HawkShack.com

I guess this might address HawkTalk's concern over paying off women... The game may not be over, but TDs scored during the game also get pretty good TD dances - Two in less than a week is pretty good for me.

Let the melt down begin....

Wow, he tried to extort $25M from Nike and threatened them that he would take $10B off their market cap if they didn't pay him and that if they did pay him, he'd ride off into the sunset.

....aaaaaand that's who was representing the porn star. No wonder he has the nickname as "Sleazy porn lawyer"

I think everyone knew this guy was an opportunistic jackass trying to profit off the political clown show in D.C.

Idahawkman wrote:No wonder he has the nickname as "Sleazy porn lawyer"

Sleazy porn lawyer? What does that make Trump? A sleazy porn star banger?

Jackass is the exact correct term for this idiot. Avenatti is delusional, no different from the guy he tried to take down. Although I don't wish him misfortune, I'm glad to see him get jerked off the national stage.

RiverDog wrote:Sleazy porn lawyer? What does that make Trump? A sleazy porn star banger?

Well obviously it does since you've already convicted him the court of your own opinion.

Jackass is the exact correct term for this idiot. Avenatti is delusional, no different from the guy he tried to take down. Although I don't wish him misfortune, I'm glad to see him get jerked off the national stage.

Now that made me laugh. I imagine pun was intended?

RiverDog wrote:Sleazy porn lawyer? What does that make Trump? A sleazy porn star banger?

idhawkman wrote:Well obviously it does since you've already convicted him the court of your own opinion.

"My" opinion? Only 9% of the public think that he didn't, which puts you out there with the "NASA faked the moon landings" crowd if you feel otherwise.

Jackass is the exact correct term for this idiot. Avenatti is delusional, no different from the guy he tried to take down. Although I don't wish him misfortune, I'm glad to see him get jerked off the national stage.

idhawkman wrote:Now that made me laugh. I imagine pun was intended?

Actually it wasn't, but I don't think I'd like to see it literally.

RiverDog wrote:
"My" opinion? Only 9% of the public think that he didn't, which puts you out there with the "NASA faked the moon landings" crowd if you feel otherwise.

Actually, it makes me consistent. I don't declare anyone guilty until they have been tried by a jury of their peers and then found guilty. I realize that the public often acts on their human instincts and form mob rule but that is not the way I was raised in the Greatest Nation on Earth.

C'mon now, Idhawkmen. Trump been banging hot women most of his adult life non-stop, married or unmarried. Everyone that knows him knows this. He doesn't drink or do drugs, but he bangs hot women all the time. I still don't know why anyone cares. I imagine he was told to pay them off so as not to have a scandal during his run. Now it doesn't matter. Not many that voted for Trump seem to care that he was banging around on his wife.

RiverDog wrote:"My" opinion? Only 9% of the public think that he didn't, which puts you out there with the "NASA faked the moon landings" crowd if you feel otherwise.

idhawkman wrote:Actually, it makes me consistent. I don't declare anyone guilty until they have been tried by a jury of their peers and then found guilty. I realize that the public often acts on their human instincts and form mob rule but that is not the way I was raised in the Greatest Nation on Earth.

So you didn't prejudged Jussie Smollett? Are you free to voice your opinion now that his case isn't going to trial? I mean, he must be innocent, right? And how about the Covington kid that's suing CNN, have you not already ventured an opinion even though that case hasn't gone to trial, or was it not you that ripped into the MSM? And please tell me how you think that OJ Simpson is innocent because that's what the jury said. Come on, man!

We're not sitting on a jury, for crying out loud. We're allowed to venture an opinion as to whether or not Person X did something or not, and we're allowed to change our minds. And j/b a jury or a judge comes to a conclusion doesn't mean that they were right and those that disagreed were wrong.

Aseahawkfan wrote:C'mon now, Idhawkmen. Trump been banging hot women most of his adult life non-stop, married or unmarried. Everyone that knows him knows this. He doesn't drink or do drugs, but he bangs hot women all the time. I still don't know why anyone cares. I imagine he was told to pay them off so as not to have a scandal during his run. Now it doesn't matter. Not many that voted for Trump seem to care that he was banging around on his wife.

We don't really know if it mattered to them because it wasn't known prior to November of 2016. We'll find out in the next election if it makes a difference. I think it will, if only slightly, but in a close election, it could make a difference. Certainly Trump thinks it does or else him and his fixer wouldn't have gone to such extent to keep it a secret.

What's more of a mystery is why Melania doesn't care. She's obviously a woman with many options, both financial and otherwise. I know that if I engaged in the same kind of behavior that Trump does that my wife would kick me to the curb in a New York minute.

RiverDog wrote:We don't really know if it mattered to them because it wasn't known prior to November of 2016. We'll find out in the next election if it makes a difference. I think it will, if only slightly, but in a close election, it could make a difference. Certainly Trump thinks it does or else him and his fixer wouldn't have gone to such extent to keep it a secret.

What's more of a mystery is why Melania doesn't care. She's obviously a woman with many options, both financial and otherwise. I know that if I engaged in the same kind of behavior that Trump does that my wife would kick me to the curb in a New York minute.

What do you mean why Melania doesn't care? I understand you're one of the folks that started to find out about Trump during the election. So I'll clue you in. Trump remarries when his wives get too old. He keeps some younger, hot wife as arm candy. Marrying Trump is guaranteed to you make you and your children millionaires for life. Ivanka got 20 million in her prenup. All the children she had with Trump are multimillionaires with degrees and have a famous name. Marla Maples probably got more than 20 million and her daughter is a multimillionaire with a famous name. Ivanka was a model from Eastern Europe. She's now a multimillionaire with a child with a famous name that will be taken care for life. He banged around on every wife he has ever had and it was known by anyone even paying halfway close attention. I guess for the people that know nothing about Trump like yourself it was a surprise.

It would have taken anyone about 5 minutes of googling to learn Trump bangs around. He's done it since he was young on every wife he has ever had. These women tolerate it for the same reason women like Jackie Kennedy and Hilary Clinton tolerate their husbands. Their marriage is more of a business relationship and a future for themselves and their children. Is it really that hard to understand why a women would marry a known womanizer like Trump if it guaranteed you and your children were all multimillionaires with opportunities 99.9999999% of people will never see?

RiverDog wrote:What's more of a mystery is why Melania doesn't care. She's obviously a woman with many options, both financial and otherwise. I know that if I engaged in the same kind of behavior that Trump does that my wife would kick me to the curb in a New York minute.

Aseahawkfan wrote:What do you mean why Melania doesn't care? I understand you're one of the folks that started to find out about Trump during the election. So I'll clue you in. Trump remarries when his wives get too old. He keeps some younger, hot wife as arm candy. Marrying Trump is guaranteed to you make you and your children millionaires for life. Ivanka got 20 million in her prenup. All the children she had with Trump are multimillionaires with degrees and have a famous name. Marla Maples probably got more than 20 million and her daughter is a multimillionaire with a famous name. Ivanka was a model from Eastern Europe. She's now a multimillionaire with a child with a famous name that will be taken care for life. He banged around on every wife he has ever had and it was known by anyone even paying halfway close attention. I guess for the people that know nothing about Trump like yourself it was a surprise.

I was asking a rhetorical question and didn't expect a direct response. I understand and agree with your POV. I was contrasting Trump's marriage with that of the 95% or so other marriages, that they are based on a mutual love and trust of each other. It's just another example of the disconnect between Trump and the rest of us poor slobs, and reinforced the idea of the spoiled rich kid, gets everything he's ever wanted by virtue of his wealth.

Aseahawkfan wrote:These women tolerate it for the same reason women like Jackie Kennedy and Hilary Clinton tolerate their husbands. Their marriage is more of a business relationship and a future for themselves and their children. Is it really that hard to understand why a women would marry a known womanizer like Trump if it guaranteed you and your children were all multimillionaires with opportunities 99.9999999% of people will never see?

You can't lump Jackie Kennedy into that lot. Being a devout Catholic and a female in the early 60's, she didn't have the options that contemporary women do nowadays. Divorce had a much nastier connotation to it back then that it did 30 or 40 years later. She also had two very young children, something that was not present with Clinton and Trump. Jackie was very conscious of the image she portrayed as First Lady and fully realized that she was a role model for millions of young women. Under those circumstances, she HAD to tolerate her cheating husband.

Hillary obviously had political ambitions, and I think it very likely that she made a calculated decision to stay with Slick Willy based on how it would help or hurt her chances of becoming President.

But I do agree with your basic premise as it apples to DJT and his relationships with women.

Aseahawkfan wrote:C'mon now, Idhawkmen. Trump been banging hot women most of his adult life non-stop, married or unmarried. Everyone that knows him knows this. He doesn't drink or do drugs, but he bangs hot women all the time. I still don't know why anyone cares. I imagine he was told to pay them off so as not to have a scandal during his run. Now it doesn't matter. Not many that voted for Trump seem to care that he was banging around on his wife.

Again, what we think has happened doesn't really matter (nor as you point out, should we even care.) I also don't "Know" him as well as you do since the people who know him know this but I'll take your word on it. I didn't vote for a candidate to be canonized, I voted for a president that most closely fits my policy positions and will act on those positions.

Regarding him being told to "pay them off", are you suggesting that he hasn't entered into any settlements similar to this before he ran? I know the dems want to go after him for FEC violations but as the multiple former FEC chairmen and officials have pointed out, if there is a dual purpose it can not be a violation of the FEC laws.

RiverDog wrote:So you didn't prejudged Jussie Smollett? Are you free to voice your opinion now that his case isn't going to trial? I mean, he must be innocent, right?

Nope, quite the opposite. It in fact proves he is guilty and had to plead to that fact in order for the court to receive his bail and time served. You can't fine someone for not pleading guilty. If he hadn't pleaded guilty, they have to return his $10,000. I suspect that lesser informed people would accept his words of innocence and I'm sure that they sealed the case so that people can't actually see his plea, but the fact still remains, the ONLY way they can take that money from him is for him to admit to the crime.

And how about the Covington kid that's suing CNN, have you not already ventured an opinion even though that case hasn't gone to trial, or was it not you that ripped into the MSM?

Nope, I didn't rip into the MSM for any other reason than for what they cut out of their reporting. They didn't show the complete video nor did they do the due diligence required for a honest story. It remains to be seen whether or not the kid gets his 1/2 billion dollars in law suits.

And please tell me how you think that OJ Simpson is innocent because that's what the jury said. Come on, man!

Don't assume your view point applies to me. No, I don't think he did it nor did the jury of his peers. I think it is a travesty of justice that he was held civilly liable for damages for a crime that he was exonerated for by a jury of his peers. Were you on the jury? DId you see ALL the evidence or just the evidence that the TV wanted to show you? We've already established the fact that the media only paints the story they want you to believe. Personally, I don't think it serves the population very well to have such a biased media. To take it one step further, what you witnessed and are witnessing in the Russia collusion debacle is a classic US intelligence dis-information campaign. We are masters of it. False flags, dissension, splitting of the populace, etc are how civil wars are started. As I've mentioned before, we are in very tenable waters in the US right now. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Khan, etc. have all used the same theme in that they find a common enemy and then rally the masses to oppose that common enemy. This is exactly what has been happening in the media and the intel agencies (deep state) to create a common enemy of Trump and all his supporters. (I truly hope you consider this POV because as I've said, this is a very tenable time for us which we may not climb out of)

We're not sitting on a jury, for crying out loud. We're allowed to venture an opinion as to whether or not Person X did something or not, and we're allowed to change our minds. And j/b a jury or a judge comes to a conclusion doesn't mean that they were right and those that disagreed were wrong.

Wow! In THIS country it is exactly what it is suppose to mean.

idhawkman wrote:I also don't "Know" him (DJT) as well as you do since the people who know him know this but I'll take your word on it. I didn't vote for a candidate to be canonized, I voted for a president that most closely fits my policy positions and will act on those positions.

For someone that doesn't know him very well, you sure have some pretty strong opinions on his intelligence, his tolerance, etc.

A POTUS candidate's moral character is not the top reason on my list for supporting them, but it does matter. IMO we, as a nation, put too much of a premium on moral character in 1976 when we elected Jimmy Carter, not enough in 1992 and 2016. They are the leader of the free world, and they should be as much as a role model as they are an administrator and Commander in Chief.

idhawkman wrote:Regarding him being told to "pay them off", are you suggesting that he hasn't entered into any settlements similar to this before he ran? I know the dems want to go after him for FEC violations but as the multiple former FEC chairmen and officials have pointed out, if there is a dual purpose it can not be a violation of the FEC laws.

You keep stating that as if it is a fact. Here's another opinion:

That’s according to Lawrence Noble, former general counsel for the Federal Election Commission, who spoke with The Washington Post by phone and email on Friday. Proving a violation of campaign finance regulations in this situation would have had to include, in Noble’s words, the following evidence:

That the money was paid to protect the campaign.
That the money was in excess of campaign contribution limits of $2,700.
That the money came from a prohibited source such as a corporation.
And/or that the contribution was not properly reported.
That the violation was knowing and willful.

To prove “knowing and willful,” Noble said, “they have to show Trump had knowledge of the scheme and knew, generally, that the conduct was unlawful.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... 40bdc02386

RiverDog wrote:
I was asking a rhetorical question and didn't expect a direct response. I understand and agree with your POV. I was contrasting Trump's marriage with that of the 95% or so other marriages, that they are based on a mutual love and trust of each other. It's just another example of the disconnect between Trump and the rest of us poor slobs, and reinforced the idea of the spoiled rich kid, gets everything he's ever wanted by virtue of his wealth.

I know you didn't miss the "free love movement" of the 60's. MOST of the "poor slobs" you talk about have and do the same crap which is why they don't hold him to your immaculate standard. You may not know this but since I do online ads there is literally 100x more traffic going to porn sites than there is going to all the other non-porn sites on the internet. A person has to take a long hard look in the mirror and ask them-self if they hold the president to a higher standard than they hold themselves and then be hypocritical to judge him while thinking they are a good person for the same actions. (NOTE: I'm not saying you do or don't do this but again, the free love movement opened up the sexual revolution that was pretty much concluded with Clinton and his actions in the Oval office. This is when we as a nation decided to elect government officials instead of "Saints in waiting." I'll hold my priest to the saintly standard while realizing they and we all are human and sin, while electing a government official that most closely fits my policy positions and leave their sins to the judgement of God.)

[quote'"RiverDog"]]We're not sitting on a jury, for crying out loud. We're allowed to venture an opinion as to whether or not Person X did something or not, and we're allowed to change our minds. And j/b a jury or a judge comes to a conclusion doesn't mean that they were right and those that disagreed were wrong.[/quote]

idhawkman wrote:Wow! In THIS country it is exactly what it is suppose to mean.

Although it's about as fair of a system as human beings can devise, juries do occasionally get it wrong. That's why they've set the threshold so high, at least for a criminal trial, that it takes a unanimous decision to convict, that they can appeal a court's decision, that a governor or POTUS can issue a pardon, and so on. The system recognizes its own flaws and does what it can to mitigate them.

There have been a number of trial decisions that were reversed because, among other things, subsequent evidence, in particular DNA evidence that was not available to a judge or jury, surfaces that helps prove a convicted felon's innocence. IMO the jury in the OJ Simpson trial was manipulated by a crafty defense lawyer that was allowed to introduce irrelevant information designed to inflame the jury's opinions of other witnesses. IMO it was a travesty and shook my confidence in the American legal system to its core.

RiverDog wrote:You keep stating that as if it is a fact. Here's another opinion:

That’s according to Lawrence Noble, former general counsel for the Federal Election Commission, who spoke with The Washington Post by phone and email on Friday. Proving a violation of campaign finance regulations in this situation would have had to include, in Noble’s words, the following evidence:

That the money was paid to protect the campaign.
That the money was in excess of campaign contribution limits of $2,700.
That the money came from a prohibited source such as a corporation.
And/or that the contribution was not properly reported.
That the violation was knowing and willful.

To prove “knowing and willful,” Noble said, “they have to show Trump had knowledge of the scheme and knew, generally, that the conduct was unlawful.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... 40bdc02386

We are getting off topic but I'll play along a little further.
Who paid the women? What account was it paid from? What was suppose to be reported? Would you expect your attorney to advise you of what is lawful or illegal?

The one section that that attorney forgot to mention is the section where it has no other purpose. I'm sure if it was the Washington Post that the attorney forgot that very important part and that the paper didn't "accidentally" omit that one.

RiverDog wrote:I was asking a rhetorical question and didn't expect a direct response. I understand and agree with your POV. I was contrasting Trump's marriage with that of the 95% or so other marriages, that they are based on a mutual love and trust of each other. It's just another example of the disconnect between Trump and the rest of us poor slobs, and reinforced the idea of the spoiled rich kid, gets everything he's ever wanted by virtue of his wealth.

idhawkman wrote:I know you didn't miss the "free love movement" of the 60's. MOST of the "poor slobs" you talk about have and do the same crap which is why they don't hold him to your immaculate standard. You may not know this but since I do online ads there is literally 100x more traffic going to porn sites than there is going to all the other non-porn sites on the internet. A person has to take a long hard look in the mirror and ask them-self if they hold the president to a higher standard than they hold themselves and then be hypocritical to judge him while thinking they are a good person for the same actions. (NOTE: I'm not saying you do or don't do this but again, the free love movement opened up the sexual revolution that was pretty much concluded with Clinton and his actions in the Oval office. This is when we as a nation decided to elect government officials instead of "Saints in waiting." I'll hold my priest to the saintly standard while realizing they and we all are human and sin, while electing a government official that most closely fits my policy positions and leave their sins to the judgement of God.)

First off, I turned 15 in October of 1969, so I was not involved in the "free love" movement of the 1960's. You are making a lot of assumptions about a person you know relatively very little about.

Secondly, I was not talking solely about Trump's blatant sexual encounters when I spoke of a candidate's moral character. I have other reasons to believe that Trump's character does not rise to the level of a POTUS besides his banging pornstars, including is intolerance to the slightest criticism, his narcissistic behavior, and that he's not trustworthy.

idhawkman wrote:We are getting off topic but I'll play along a little further.
Who paid the women? What account was it paid from? What was suppose to be reported? Would you expect your attorney to advise you of what is lawful or illegal?

The one section that that attorney forgot to mention is the section where it has no other purpose. I'm sure if it was the Washington Post that the attorney forgot that very important part and that the paper didn't "accidentally" omit that one.

I'm not playing along. My response was not intended to start, or renew, a debate as to whether or not Trump violated campaign finance laws. My reply was strictly to show that there were other opinions besides the one that you cited.

Just FYI since I know you want to read this.

Law Professor and former FEC chairman Bradley Smith stated:

“When the FEC wrote the regulation that says what constitutes campaign expenditures and what constitutes personal use, it rejected specifically the idea that a campaign expenditure was anything related to a campaign, and instead says it has to be something that exists only because of the campaign and solely for that reason.”

And here's a link to a WaPO article as to why it isn't a campaign fund.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/those-payments-to-mistresses-were-unseemly-that-doesnt-mean-they-were-illegal/2018/08/22/634acdf4-a63b-11e8-8fac-12e98c13528d_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f810fc8f9fed

I find it really rich that the argument is that he paid them off with his own funds and they say that's an FEC violation because he didn't report it. However, he doesn't need to report NON-Campaign contributions.

1. Any candidate can donate unlimited funds to their own campaign.
2. IF he paid the suit settlements with campaign funds, would they not be arguing that he's using campaign funds for personal liabilities especially since the activity happened years (2005 If my memory is correct) before he became a candidate and that the suit is a personal liability.

idhawkman wrote:I guess this might address HawkTalk's concern over paying off women... The game may not be over, but TDs scored during the game also get pretty good TD dances - Two in less than a week is pretty good for me.

Let the melt down begin....

Can you explain what sleazeball Micheal Avenattis problems have to do with the POTUS being a serial sexual abuser and co conspirator in a campaign finance felony now known to the SDNY as "individual one"?

And oh BTW the court that indicted Avenatti is....tada, the SDNY so you and the zombie army can STFU about a democratic take down of Trump OK . Its called the RULE OF LAW, something totally unfamiliar to those who blindly support the biggest criminal ever to infest the west wing.

God you are a hopeless trumptard

idhawkman wrote:I guess this might address HawkTalk's concern over paying off women... The game may not be over, but TDs scored during the game also get pretty good TD dances - Two in less than a week is pretty good for me.

Let the melt down begin....

Hawktawk wrote:Can you explain what sleazeball Micheal Avenattis problems have to do with the POTUS being a serial sexual abuser and co conspirator in a campaign finance felony now known to the SDNY as "individual one"?

And oh BTW the court that indicted Avenatti is....tada, the SDNY so you and the zombie army can STFU about a democratic take down of Trump OK . Its called the RULE OF LAW, something totally unfamiliar to those who blindly support the biggest criminal ever to infest the west wing.

God you are a hopeless trumptard

HT, it wasn't that long ago when you started a thread about forum discourse. Here's your first two sentences:

I love this forum OT and Hawks but I feel it's time to say something about the overall derogatory insulting tone of ad hominem attacks in both forums. Ot in particular has become a microcosm of america where there is no middle ground and zero civility.

I'm not trying to be a smart Alec, but you might want to take a step back and take another look at your musings.

Fair enough. Just tired of being called out in the third person by the likes of asea and especially iD hawkman who would literally defend trump if he was on film doing an 8 year old boy on the steps of the WH.
I get a little fired up when I peek in here and see the back door potshots .

The TD celebrations by he and the other Trump disciples are a bit premature as recent polls show less than 30% believe the mueller report exonerated him and his poll numbers overall have dropped 3 points since the beginning of March back to 43%. His re-elect numbers in Florida and the rust belt states he barely picked off are in the 30s. Keep following him down the sinkhole boys. I’ll try to point out your idiocy with a bit less hyperbole.

Hawktawk wrote:The TD celebrations by he and the other Trump disciples are a bit premature as recent polls show less than 30% believe the mueller report exonerated him and his poll numbers overall have dropped 3 points since the beginning of March back to 43%. His re-elect numbers in Florida and the rust belt states he barely picked off are in the 30s. Keep following him down the sinkhole boys. I’ll try to point out your idiocy with a bit less hyperbole.

Yea, Idahawk is over exaggerating the news, but that's to be expected. Some of us do the same thing whenever there's something negative that comes out about Trump. Let him do his dance.

Trump's poll numbers are so static that they're irrelevant. Most sitting POTUS's see them bounce all over the place. Bush 41 had the highest favorable rating since they started doing the survey and just a year later, they bombed below 50%. Trump's high water mark was near 50% when he was inaugurated and have hovered between the high 30's and mid 40's for over 2 years. That's one of the reasons why I think he's highly vulnerable, because he won a razor thin election and hasn't made any headway in his public perception even when he's had some good news (the economy, ISIS, etc). And you're right, although his support in red states remains strong, he's in trouble in several purple states that went for him in 2016. But even those numbers have to be kept in context as they haven't named his opponent yet.

Back to the OP. Avenatti is due in CA court today, in NY on the 25th. I haven't read any of the evidence, but the charges are damn serious and could put him away for a long time.

Yes Avenatti is a sleazeball. A sleazeball representing a sleazy woman who was paid off by a sleazy lawyer employed by a president who is the poster boy for sleaze . And trump personally writing checks in his own hand from the Oval Office, some drawn on the “trust” account he’s supposed to have nothing to do with is highly felonious regardless of ID whistling in the graveyard . As for Avenatti good riddance . He served his purpose . Takes one to know one .

Hawktawk wrote:Yes Avenatti is a sleazeball. A sleazeball representing a sleazy woman who was paid off by a sleazy lawyer employed by a president who is the poster boy for sleaze . And trump personally writing checks in his own hand from the Oval Office, some drawn on the “trust” account he’s supposed to have nothing to do with is highly felonious regardless of ID whistling in the graveyard . As for Avenatti good riddance . He served his purpose . Takes one to know one .

Yea, it's almost like the heads of two mob families going after each other. These past few years really ought to make for some damn entertaining history classes in 2070 or so. A reality show billionaire banging pornstars, a longtime personal lawyer stool pigeon thrown under the bus, a campaign manager in prison, all the goofy tweets and preposterous claims. His opponents aren't a lot better, either, with people like Pocahontas and weird Uncle Joe.