Porn star sues Trump; tells TV they did sex

[Cebu_4_2]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...mp_2000_03.jpg

Birds and a Feather.

The most important question is who got sloppy seconds?

[ziero0]

the porn star had a sexual relationship with President Donald Trump in 2006

So her attorney is classifying his client as a harlot?

harlot (n.)

c. 1200 (late 12c. in surnames), "vagabond, man of no fixed occupation, idle rogue," from Old French herlot, arlot "vagabond, tramp, vagrant; rascal, scoundrel," with cognates in Old Provençal (arlot), Old Spanish (arlote), and Italian (arlotto), but of unknown origin. Usually male in Middle English and Old French. Used in positive as well as pejorative senses by Chaucer; applied in Middle English to jesters, buffoons, jugglers, later to actors. Secondary sense of "prostitute, unchaste woman" probably had developed by 14c., certainly by early 15c., but this was reinforced by its use euphemistically for "strumpet, whore" in 16c. English translations of the Bible. The word may be Germanic, with an original sense of "camp follower," if the first element is hari "army," as some suspect.

Sort of makes you wonder which side he is working for.

[Horn]

So her attorney is classifying his client as a harlot?

Sort of makes you wonder which side he is working for.

She may have only become a harlot after Cohn payed her for it in 2016.

Before that she were only working in the sex industry.

[old steel]

Stupid cum dumpster, how much did they pay her to lie?

Deep state is getting very desperate, scraping the bottom of the barrel on this one.

She has seen more bucks than Montana's best hunting season.

[madfranks]

Stupid cum dumpster, how much did they pay her to lie?

Deep state is getting very desperate, scraping the bottom of the barrel on this one.

She has seen more bucks than Montana's best hunting season.

You might be right, I'm reading a few stories that claim this whole thing is made up.

[Cebu_4_2]

You might be right, I'm reading a few stories that claim this whole thing is made up.

I'd still do her if I wasn't second.

[ziero0]

Here is the issue in a nutshell

A lawyer purchased a box of very rare and expensive cigars, then insured them against, among other things, fire. Within a month, having smoked his entire stockpile of these Great cigars and without yet having made even his first premium payment on the policy the lawyer filed a claim against the insurance company. In his claim, the lawyer stated the cigars were lost "in a series of small fires."

The insurance company refused to pay, citing the obvious reason, that the man had consumed the cigars in the normal fashion

The lawyer sued.. and WON! Delivering the ruling, the judge agreed with the insurance company that the claim was frivolous. The judge stated nevertheless, that the lawyer held a policy from the company, which it had warranted that the cigars were insurable and also guaranteed that it would insure them against fire, without defining what is considered to be an unacceptable fire and was obligated to pay the claim.

Rather than endure lengthy and costly appeal process, the insurance company accepted the ruling and paid $15,000 to the lawyer for his loss of the cigars lost in the "fires".

After the lawyer cashed the check, the insurance company had him arrested on 24 counts of ARSON! With his own insurance claim and testimony from the previous case being used against him, the lawyer was convicted of intentionally burning his insured property and was sentenced to 24 months in jail and a $24,000 fine.

This gal is willing to testify that she has low morals.

Low morals includes lying (speech ... not on her back ... although that would follow).

Who is going to trust anyone whose morals include lying?

Her own testimony destroys her credibility.

[Horn]

Who is going to trust anyone whose morals include lying?

50% of women and CNN

[madfranks]

I'd still do her if I wasn't second.

At this point you'd be 294,517th (give or take).

[ziero0]

50% of women and CNN

Which is why democracy sucks. The misinformed vote cancels logic. I would suggest that if war is to be fought by the voters there would less voting and more logic.