The bitch has made $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$out of him and now she wants him locked up what a low life she is 

MAHA. Go Stormy! 😆

25 minutes ago, crazykopite said:

The bitch has made $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$out of him and now she wants him locked up what a low life she is 

Perhaps Trump is the low life. Cheating on his wife while she was pregnant. Scum of the earth.

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-melania-stormy-daniels-affairs-marriages-timeline-2018-3

 

28 minutes ago, crazykopite said:

The bitch has made $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$out of him and now she wants him locked up what a low life she is 

I think she's got her head screwed on, she knows McTrump is a low-life wide boy, personally............🤭

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You mean taking the money didn't mean she had to keep quiet? Sooooo, she takes that money then talks anyway. She deserves whatever she gets for being a dishonourable <deleted>.

Scamming a conman is not really a sin! 😀

19 hours ago, Social Media said:

I think he should be sentenced to jail and some community service working for the less fortunate, or being the volunteer punching bag at a women’s shelter

 

Sounds like a great idea to me. 

Since when are we listening to prostitutes about what is the right thing to do?

 

The right thing to do would be her being the main attraction in a witch burning event to clean her body off the sins her wicked mind made her do.

 

Edited June 3, 20242 yr by AreYouGerman

12 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

Yeah. Intelligent and articulate. Did she have any speaking roles in her 'films'? Probably not, her mouth was full most of the time. 

 

 

That's called "slut shaming".

20 minutes ago, AreYouGerman said:

Since when are we listening to prostitutes about what is the right thing to do?

 

The right thing to do would be her being the main attraction in a witch burning event to clean her body off the sins her wicked mind made her do.

 

You are one sick puppy.

6 hours ago, crazykopite said:

The bitch has made $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$out of him and now she wants him locked up what a low life she is 

Actually, she lost money on Trump.

 

How about Trump, is he a lowlife, too?

19 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

At the time she opened her mouth in contravention of the agreement Trump was not convicted.

 

That's maybe not how it works.  If her Agreement is like mine she is allowed to talk to law enforcement about the crime without being seen to have broken the Agreement, and if the perp is prosecuted then found guilty she's covered.  If the perp was found not guilty, then she might be open to being sued of course.  

 

Back to my case (as I'm not intimate with her Agreement, or indeed with her). I was not allowed to go public with the allegations at any time, but I could talk to a lawyer/police.  Then if they prosecuted I'd have been allowed to testify.  If guilty then I'd be completely clear.  If not guilty me ex-employer could have sued me, but of course as the evidence was 100% obvious then they wouldn't have, even if they were found not guilty on a technicality.  The burden of proof is less in a civil trial and the fraud they committed was clear and obvious (contract claimed to have been signed on a certain date to meet corporate/personal targets, but it wasn't signed till after that deadline).

10 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

That's called "slut shaming".

I didn't call her a slut. YOU did.  

8 minutes ago, Watawattana said:

 

That's maybe not how it works.  If her Agreement is like mine she is allowed to talk to law enforcement about the crime without being seen to have broken the Agreement, and if the perp is prosecuted then found guilty she's covered.  If the perp was found not guilty, then she might be open to being sued of course.  

 

Back to my case (as I'm not intimate with her Agreement, or indeed with her). I was not allowed to go public with the allegations at any time, but I could talk to a lawyer/police.  Then if they prosecuted I'd have been allowed to testify.  If guilty then I'd be completely clear.  If not guilty me ex-employer could have sued me, but of course as the evidence was 100% obvious then they wouldn't have, even if they were found not guilty on a technicality.  The burden of proof is less in a civil trial and the fraud they committed was clear and obvious (contract claimed to have been signed on a certain date to meet corporate/personal targets, but it wasn't signed till after that deadline).

A little different case though. Stormy's NDA was a simple one with nothing to do with crime. Just an agreement to shut up about a certain topic.  

42 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

A little different case though. Stormy's NDA was a simple one with nothing to do with crime. Just an agreement to shut up about a certain topic.  

 

No problem, guess you must have seen it to have that understanding, in which case you are completely correct, and thanks for the reply.