (where else?) on ridiculous grounds and awards her $100K in court costs (that Avenatti then goes on to steal from her!). She then starts selling her story and making appearances and cashes in with a book.

In the book she makes the claim about being threatened. Trump tweets it's a con job. Stormy/Avenatti sues Trump for defamation (Stormy says she didn't want Avenatti to but he did anyways... ?). The court finds in favour of Trump and orders Stormy to pay court costs and legal fees of $660K which she has yet to pay and swears she never will because she thinks it's "not fair" (she testified to that, in court!). She does a documentary about her affair for another $100K, and keeps shopping her story around to this day.

On cross it comes out that she's now worth millions and can easily afford to pay the judgments, and that she is concealing her assets to avoid collection efforts. On cross many lies are exposed casting grave doubts about her reliability as a witness at all. And there's still at least another day of cross examination to go as I write this.


Okay, so, my take? I believe Trump and Stormy met at the golf tournament, knew each other and talked about her being on The Apprentice. I believe she went to his hotel suite and the pajamas, flirting and spanking and conversation happened.

I'm only at 50% whether or not they actually had sex. Her story of "blacking out" is ridiculous, and she signed the vehement denial.

So they either had intercourse or they didn't, either way she decides to sell the story only once he starts running for President. I believe Cohen, acting as Trump's fixer, did pay her for the NDA.

I'm only at 50% whether or not Trump directed him to do so, or whether he was just clearing away any negative publicity on his own recognizance. There has been no objective evidence presented that Trump ordered it, only Cohen's say so, a convicted felon, multiple liar and extortionist, who claims Trump told him to "just handle it" verbally with no witnesses.

I don't believe there was ever a "threatening man". She's using that as her justification for why she wrote out the statement about not having sex when later, after she was freed from the NDA, she changed her story.

Even if the sexual encounter is true, my Trump is a stud! Bagging a porn star and fucking her so hard she can't even recall it. Either way, it actually sounded like a fun little encounter, and then years later a greedy, immoral, not too bright girl, badly advised by people taking a cut, tries cashing in.

As Scott Adams puts it...


As to what it has to do with the charges against Trump? Absolutely nothing!!! This whole circus was allowed to go on in a misguided (and backfiring) attempt to turn the public against Trump.

The DA who brought the case, Alvin Bragg, campaigned on "getting Trump".

The judge in the case is a Democrat donor and his wife and child are both huge democrat supporters who suffer from strong TDS.

The jury is likely stacked against Trump.


But what are the charges? I find it so revealing that the mainstream media never covers that or how anything said in court relates to that.

The charge is that the fees paid to the LAWYER Cohen, used allegedly in part to reimburse him for the $130K Stormy NDA payment in multiple instalments, were categorized as "legal expenditures" as opposed to "Paying Stormy to shut up" expenditures. The man who actually categorized them said he did it for the obvious reason it was fees paid to a lawyer, and he did it on his own judgment. There are only so many categories you can choose on their pre-configured bookkeeping system. He testified neither his boss, CFO Weiselmann, nor Trump ever directed him to misclassify anything.

Under NY State law, a misclassification (that this very arguably is not), is a misdemeanour with a 2 year statute of limitations.

To elevate this to a larger crime requires that it be done in furtherance of a larger crime. They claim the larger crime is some sort of election crime of making hush money payments. Only, that's not a crime, it's done routinely, and the federal election authorities looked at this specific case and failed to bring charges.


In short, the whole thing is a farce designed to make Trump look bad and tie up his time and money at a key time in the election cycle. And it's using a weaponized legal system to do it.

Anybody supporting this or cheering this on are showing their true colours and should be ashamed of themselves.


I'll accept comments, but some ground rules.

  • No ad-feminem personal attacks against me.
  • Stick to commenting on the merits of this case and this trial alone.
  • Don't mix in gratuitous unrelated ad-hominem attacks against Trump.
  • Okay to discuss what Stormy's testimony says about Trump's character if you're being specific.
  • Either reference stuff I say, or bring up something you think I missed.
  • General support is always appreciated, especially on a topic like this.


98 comments:

  1. "Apparently ex-President Trump was so good that he literally fucked her brains out, as she can't remember a thing other than his gold toenail clippers, if she is to be believed."

    I think you must have missed the part in her testimony where she was asked if the sex was "brief." Her reply: "Yes."

    I haven't read the whole transcript, though I've followed the proceedings closely, despite the fact that I see this case a pretty trivial in the scheme of Trump's various court cases. Based on the media accounts, Trump's counsel seems to have spent a lot of her cross on slut-shaming and casting aspersions on Daniel's money-making efforts. At one point, she asked her some pointed questions about her efforts to hawk a candle, prompting Daniels to retort about the schlock Trump is constantly selling. However you may feel about Daniel's attempts to monetize the encounter, I'm not sure that line of questioning was very smart coming from counsel for a defendant whose latest business endeavor is hawking autographed Bibles, in a case that's all about a sex scandal. And, in general, building your defense around criticizing sluttiness and money-grubbing seems pretty likely to backfire giving this particular defendant. Like most people, juries aren't big on rewarding rank hypocrisy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that defense counsel strategically erred in the slut shaming. There was enough other stuff to impeach her on. However, fair game to note that she made a lot of money with her story, hence motive for lying.

      Regardless, it's all a circus and has nothing to do with the absurd charges brought. The attempt is to get us all to talk about Stormy and ignore the massive miscarriage of Justice and election interference happening under our noses.

      Disappointed that you're not joining me in calling that out. It's sending the US down a tit for tat rathole where every ex-administration is going to be hounded by weaponized politicized "Justice". While any remnant of respect for the judicial system disintegrates.

      However, Trump's popularity only grows from banging girls like Stormy.

      Delete
    2. Well, you can be disappointed. Life is full of occasions for it. But, you're crying about a miscarriage of justice for a guy who has filed hundreds of ludicrous civil cases over the years, most of which he dismissed before being deposed or getting his ass kicked on dispositive motions. He's used the court system like his private play toy his entire life. Or, how about his refusal to back off on his claims about the Central Park 5 long after they not only had been exonerated but the victim recanted? Sorry, but you're not going to get much sympathy from me when it comes to Trump possibly being, for once, on the receiving end of a somewhat flimsy court case after he's brought hundreds of them and actively encouraged sketchy criminal cases against others, including his political opponents. It's called "karma."

      Where I don't disagree with you is that the tit-for-tat weaponization of the justice system is a huge problem, but let's remember where that started. I doubt you were singing this same tune about the might of the justice system being used to pursue trivial, partisan cases when it was Clinton getting a consensual blowjob.

      Delete
    3. Well, I was a teenager then not paying attention, but, yeah, the Clinton impeachment was a total sham. But that was a political process, not a criminal one.

      Your whataboutism of a private citizen using the legal system, entirely legally (was he ever convicted of doing anything inappropriate?) does not hold a candle to the government weaponizing the Justice system to suppress a political opponent, very transparently.

      Delete
    4. Clinton gave up his law license in exchange for not being prosecuted. So, no, it wasn't merely a political or civil process.

      Delete
    5. I didn't know that, thank you. I presume it was for lying while under oath, the famous "I did not have sexual relations with that woman!"

      Delete
    6. That particular quote wasn't under oath (I think that one was an answer to questions from a reporter) but, yes, it was a lie on that same subject, that was under oath in a deposition, that led to an agreement in which Clinton surrendered his law license in exchange for not being prosecuted. And, of course, the whole thing started with a totally unrelated investigation regarding a land deal, which was itself a big nothing burger. So, I get how Trump supporters can look at this case and see it as a similar nothing burger. But, in terms of the tit-for-tat, you're basically insisting that the party that was originally the subject of these nothing-burger attacks, whether via criminal investigations or impeachments, should be the one to stand down first. Because, I don't think there's any valid argument that this current cycle started with New Gingrich weaponizing personal "indiscretions" against a Democratic president.

      Delete
    7. Julie and Dan
      OMG
      This came frighteningly close to being a thoughtful, reasonable, balanced -- and, dare I say it, cordial conversation on one of the 10 million or so polarizing political issues confronting us daily. You both really need to remember how unseemly this sort of thing is and what a dangerous example it might be for any children or impressionable who might be reading. If I see more of this online, I know who to blame
      Alan

      Delete
    8. Dan - I think you can back much further in history if you want to keep doing that. Like Nixon or JFK and no doubt earlier.

      What matters is where we are today, and this unprecedented weapons action of the judicial system goes well beyond the pale into "banana republic" territory.

      Delete
    9. Alan - I blame my rules!

      Delete
  2. Daniel’s testimony has nothing to do with the case they are trying to make against Trump. Her testimony was a sideshow intended to embarrass Trump and damage his reputation with voters. But Trump voters know who he is. They aren’t looking to date him. They don’t want to elect him as pastor. They want low energy costs, a growing economy , low inflation, no wars and a closed border. All things that were in place under Trump and immediately and on purpose reversed by the current administration. Trump’s alleged crime was giving money to Daniels to help him win an election. And, as we all know, trying to win an election as a Republican is illegal in the state of New York. Election tampering is only permitted on the Left. It’s a contrived case that every serious legal professional says should never have been brought. It’s based on a legal theory that has never been tried because it’s dumb. But, now that we have a police state, anything goes. If the prosecution wins, they will be overturned on appeal. They know it. But the real point of the case is to prevent Trump from campaigning and weaken his chances to be elected. And it’s not working. In fact, it’s having the opposite effect. By they time this lawfare is decided, even New York may be in play in the election. - david

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed.
      And, of course, paying for an NDA is not an election crime as the Feds have stated, so the whole premise of this case is ludicrous.

      Delete
  3. I think it's pretty obvious they had sex. No one pays someone else for not having sex with them. The money is covering the sex, that's obvious.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe, maybe not. You also don't have sex for the 1,000,000th time and completely black out, so there is that.

      I think the reality is if someone is going around harming your reputation, and there is plenty of evidence there was an opportunity for private sex, a fixer might well pay them off as any other course of action is costly and may make matters worth.

      I don't argue that Trump did not want sex with her, just that I'm dubious it ever took place.

      Delete
    2. Ok, so your argument is that she said something that you don't believe means that it is unlikely that she had sex with Trump?

      Interesting argument.

      I would have thought that the fact that Trump paid her off (over $100K) means she had sex with him. I don't see why anyone would pay someone so much money unless they were trying to cover something up. If she was just talking about having sex with Trump, he would have just sued her, as he always does.

      Delete
    3. Not just "something". Her specific testimony about the entire sex part (she blacked out) lacks all credibility. FYI, I personally don't care if he did or didn't bag her.

      As to paying off, read my reply just above. Already answered.

      Delete
  4. I am not a Trump fan but I prefer to beat him at the ballot box.

    If I understand it right, paying Stormy off is supposed to be an election violation. Not a big deal to me and not a precedent we should set.

    By the way, why is everyone in porn a “star”? Other moves have b actors, supporting actors and character actors.

    Rosco

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Only thing is, paying her off has already been ruled to NOT be an election violation, in the more general case, and specifically in this case as well. It's a transparently idiotic case. A flagrant abuse of the Justice system for the purposes of interfering in the 2024 election.

      Delete
  5. To paraphrase classic SNL, "Julie, you ignorant slut, ..." (and I don't think ad-feminem is a word?)

    I love you leading with the three pics of Stormy! Yes, this is who we are dealing with... But very naughty of you to do that.

    The case is obviously a farce, as you point out, but we all love consuming the National Enquirer level trash gossip, true or not, who cares. Especially the spanking which is more spanko than I knew before reading your account.

    I notice a distinct lack of comments on this blog compared to your other Trump posts, due no doubt to your very reasonable ground rules. Kind of demonstrates "they" don't have a lot to say other than baseless petty insults.

    It is, as you say above, pretty disappointing that Democrats don't flock in on the comments to agree, exposing them as total hypocrites. How can they at the same time claim re-electing Trump will mean "the end of democracy" and yet not condemn this bullshit, as Rosco above did. Dan being an apologist for this crap by crying (without basis) "but Trump did it first!" - nice moral clarity there, not!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Merriam-Webster
      ad feminam - Marked by or being an attack on a woman's character rather than an answer to the contentions made.
      First used in this context in 1874.
      You stand corrected, slut boy. (Although I did misspell it!).

      You caught me on my cheeky use of her porn shots!

      I know re the spanko part! She did it as a punishment that he obediently bent over for and then corrected his behaviour after! He's one of us!

      As for Dan, hey, I'm happy he admitted "Where I don't disagree with you is that the tit-for-tat weaponization of the justice system is a huge problem". I.e., in English, he agrees. And he implicitly agrees this case has no merit. You can't expect him to actually say that, though. Too much cognitive dissonance at once, but he's on the right track!

      Delete
    2. Yes, bbob, you Trumpers are so into "moral clarity." The guy who epitomizes each of the seven deadlies selling autographed Bibles . . . give me a break. And, I didn't say anything about the morality of prosecuting Trump on these charges. I merely said I wasn't going to shed any tears for someone who has promoted flimsy prosecutions being the subject of an (allegedly) flimsy prosecution himself. And, let's face it, it's not like the alleged flimsiness in the facts of this particular case actually matter to you or Julie. You'll be making the same arguments and the same excuses in the January 6th case, and the Georgia election case, and the Florida documents case . . . .

      Delete
    3. No, no, no, no. I did not say or imply it "has no merit." I said it was too trivial for me to work up much concern over one way or another. Michael Cohen served prison time for the same set of facts that led to the trial against Trump. And, so far the only witness who has contradicted that the payoff was campaign-related is Hope Hicks, though she didn't even really contradict it. She testified that there was a huge concern that, after the Access Hollywood leak, another sex scandal could kill the campaign. But, she said Trump also was concerned about his wife finding out. Which, you know, who wouldn't be? I think Barron was four months old when his old man (emphasis on "old", as shown so clearly in the "lecherous old fat guy hanging on the young young blonde" pic in your post) was out banging a porn star. It's the kind of thing a new mom might get a little miffed about, right? But bbob and other Trumpers, do keep prattling on about "moral clarity."

      Delete
    4. You did refer to this as an example of "tit-for-tat weaponization", and we agree.

      Cohen did a plea deal so that case was never heard, and was also widely regarded as being without merit in the same way. He copped the plea to avoid worse charges and because the DA thought that could damage Trump more.

      You keep going on as if Trump paying for an NDA is an election violation when it absolutely is not. If somebody else paid, then yes that might be an illegal donation above the limit, in which case, by definition, it's not Trump's issue.

      You sound very sex negative Dan. I could not care less if Trump had sex outside his marriage. That's between Trump and Melania. I do care about weaponizing the Justice system for political ends. You trying to draw a false equivalence there sounds desperate.

      Delete
    5. Julie, you can be sex positive and still think that a guy fucking a porn star with a four month old kid at home is a scumbag. Being sex positive doesn't mean you accept everything someone does as moral or ethical just because it involves sex.

      Your statements about Cohen demonstrate another way in which Trump is being poorly served by his lawyers. (Or, they are are arguing stupid shit because Trump often pressures otherwise competent lawyers to argue stupid shit.) There is one thing pretty much every witness so far seems to agree on -- they all disliked Michael Cohen and saw him as out for himself. Yet, part of Trump's defense so far has been that Cohen supposedly made this payment out of the "kindness of his heart." That defense simply is not compatible with who they are painting Cohen to be. A dumb jury might might miss that fundamental inconsistency, but this panel has two lawyers. I doubt they are going to miss it.

      I'm not going to get into your interpretation of campaign law. You get out on a limb every time you start playing lawyer, and I don't like punching down.

      Delete
    6. Also, let's think about your "sex negative" argument and whether it's consistent with Trump's trial strategy. I'm suggesting that you can like sex and yet still find some personal behavior around sex indicative that the person engaging in it is a scumbag. Someone on Trump's trial team apparently agrees with me, since a cornerstone of their defense is that Trump paid hush money not because he was worried about the story's impact on his campaign but, rather its impact on his marriage. So, is that a "sex-positive" defense? If having sex with a pornstar shortly after your wife gives birth is just no big deal and morally neutral, why was he worried about Melania finding out? Wasn't he being sex-negative in trying to kill the story? Why not go out and loudly proclaim that cheating with a porn star four months after your wife gives birth is totally sex-positive, so fuck all you sex-negative haters? Is Melania "sex-negative"? If fucking a porn star when you have an infant at home is sex positive and no big deal, then Trump's "he was concerned for his family" defense makes no sense at all.

      Delete
    7. Ha! "Punching down". Please Mr. Genius, make the case as to exactly what election law was violated...

      Delete
  6. I personally do not care whether Trump did or did not try to pay hush money to porn stars. I expect all politicians are deeply unethical and corrupt and we shouldn't be naive.

    I don't like Trump, I don't like Biden, but I just don't care about this issue at all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't find the payment for an NDA in any way unethical or corrupt, except possibly on Stormy's part. Am I missing something?

      Delete
    2. No, I basically feel the same way. It seems clear that both sides will use 'lawfare' to go after each other.

      Delete
    3. Well, one has proven it, the other threatened it.

      Delete
  7. Would this have come to this if there was not merit? I keep hearing Trump is being picked on, and none of what is said about him is true. There has to be something because you cannot keep making up charges, your bound to get caught. Take this for what you want, Trump is playing a game, trouble is the game is back firing. This is my opinion, and like you, would be hard to change. I respect your view, each one of us should respect others views and not get into a pissing contest, not worth it. I'm just going to wait and see how this all works out. Jack

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very naive, jack. You can look at it and see it is without merit. The way it came to this is because of corrupt DAs and judges.

      Delete
    2. Not naive, if we have corrupt DA's and Judges, then the most violent criminals would be set free. I don't know what the court system is like in Canada, if could be the same as you said of the court system in the United States. Jack

      Delete
    3. Jack, stop trying to reason with the delusional. Trump is an angel. Wait, no he’s terrible but everyone is corrupt and terrible so who cares?

      Delete
    4. Neither of you boys are cut out for debating, eh? Oh well, it's not for everyone.

      Delete
    5. Julie, you’re not looking for debate. You are looking for people to mindlessly agree with you. Any point made is dismissed by you using falsehoods and equivocations. Please read some non Trump sources if you actually want to debate.

      Delete
    6. Ha ha! You're like a broken record. I always know it's you, even though you never have the courtesy of signing. My Little Troll! 🧌

      I don't "dismiss" points, I counter them with reason and logic. You would know that if you ever actually raised a legitimate point instead of just trolling.

      🧌 🧌 🧌

      Delete
  8. Contrary to bbob, I think "democrats" don't bother arguing with Julie anymore, because she doesn't play by her own ground rules. When she starts losing arguments (to knowledgable debaters), she insults the opponent and cancels the discussion. I, for one, don't see the point in arguing with someone whose mind can't be changed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And yet, you provide no examples, as usual...

      Delete
    2. it's hard to provide examples of times when your mind has been changed, when no examples exist

      Delete
    3. My mind is not often changed because I have thought through and debated my positions long before I commit them to writing.

      You seem ignorant of the fact that the purpose of debate is not to convince one another, it's to convince the audience. You are not at all convincing because you provide no cogent argument on the topic.

      Delete
    4. I have no intention of convincing you of anything: I know your mind is always made up.

      You underestimate others. Others may find the observations that I make useful and convincing.

      Delete
    5. Still waiting for any such observation... Say something insightful about this Trump case. We await with baited breath...

      Delete
  9. Given that you live in Canada - as do I - I'm a little disappointed you don't turn your sharp criticism towards Trudeau the Lesser and his band of incompetents. God knows he provides a target rich environment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He certainly does, but I have 10x more US readers and I try to keep stuff relevant to them (and also it's much more impactful, what goes on in the States, to Canada, then anything Turdeau may do).

      Delete
  10. Stormy has nothing at all to do witjh this criminal trial. Trump is charged with hiding his hush money payment (not illegal in and of itself) by falsifying financial records. The issue has nothing to do with whether or not he fucked her. It has nothing to do with paying her to be silent. All that is just noise. All that counts is the way the transactions were handled. That isn't in question either. They were illegally hidden. The only issue is whether Trump knew this was happening.

    I was surprised that the state put Daniels on the stand. What, if anything, she did with Trump is totally beside the point as is your long discussion of her sex life.

    It seems likely that Trump was involved in covering up the payoff. I wonder why he had it done through his company instead of just writing a check. That payment was perfectly legal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it's very much in question if filing a payment to Cohen, a lawyer, under "legal expenses", which is one of a small few categories that may be chosen, is "illegally hiding". And if that was it, it would be a misdemeanour and off statute of limitations. Their case is it was in aid of some other, as yet unspecified, felony, for which Trump has not been charged with and does not exist.

      You're really reaching trying to defend the Dems on this one. You know darned well if it was anybody other that Trump, it would not have been charged at all. It's hypocritical to the max not to just say so. Does not mean you love Trump. It just means you hate the politicization of the judicial, regardless of the target.

      And re Stormy, not only is it irrelevant, it's prejudicial in a serious way, thus also against the law.

      Delete
    2. I think that the state made a mistake calling her as a witness. It can only confuse the jury to consider what-if-any sexual activity took place. The case is about hiding payments as legal fees.

      Delete
    3. Not really. That's a misdemeanour if that.

      The case is about some alleged election felony that was not specified in the charging documents and has not yet been made clear, more than a week into the trial.

      Delete
  11. Ms Julie I’d also be interested in your take on Canada under Trudeau. In Australia we hear it’s going batshit woke crazy over there but is that just a media beat up, what’s life really like on the ground and is Poilievre the answer? As for the seppos they get more than enough coverage from you. Let’s have a nice little commonwealth chat for a change?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, it's not as bad as others make out. Trudeau is now considered a marginal anomaly who will be voted out next time around. Pierre has a lot of common sense policies and we should see a nice turnaround.

      Delete
    2. Justin is an authoritarian of a level Putin and Biden could barely aspire to. Freedom of thought let alone freedom of speech are dead in Canada.

      Delete
    3. And yet... here I am...

      Delete
    4. And bless your heart. Speak loud, speak free !!! I am too venerable....really feeling like a coward. I am ashamed,...
      for my wives and my wives, kids, grandkids. Opa Chris, escaped from East Germany.....nothing but a coward now.
      I am scared Julie....
      this isn't the country I fled to

      Delete
    5. I remain hopeful in the common sense of Canadians.

      Delete
  12. From Scott Adams on X:

    “91 indictments, and all I will remember is Trump has golden nail clippers in his toiletry bag and he once fucked a porn star so hard she blacked out.

    That's who I want negotiating with Putin.“

    - david

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I quoted that in the blog 👆.
      Were you paying attention, david?

      Delete
    2. I am reminded again that I almost never have anything meaningful to add to your political commentary. I agree with almost everything and you say it better, more precisely and more persuasively. I’ll go back to my corner now. - david

      Delete
  13. Not ad-hominem attacks on Trump but to give background on my perspective: I think Trump is a threat to American democracy. I think he was a horrible president with policies I do not agree with and it baffles me why evangelical Christians embrace him except for the abortion issue, which he’s recently backed away from. I think he should have been impeached both for his threatening to withhold military aid to Zelensky and for encouraging the Jan. 6th riots. I think his calls to the GA election officials are much worse than this, even though that prosecution has been bungled. I think he had sex with Stormy Daniels and her “blacking out” has more to do with being told by prosecutors not to go into salacious detail, or perhaps not wanting to go into the details for her own personal reasons.
    Having said all that… I also think that Trump is likely to be found not guilty in this trial and frankly is innocent of these charges against him. There’s a recorded call where Trump and Cohen talk about paying her off and Trump basically tells him to “handle it” but, absent additional testimony from Cohen or others involved in the business side of Trumps dealings, this does not meet the elements of the crime. (I’m a lawyer) If anything, Cohen, who organized, negotiated, and documented the payoff and how it was recorded in the financial ledger is the one guilty of the crimes Trump is charged with here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well choose to agree to disagree re. Trump.

      Military aid should be withheld from the most corrupt regime in recent times (not that he ever did withhold it).

      There is zero evidence he arranged any violence on Jan 6. You're speaking out of turn on that.

      As a lawyer, is it not perjury to say in court you blacked out when in fact you didn't?

      The Georgia call, with 20 people on it including many lawyers, was not Trump asking anybody to manufacture votes. It was 100% obvious he's telling them to do their jobs and identify the corrupt votes.

      As a lawyer, perhaps you can tell us what the alleged election crime is? (Not the supposed falsification of business records, the supposed election crime that was meant to further).

      But good for you for condemning this abuse.

      Delete
    2. All campaign donations need to be recorded and public. The campaign donations in the form of hush money payments to women Trump slept with were not by either Trump Org or The Enquirer. They were either not disclosed or masked as something else. That’s lying to influence an election. They were campaign costs paid by other institutions so no one would find out about the payments. A crime.

      Delete
    3. Except according to the FEC it's not a campaign donation if such an expenditure would have been made for non-election reasons as well, which is clearly the case here. Other cases with hush money payments have established the precedent. The FEC looked at it and declined to pursue it.

      The reason for reporting election contributions is to monitor that the donors are staying within contribution limits. In this case, Trump paid, and he's allowed unlimited expenditures. You're pulling it out of your ass that "lying to influence an election" is any sort of a crime.

      Delete
    4. He purposely obscured this payment because to do so publicly would have hurt his campaign. It’s a form of fraud and he got caught. If he had paid her himself he would have been fine but he didn’t he used company funds.

      Delete
    5. The FEC is a federal politically appointed board. It has been ineffective historically. This is a state prosecution so the FEC doesn’t apply.

      Delete
    6. So you now say his company has committed the crime of an illegal campaign donation? I have not heard that point brought up before. So the board of the company are all facing charges?

      The FEC decides what is and is not a violation. Regardless, Trump was never accused of a campaign finance violation. They looked at it and said it was fine.

      You know darned well this is a case of "get Trump selective prosecution". Shame on you for your hypocrisy.

      Delete
    7. Nope not hypocrisy. The FEC has no role in state prosecutions. You
      may not be familiar with the federal system. Trump committed a crime and that’s not hypocrisy, it’s critical thinking which is something you surrendered a long time ago when it comes to Donald Trump.

      Delete
    8. Use your brain, now. Why have no federal election charges been brought against Trump?

      Delete
    9. Update- Cohen testified that he went over the plan with Trump in detail so my earlier comment is not correct. Will come down to jury determination of Cohen’s credibility.

      Delete
    10. Cohen has zero credibility, objectively.

      Regardless, I still fail to see what election crime was ostensibly committed. All you people hanging on every syllable when you don't have a clue what election crime they're trying to charge.

      Delete
  14. Hey Dan - A Disciplined Hubby, I am still waiting for your answer. What Law was broken?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As Stalin said " show me the man and I will show you the crime".

      Delete
    2. The law that was broken was falsifying business records to make an illegal campaign contribution to influence an election. Trump’s business paid a porn star to not tell her embarrassing story and did so with company funds and lied and said it was legal fees. A crime was committed by Michael Cohen, Donald Trump and anyone at Trump Org that knew they were falsifying records. It was a crime, plain and simple. Not the worst he is accused of committing but definitely a crime.

      Delete
    3. 1/ It's a real stretch that a payment to Cohen, for many different things, labelled as a legal expenditure, is falsifying anything.

      2/ even if it is, it's a misdemeanour with a 2 year statute of limitation that has expired.

      3/ it has been elevated to a felony by the claim that the alleged falsification was done in pursuance of some vague election felony, yet the FEC looked at the Stormy payments and cleared that as being any kind of violation.

      Try again.

      Delete
    4. This is a simple NY financial reporting case, usually these are wrapped up by paying any alleged taxes that were not paid, any interest or penalties and movnig on. Pretty much anyone who has filed a tax return and overreported their charitable or other deductions to lower their taxes is the same kind of criminal. What a collosal waste of resources.

      Delete
    5. The waste of time is the least of it. It's a corrupt legal system directed by Democrat leadership to attempt to embarrass the opponent, tie him up in court when he should be campaigning, and tie him up with legal expenses he should be spending on his campaign. It's the most blatant form of Democrat fascism we've yet seen.

      Delete
  15. No need to try again. It’s a crime. Cohen was convicted of campaign finance violations he committed at the request of candidate Trump and sent to prison. Put down your Kool Aid and let the Courts work. Not the crime of the century but a crime nonetheless.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cohen copped a plea deal to avoid worse charges. It was never adjudicated.

      Besides, if Cohen went to jail for a campaign violation, then why is Trump being charged??? And if Trump paid Cohen to make this campaign contribution, then why did Cohen go to jail???

      Delete
    2. Um, it’s called conspiracy. When two or me people work together to commit a crime. Pretty common here in the US, not sure about Canada. Cohen went to jail because he engaged in a conspiracy to commit fraud. Trump was an unnamed co-conspirator but surely you knew that.

      Delete
    3. It's like you have no reading comprehension. Cohen copped a plea to that to avoid unrelated worse charges

      Have you ever asked yourself, if Trump was guilty of conspiring like you say, why is he not charged with that?

      Delete
    4. Trump was charged with what he did. Working with Michael Cohen and others to falsify records to cover up his affairs and influence the election. You are delusional to think Cohen went to jail for some other reason. He committed fraud on his client’s behalf. Read up on the case a bit and you’ll see. Don’t just look for what already supports your side.

      Delete
    5. Cohen was also charged with concealing $4M from the IRS, a much more significant charge than an over-contribution charge. The alleged campaign finance charge was never proven in court as Cohen copped a plea to the multiple charges and received a light sentence in return.

      And Trump has not been charged with any campaign violation. He was charged with some dubious bookeeping thing.

      Delete
  16. I was never a Trump fan - thought he was a buffoon. But his first term wasn't bad, actually, though he still acted the buffoon.

    What I genuinely don't get is by now Trump is the most vetted, most examined, most wiretapped, most subpoenaed, most investigated President we ever had, and all they came up with to prosecute him with is this shit (and the other shit) which leaves us all scratching our heads with, what now is the crime here?

    It means they could find nothing worse, or they would have gone after that, right?

    Which probably makes him the most provably un-criminal buffoon to ever run for President?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, exactly! And I think the public is coming to this conclusion, as in "you told me he was this giant criminal, and this is all you got?"

      Delete
  17. So I’ve known that ole Stormy was a porn star but never once have I looked her up, cause I didn’t care. Came here to see if you posted anything worth a damn and I finally see Stormy naked. I feel like my life is complete now.
    Fuck Trump and hopefully he gets executed for his crimes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're welcome for the naked Stormy pics.

      Re. Trump - "executed" for what crime now? Crazy TDS man.

      Delete
    2. Oh, they’re out there. And they don’t just want Trump dead. They want people like me dead or in prison. Fortunately, there are 10s of millions of us and we’re all hard to kill. And they know it. So they scream at the sky. - david

      Delete
  18. On Canada woke discussion Canadians can take a joke. A friend of mine got a secondment from Sydney to Canada and managed a culturally mixed workforce. Someone complained about use of the “c word” in the workplace so at the next meeting he said “Ok now which of you fucking cunts called this cunt a cunt?” Canadians pissed themselves laughing. They can’t be that woke.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The regular folks are not at all woke, just a few "elite" assholes and some mentally ill.

      Delete
  19. Australian women love Canadian men because they have never met a polite man before in their lives.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Yes this is your blog, Yes you have a good amount of people who follow you. But with all the stress in this world, like many of us, we look to this blog to find relief, a break from what is happening. Will be glad when you get back to why we all come, spankings. Jack

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Feel free to skip the blogs that stress you out jack, and if so, better not to comment!

      Delete
    2. Agree, just will keep checking in

      Delete
  21. “Stick to spanking posts!”

    Stormy/Trump: 94 comments.
    Last 3 spanking posts combined: 94 comments.

    -david

    ReplyDelete
  22. I got no problem with Ms Julie writing about whatever the hell she wants. And let’s face it - right wing women are way hotter.

    ReplyDelete