On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 12:26:11 -0400, wrote:

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.


I have to admit that we differ in this case. I do *not* feel bad for Stormy. :)

In article ,
says...

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.



"If, as the left claims, Trump worked with the Russians
during the campaign and the results of that collusion
influenced the outcome of the election ... it still probably
is not an impeachable offense, much to the dismay of some of
your party members."

Luddite described the fix, not me.
Like I said, he's crazy.
What scenario? What's to fall of it's own weight?
You mean that he's crazy?
You can have your own opinion on that.

On 3/30/2018 1:16 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

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.



"If, as the left claims, Trump worked with the Russians
during the campaign and the results of that collusion
influenced the outcome of the election ... it still probably
is not an impeachable offense, much to the dismay of some of
your party members."

Luddite described the fix, not me.
Like I said, he's crazy.
What scenario? What's to fall of it's own weight?
You mean that he's crazy?
You can have your own opinion on that.






I won't be surprised at all at whatever the outcome of this "hunt" is.
Our country has gone nuts.

On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 12:26:49 PM UTC-4, wrote:
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.

All she has to do is amend her filing before the IRS comes after her and she's good. There's no doubt that one of her lawyers has already mentioned the matter of the money to her.

On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 12:52:56 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 12:26:11 -0400, wrote:

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.


I have to admit that we differ in this case. I do *not* feel bad for Stormy. :)

She has been quiet for 11 years. It was the media that sought her out
and it really sounds like her attorney started the "let's make a deal"
negotiation with Cohen. She still seemed to want to deny the whole
thing until that was not an option.

On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 12:16:18 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

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.



"If, as the left claims, Trump worked with the Russians
during the campaign and the results of that collusion
influenced the outcome of the election ... it still probably
is not an impeachable offense, much to the dismay of some of
your party members."

Luddite described the fix, not me.
Like I said, he's crazy.
What scenario? What's to fall of it's own weight?
You mean that he's crazy?
You can have your own opinion on that.

So now you admit the election wasn't "fixed"?
It is pretty clear that no election district has said a single vote
was altered and the count seemed to be pretty much uncontested. I am
not sure where the fix would be.
Was there some bull**** and backstabbing? certainly but it seemed to
be more on the DNC side. All the hacks/leaks did was inform the voter.
The DNC never denied any of it. Don't we want informed voters?
Well maybe not if the truth makes your candidate look bad.

On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 12:31:31 -0700 (PDT), Its Me
wrote:

On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 12:26:49 PM UTC-4, wrote:
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.

All she has to do is amend her filing before the IRS comes after her and she's good. There's no doubt that one of her lawyers has already mentioned the matter of the money to her.

There is still penalties and interest on the Buck thirty from 2016.
Depending on how they want to rule on that, it could be up in 5
figures. It is yet to see how her 2017 and 18 will go.

Its Me wrote:
On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 12:26:49 PM UTC-4, wrote:
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.

All she has to do is amend her filing before the IRS comes after her and
she's good. There's no doubt that one of her lawyers has already
mentioned the matter of the money to her.


Good? She will have a pile of interest and most likely a penalty.

On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 9:18:24 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 12:31:31 -0700 (PDT), Its Me
wrote:

On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 12:26:49 PM UTC-4, wrote:
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.

All she has to do is amend her filing before the IRS comes after her and she's good. There's no doubt that one of her lawyers has already mentioned the matter of the money to her.

There is still penalties and interest on the Buck thirty from 2016.
Depending on how they want to rule on that, it could be up in 5
figures. It is yet to see how her 2017 and 18 will go.

What you and Bill don't seem to acknowledge is that since she initiated the "disclosure" of all this with the blessing and help of her lawyers, and the main one has a pretty sharp "fin", there is little doubt they have this stuff covered.

She'll likely go down (oops, did I say that? ), but I really doubt it will be tax related.

Its Me wrote:
On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 9:18:24 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 12:31:31 -0700 (PDT), Its Me
wrote:

On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 12:26:49 PM UTC-4, wrote:
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.

All she has to do is amend her filing before the IRS comes after her
and she's good. There's no doubt that one of her lawyers has already
mentioned the matter of the money to her.

There is still penalties and interest on the Buck thirty from 2016.
Depending on how they want to rule on that, it could be up in 5
figures. It is yet to see how her 2017 and 18 will go.

What you and Bill don't seem to acknowledge is that since she initiated
the "disclosure" of all this with the blessing and help of her lawyers,
and the main one has a pretty sharp "fin", there is little doubt they
have this stuff covered.

She'll likely go down (oops, did I say that? ), but I really doubt it
will be tax related.


IRS is always the winner. And since she signed a NDA, financially she will
be liable. Maybe for all Trumps legal costs. And the attorneys of Stormy
may be named as deep pockets if they advised here in the first place to
break the NDA.