Engorgeous George

I am just very curious what the proper notiation, proper in the eyes of Mr. Bragg, would ahve been. Perhaps we will hear during the State's summation.

It would be less likely he would be in this pickle, but i can't go so fqr as to say he wouldn't be in this pickle since even a false but plausible allegation may have been one he wanted quashed right before the elction and the most expeditious way to do taht may have been to pay even for cheap, untrue blackmail or extortion. Of course I believe he did mount that strumpet and the other harlot as well.

What would have been the proper notation on the checks?

Is that what she was calling her woman parts then?

Just hoped for the best then? Hoped they would not spill the beans?

I beleive Trump to be a serial philanderer. I do not believe that tasteful nudes are porn, I believe if they appear in a magazine they are characterized as girlie magazines or men's magazines until they are with partner(s), are gynocological or scatologial, then they become porn. I have no idea what poses Melania was in. i don't really care to know. Potentially porn or potentially just girlie magazine stuff. Potentially art.

Historically it never has been. With the advent of campaign finance laws passed a few decades ago it could be a crime if camapign donations from donors exceeded allowable limits and/or were used to pay to suppress the story and the accounting of the campaign finance funds was fraudulent. Election interference laws were about access to the ballot, access to the vote, and accounting for the integrity of the count. They never were meant to extend to reputational puffery and have previously never been applied that way. The same with New York's business records act which have never had anything to do with campaigning but were and are in place to prevent deceptive business practices in New York and to assure that New York gets its tax and licensing fees monies. That law was never meant to, and has never been used to enforce fair campaigns or campaign finance disclosures. Did Trump wish to decieve the publc about his character, certainly. Did that have campaign benefits, certainly. Was that the primary or only motivation for a man whose business reputation and personal reputation are important, who can say, certainly not the only motivation and maybe not even the primary motivation as his business efforts were always going to extend to a time beyond his term of Office, if he even got one. His business reputation was extant, his political reputation only speculative, so who can really say the one outweighed the other? There is also the personal embarassment factor not only with his wife but his kids and his friends. That cannot be wholly discounted out of hand. I dispise Trump. His reputation was always trash as far as I am concerned. I would never have done business with the man even if he paid in full, up front, as he does not hesitate after the fact to trash the reputation of anyone whose name comes into his mouth if it can even in the slightest degree enhance his warped view of his reputation. Only an idiot would associate with the man. Still, that does not mean he is guilty of these charges which have been misapplied. He is guilty of many things, but not this. I always feel dirty when I attack the process as folks can assume I am doing so in defense of Trump when I am doing so in defense of fair process. When I defended charged criminals I did not do so to defend them as people, to endorse their worth as people, but to defend and uphold our consitutional system. I got some reprehensible and some simply dodgy folks off by defending the system and demanding the system work within its rules and precepts. That it inured to falks who are and were questionable ws and is a fair price for the protections and the proper working of the system as someday you, or I, or others may be factually and morally innocent and we will want a fully function system of due process. My difficulties resolving my championing the system inuring to the benefitof truly reprehesible mvermin is why i switched sides and prosecuted for a long time before ending up, at the tail end of a long and successful career switching back to defense work on behalf of the childre of some friends who needed representation very badly.

I lumped them together on only one metric and your insistence that I equated them in whole when I did nothing of the sort does nothing more than prove my point, the indoctrinated, like you, cannot be reasoned with as you will not even concede the most apparent of points.

This would be interesting theater to watch live. The jilted ex-lover and documented perjurer takes the stand to get her pound of flesh. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned and the full fury of Michelle Cohen will be on display. Ironic as Trump started this whole thing to not face the scorn of women he had taken for granted and now he has to face that fury. Should be easy to excoriate Michelle on cross examination though one can predict Michellewill ignore any indicting questions and fling back non-responsive barbs until the judge finally directs him to answer. Of course this judge may be slow to do so. Interesting that in life there are often reckonings for our bad acts. Also frightening as that means I am likely to yet face quite a few reckonings.

So the Irish, particularly the Irish catholics, and the Italians, particularly the Catholics were not discriminated against? How about the Jews, particularly the ones from slavic countries? True that the discrimination against them was shorter term and of somewhat less intensity than of the Chinese, which again was of less duration and internsity as that of the blacks, but to say it is not comparable is to say you lack the imagination to make a comparison. Reminds me of old school assignments requiring one to compare and contrast the following items or concepts. Seems you would only get half credit on such matters as you can contrast, but are unable to compare.

Again, you are too obtuse to discuss matters with. You miss the point entirely as your reading comprehension is deficient. The point is that the indoctrinated are difficult to rerason with. i have never claimed an equivilency into the doctrines , just an equivilency as to reasonability of the indoctrinated.

I did not act, or imply, a relative relationship among the true believers of various religions equaging them all as equally obtuse and unreasonable, I stated that they all fall into one category, that of being unable to be reasoned with.

One cannot reason with the religious, christians, jews, muslims, true believers with a political orthodoxy based upon a desire to feel morally superior to the unenlightened, oh, and the congenitally ignorant and inherently stubborn.

They use to call the conflict the arab/Israeli conflict which was a bit of a misnomer, it was the some muslims/israeli conflict. Well those Muslims that want the Jews eliminated from the region, if not the face of the earth outnumber the Jews 100 to 1. They always have and they continue to. The Israelsi have survived on tenacity and support, primarily from the U.S. and to a lesser extent Great Britain and a few other states. The conflict being religious, ancient, and territorial has such deep emotional and religious roots for each side that neither will ever truely relent or compromise, at least not as to whose holy land and homeland is the area. There will be ongoing conflict until one or the other of these peoples is exterminated. The Muslims sense this and they see support for Israel wanning in the west. At the same time they see their financial backeers becoming stronger and being able to buy technilogical parity with tghe outnumbered jews. Szd, but I see only one end, an end i forsaw 50 years ago and which has incrementally been coming ever since and which is now close. My but we are a disappointing species.

The each have their cannibal stories.

When he screwed a playboy playmate he did not try to hide it with an NDA, he proudly married her. A solid move BTW.

Could have been KLM's rule or Hollands. I remember when going through customs they asked whether I had been vaccinated. i don't know if it was absolutely required or whether that was just a tracking and information compiling step as they studied matters. I remember on getting back to Denver they questioned whether I had traveled beyond Holland even though my passport showed I had not and they wanted to see my vaccination card and the results of the Covid test I took 48 hours prior to boarding in Holland. Whether this was just infomation gathering to quantify and study the Covid, or whether they would have quarantined me had I not had the right answers I do not know. I just know I was tired and I wanted to go to bed. See I had a little drink about an hour before and it had gone right to my head.

I don't remember. It may have been the rule in Iceland, Holland, and for the airline. I remember in Iceland they would not let us leave the airport though we had 8 hours. Maybe it was their rule.

So you are telling me I did not need to produce both a vaccine card and a current COVID test to fly to Holland, through Iceland, and then back the same route. which, being 10 days later required another curent COVID test.

https://youtu.be/lsrBlKpbBS8

Or they adhered to their standard practice of not taking matters up which are not yet ripe. As a lawyer you would understand the ripeness doctrine, no?

I got the two shots, then one booster. I got the Covids twice, confirmed, and perhaps more, but I stopped with the testing thing as I saw no point in wasting the money since knowing never lead to treatment.

Yet my job, a government job required me to vaccinate. If I wanted to fly there was a question of whether I had to vaccinate and produce a vaccine card to board.

I hate it for its proximity to Hoofddorp. The pollution from it ruins the area, for me. As for the airport itself, like most things Dutch it is well run.

Cloudy here.