LISTEN: Audio of Trump & Cohen talking Playboy model payoff

[bb4me]

the crazy thing is he (trump) probably asked (cohen to) leak them himself to distract from everything else, he knows the bus tape did nothing why should he fear this

remember the kids, babies, in cages? still there - thousands still not reunited despite court order

still in bed with russia and trying to get putin back in g8, end nato, end south korea joint military exercises

THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS
(or fingers if you want to go back to the original old school)

somehow hope this takes down the republican “brand” as far fetched as that might be

remember if the dems get the house, they get subpoena power - if they don’t go to town with that, they deserve to lose in 2020

subpoena trump’s tax returns, seriously, it’s a national security issue at this point, take him down like Al Capone

[anon30760835]

Coke and Hookers, the american way.

Diet Coke and Escorts, the gaudy gilded Trump version.

[anon30760835]

@aluchko

I don’t think it matters that much, it’s super sketchy and possibly illegal either way, but my worry is that the whole tape discussion is going to come down to parsing that phrase.

yet you’ve spent a whole comment doing what you’re worried others might do?

Have you heard about setting an example?

[strangefriendbb]

Shouldn’t this be a video of a dumpster fire?

[anon30760835]

@strangefriendbb

Shouldn’t this be a video of a dumpster fire?

All depends what you choose to tilt at. YMMV.

[anon61833566]

thanks. now I can never drink a diet coke again.

[aluchko]

@KathyPartdeux

But it’s not the whole tape. The context of the rest of the tape is what will matter. And there’s clearer versions that show it’s not “don’t pay with cash” in either case.

Source? I haven’t read anything that suggests there are longer or cleaner versions of the tape.

@anon30760835

yet you’ve spent a whole comment doing what you’re worried others might do?

Have you heard about setting an example ?

They were debating that phrase from the start.

My point was:

1. The tape is unclear, we can’t be sure.
2. Trump would love to drag everyone into a debate about the exact word he said. Better to focus on the very bad things the tape proves incontrovertibly.

[Counterglow]

Trump supporters have minds?

[anon30760835]

@aluchko

My point was:

1. The tape is unclear, we can’t be sure.
2. Trump would love to drag everyone into a debate about the exact word he said. Better to focus on the very bad things the tape proves incontrovertibly.

but

my worry is that the whole tape discussion is going to come down to parsing that phrase

If you continue to parse that phrase, is there any chance you’re the person that you would need to convince to behave differently? Just a thought, not everyone see when they’re worried that other people are doing the thing they themselves are the ones doing. Which, from here, is what it looks like.

I mean, what -else- have you commented on about the tape here? Parsing and… parsing and… ?

I apologize if it seems i am picking on you, but its the exact logic that got and keeps this assclown in office. “Rules for thee but not for me”.

so, maybe, Be The Change You Wish To See?

That’s my point. Change the subject away from parsing, or I will have to assume your initial comment was made in bad faith. To NOT think about the purple elephant, if you will.

[generic_name]

“What kind of lawyer records his client?”

A: the kind of lawyer who knows his client is a pathological liar.

[aluchko]

@anon30760835

If you continue to parse that phrase, is there any chance you’re the person that you would need to convince to behave differently? Just a thought, not everyone see when they’re worried that other people are doing the thing they themselves are the ones doing. Which, from here, is what it looks like.

I don’t want to go on about this much longer but ignoring a topic doesn’t make it go away if others continue to discuss it, which is what I’ve seen in the media.

Worse yet, you jump in on the “no, pay with cash” camp because you think that’s what it said, and that’s the anti-Trump answer, but then you later realize you’ve stuck yourself defending a position you can’t actually be sure of.

Having a solid answer you can stand behind, ie “the phrase is unknowable” can avoid getting dragged into a fruitless debate and put focus back on the provable stuff that matters.

[LordOfTheCows]

[FGD135]

The kind of lawyer who knows that one day he’ll need