On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 16:20:55 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:



Trump: 1
Stormy: 0

and a California judge, no less !

What was the decision about. NBC had nothing on this tonight.

On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 00:27:16 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

So you say cooperating with the Russian government to fix a
Presidential election is not an impeachable offense

I have not seen any proof that the election was "fixed" in any way.
Certainly there was some damaging information released but isn't that
what news organizations are supposed to do? Nobody has said the
released emails were not true and they indicated the Hillary team was
trying to hurt Sanders as much if not more than Trump. I would think
democrats would like to know that, particularly Sanders democrats.
Only a democrat could call the truth "meddling".
As for the trolling on Facebook, the dossier and the data mining, you
have to blame Zuckerberg along with a russian company and the Brits.
Why aren't you saying the Brits meddled in the election too? One of
their intelligence officers was involved along with one of their
corporations. Isn't that pretty much what you say about Russia?

On 3/30/2018 1:59 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 16:20:55 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:



Trump: 1
Stormy: 0

and a California judge, no less !

What was the decision about. NBC had nothing on this tonight.


He denied her lawyer's request to depose Trump and/or Trump's attorney
Cohen and for an expedited jury trial.

Like Harry said though ... might be temporary as it is a "procedural" issue.

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 00:27:16 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

So you say cooperating with the Russian government to fix a
Presidential election is not an impeachable offense

I have not seen any proof that the election was "fixed" in any way.

"So you say cooperating with the Russian government to fix a
Presidential election is not an impeachable offense - if it's
Trump? Note, you said it, not me. You're ****ing crazy."

Chopping as you did is a very poor practice.

On 3/30/18 1:59 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 16:20:55 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:



Trump: 1
Stormy: 0

and a California judge, no less !

What was the decision about. NBC had nothing on this tonight.


Are you talking about the half hour network news show? Those shows don't
cover a lot. It certainly was covered on the NBC cable outlet, MSNBC.
Basically, the judge said it wasn't timely yet for Stormy's case against
the Trump goniffs to proceed. In another development, Trump's lawyer's
lawyer claimed Trump had no knowledge of the $130,000 settlement, which
is fake news believed only on Fox, by its watchers, and Luddite here.

On 3/30/2018 9:26 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 3/30/18 1:59 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 16:20:55 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:



Trump:Â* 1
Stormy: 0

and a California judge, no less !

What was the decision about. NBC had nothing on this tonight.


Are you talking about the half hour network news show? Those shows don't
cover a lot. It certainly was covered on the NBC cable outlet, MSNBC.
Basically, the judge said it wasn't timely yet for Stormy's case against
the Trump goniffs to proceed. In another development, Trump's lawyer's
lawyer claimed Trump had no knowledge of the $130,000 settlement, which
is fake news believed only on Fox, by its watchers, and Luddite here.


Would you mind citing when I ever said that?

Talk about Fake News. Must be in a liberal's DNA.

On 3/30/18 10:33 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/30/2018 9:26 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 3/30/18 1:59 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 16:20:55 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:



Trump:Â* 1
Stormy: 0

and a California judge, no less !

What was the decision about. NBC had nothing on this tonight.


Are you talking about the half hour network news show? Those shows
don't cover a lot. It certainly was covered on the NBC cable outlet,
MSNBC. Basically, the judge said it wasn't timely yet for Stormy's
case against the Trump goniffs to proceed. In another development,
Trump's lawyer's lawyer claimed Trump had no knowledge of the $130,000
settlement, which is fake news believed only on Fox, by its watchers,
and Luddite here.


Would you mind citing when I ever said that?

Talk about Fake News.Â* Must be in a liberal's DNA.


I didn't claim you said it, but since you are a "believer" in Trump...

Hey, many years ago, I played the "Battleship" strategy game on my
computer...so when Trump fires the Secretary of Defense, I suppose I'll
get the call, since I am qualified...or do I have to be on your favorite
news channel, Fox, first?

On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 06:00:58 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 00:27:16 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

So you say cooperating with the Russian government to fix a
Presidential election is not an impeachable offense

I have not seen any proof that the election was "fixed" in any way.

"So you say cooperating with the Russian government to fix a
Presidential election is not an impeachable offense - if it's
Trump? Note, you said it, not me. You're ****ing crazy."

Chopping as you did is a very poor practice.

I just questioned the "fixed election" part of your rant so we could
take your points one at a time.
When you preface an entire scenario on a lie, the rest does not rise
to the level of being taken seriously.
How was it "fixed"?
If you can't describe the "fix" the rest falls from it's own weight.

On 3/30/2018 12:10 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 06:00:58 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 00:27:16 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

So you say cooperating with the Russian government to fix a
Presidential election is not an impeachable offense

I have not seen any proof that the election was "fixed" in any way.

"So you say cooperating with the Russian government to fix a
Presidential election is not an impeachable offense - if it's
Trump? Note, you said it, not me. You're ****ing crazy."

Chopping as you did is a very poor practice.

I just questioned the "fixed election" part of your rant so we could
take your points one at a time.
When you preface an entire scenario on a lie, the rest does not rise
to the level of being taken seriously.
How was it "fixed"?
If you can't describe the "fix" the rest falls from it's own weight.





It's progressive liberal tactic.

On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 09:26:13 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 3/30/18 1:59 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 16:20:55 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:



Trump: 1
Stormy: 0

and a California judge, no less !

What was the decision about. NBC had nothing on this tonight.


Are you talking about the half hour network news show? Those shows don't
cover a lot. It certainly was covered on the NBC cable outlet, MSNBC.
Basically, the judge said it wasn't timely yet for Stormy's case against
the Trump goniffs to proceed.

I did not see it on the local or network show. I also did not see it
in 2 hours of the CNN "newsroom". All they said was Trump was likely
to be deposed and giggling about that. They had no reports about a
setback in that case.
I don't watch Cooper or Lemon.


In another development, Trump's lawyer's
lawyer claimed Trump had no knowledge of the $130,000 settlement, which
is fake news believed only on Fox, by its watchers, and Luddite here.

The legal opinions I have heard say it might actually be better if he
did know but it really does not change the validity of the NDA.
I do feel bad for Stormy because she is the one who is going to get
ground up in this case. I doubt the extra 15 minutes of fame she gets
will cover her legal expenses and the breach of contract suit Trump is
likely to win. I am still curious how she is getting along with the
IRS. I bet Trump is telling them to lay back, just for the optics (if
he has any influence at all) but they have a long memory and if she
has not been declaring all of this money as income she will be in
serious trouble. I doubt any of her legal expenses are deductible and
all of that money, including the original buck thirty, is income.
The problem with the IRS "laying back" is that interest keeps piling
up.