20 Comments
тна Return to thread

She took money on account of a sexual encounter with tfg. The fact that the payment was delayed by several years and associated with a post-hoc NDA doesn't change that fact. When you take payment, you become a hooker. When you pay, you become a john.

Expand full comment

She took money to keep her mouth shut not to open her vagina.

Expand full comment

Fern, she took money to keep her mouth shut but we actually don't know exactly the process that occurred leading up to her encounter with Trump.

However, I am pretty sure no self respecting porn star would sleep with Trump for free.

Expand full comment

Exactly, Mike S. You called her a prostitute and hooker without knowing and without anything in print or interviews to substantiate your claims.

Expand full comment

KA-BOOM!ЁЯСПЁЯП╝ЁЯСПЁЯП╝ЁЯСПЁЯП╝ЁЯСПЁЯП╝

Expand full comment

She knew her "news" could change the election results. She kept her mouth shut for $130,000. THAT is a bigger crime: helping that %#$@!!! win the Presidency. She finally opened her mouth. She got $130,00 and then press.

Expand full comment

I think she knew he was associated with some very dangerous people and thatтАЩs why she kept quiet untilтАжshe was able to lawyer up. Unfortunately, Avenati convinced her to choose him. He messed with her and she got him back big time! She lawyered up again but with one who had a different strategy. Look, sheтАЩs a business woman and she wasnтАЩt going to drag her business of film-making into this show.

Expand full comment

Bingo. That's why its a crime.

Expand full comment

So maybe I'm spinning the story just a little bit, but...when money changes hands over a sexual encounter, what would you rather call it?

Expand full comment

From that viewpoint, every woman who benefits financially from a man with whom she has sex is a hooker. Given our social/financial system, you are effectively calling all heterosexual women prostitutes.

Expand full comment

Joan F., I keep coming back to your comment. Thank you for seeing straight to the heart of it.

Expand full comment

Not quite all, nearly all

Expand full comment

only if you say so...my comments are all in relation to two discrete individuals and one discrete encounter and it's sequelae.

Expand full comment

And more than one person here is suggesting you might try to clean the smudges from your glasses so that you may see more clearly

Expand full comment

I'm going to walk away before sharing my opinion of your 'thinking cap'.

Expand full comment

you're no fun at all...do you think that going public about the encounter, which she did more than once, was motivated by something other than the expectation of financial gain? Tfg's usual move against someone he wants to intimidate would be to slap a lawsuit on them, but that doesn't result in silence; rather it generates more news and publicity. The one party is in it for the money, the other wants it to be a clandestine event. It sounds a lot like prostitution to me, just poorly executed on the part of both parties

Expand full comment

Nathan -why is this turning into a criticism of this woman - when the twit at the center of this is the guilty party. Not to jump on the bandwagon, but somehow (and I've been around a LONG time) the woman seems to end up as the person to blame. Sort of like the prostitute who is charged & not the "johns"? Supply and Demand, Nathan!

Expand full comment

You are way too time consuming and wrong. Trump promised to have her appear on The Apprentice. And...the dealmaker = $$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

Expand full comment

So what does that make the congress critters who vote with whom ever pays their way?

Expand full comment