Pre-Trial Poll: Should Men Still Pay For Dinner On the First Date?

11353720745_316418dba3_bToday we discussed the curious case of the so-called “Dine-and-Dash Dater.” Paul Gonzales is accused of running out on several women at restaurants after expensive meal.  As we discussed, much of the alleged crime would depend on the expectations or understanding of the daters.  Below is a poll designed to gauge how jurors might view such a case.

Women have said that Gonzales eats big meals and then leaves to make a call to a sick aunt or some other emergency.  The women eventually learn that he has fled and stuck them with high dinner bills.

Much of the criminal case depends on the understanding or expectations of the two dating.  That raises the interesting socio-legal question of whether men are expected to pay for the dinner on the first date.  It may be difficult for the law to hold men to such a social convention, though it would be reasonable to hold them to half of the cost absent an agreement or understanding to the contrary.

Below is a poll to gauge whether mores or expectations have changed:

138 thoughts on “Pre-Trial Poll: Should Men Still Pay For Dinner On the First Date?”

  1. Whatever happened to the presumed subject of this topic (paying on first dates)? Are people so itching to deliver political rants, that they can’t help themselves?

    1. David Benson – owes me a citation from the OED. Don’t believe anything until he gives me that citation. Right now he is not a man of honor.

        1. David Benson – owes me a citation from the OED. Trying to kill the messenger does not do it. Pony up the citation.

            1. No way to put on the diacriticals. Otherwise, yes, according to the Google translator.

              Study Weart, hard.

              1. David Benson – owes me a citation from the OED. Weart is a physicist, why should I care?

                BTW, watched a program called Impossible Builds about buildings using new engineering techniques and systems. You might be interested. The first program was on Hadid’s The Scorpion.

                  1. David Benson – owes me a citation from the OED. What we care about is that you are incapable of backing up a claim. You claim to have a Ph.D. and have taught at a major university. Nothing in our back and forth on this issue proves that. It actually proves just the opposite, that you are Making Stuff Up.

                    If it is easy for me to look it up, it is even easier for you. You know the exact definition you are looking for. You would not allow a student to use the same excuse you are using. And don’t try to pull RHIP on me.

        1. David Benson – owes me a citation from the OED. Are you sure those two words go together in Ancient Greek?

                1. David Benson – at this point, I am not sure which two we are talking about. I translated one which made no sense which is why I asked you if the words went together in Ancient Greek. The second phrase does not translate because the first word appears to be misspelled, so of course, it does not make sense either.

                  Oh, BTW David Benson owes me a citation from the OED.

  2. And here’s yet another story about the Anal Queen and her Pimp that Mr. Turley and his leftist con-artist presstitutes won’t cover. But, amazingly enough, the Daily Beast, far from friendly to President Trump OUTS the Anal Queen as another sexual assault enabler. But, as usual, the hypocritical left still has a political use for the Anal Queen and her Pimp, and so they will remain silent:

    Daily Beast
    MARLOW STERN
    05.14.18 2:00 AM ET

    #METOO
    Tasha Reign: I Was Assaulted on a Stormy Daniels Porn Set. And She Did Nothing.

    The adult actress Tasha Reign alleges that she was groped and harassed on a porn film Daniels directed in November 2017, and that Daniels ultimately sided with her alleged abuser.

    On the morning of April 17, Stormy Daniels made a hotly-anticipated appearance on The View.

    Flanked by her omnipresent attorney, Michael Avenatti, the adult actress/director defended her decision to speak out against President Trump and his attorney, Michael Cohen—two men she’s suing over a $130,000 payoff and accompanying non-disclosure agreement intended to muzzle her over an alleged affair with the president.

    During the interview, Daniels claimed that, shortly after she first told her story to In Touch magazine back in 2011, a man approached her in a Las Vegas parking lot and threatened her life, urging her to “leave Trump alone” and “forget the story.” The duo then released a composite sketch of the purported parking-lot assailant, with Daniels explaining that she didn’t go to the authorities seven years ago because she both feared for her safety and, as a newly-minted mother, didn’t want her husband at the time to learn about the supposed Trump tryst. She did, however, concede that, “I always feel like you should stand up for yourself and you should report it.”

    On the other side of the country in sunny Los Angeles, Tasha Reign was tuning in to Daniels’ sit-down and couldn’t believe what she was hearing.

    “It’s very upsetting to see her speak like that and then I think, but I know the real you,” says Reign. “I was there. I saw what you did.”

    I’m seated with Reign at a restaurant in West Hollywood. About an hour into our interview, one where she defended Daniels for “doing our industry justice” in her battle against the Trump apparatus (Reign is a liberal) and called out Jimmy Kimmel for his “disgusting” treatment of her during their late-night chat, the 29-year-old begins to tear up.

    “It’s tricky…,” she says, her voice cracking with emotion, “because I don’t even like Stormy. I don’t like her at all.”

    Reign says she has a “horrible story” to tell me about herself and Daniels.

    “I was sexually assaulted by one of her crewmembers. He groped and grabbed me from behind,” she says, wiping away tears. “I spoke up immediately because I was in the moment, and I was so proud of myself. She was the director that day, I went straight to her and straight to the man that did it, we had a conversation about it, I went to the owner of Wicked Pictures, I did all the right things. And she did not handle the situation appropriately, respectfully or professionally. So it’s a little bit outrageous when I hear her say things about how she is standing up for women and wants to be a voice for other women to be able to come forward when I was assaulted on her set and she didn’t give me any care or attention, and didn’t even send that man home.”

    According to Reign, the alleged incident in question occurred on November 15 of last year during the filming of The Set Up, an adult movie directed by Daniels and produced under the Wicked Pictures banner.

    “I’d always looked up to Stormy,” recalls Reign. “I’d shot for her before, ran into her at conventions. We even traveled once to Seattle at the beginning of my career when I believe they were considering me for a contract-girl position at Wicked. I know her, so I was stoked.”

    Reign was the lead in the film, starring alongside the adult actor Michael Vegas. She even had some meaty dialogue. On November 14, the first day of the shoot, she says everything went relatively smoothly—save an uncomfortable conversation about accused sexual abuser Harvey Weinstein. Reign says that Daniels was “basically making fun of the Me Too movement, in so many words,” joking to the crew, “Oh, I could be seen as Harvey Weinstein because I’m flirtatious with my crewmembers and I can be inappropriate.” It made Reign uncomfortable, but she let it go. (Daniels has made statements critical of #MeToo on Twitter.)

    Then on day two of filming, November 15, she tells me that after getting her hair and makeup done and posing for stills—the hardcore photos that are used as online banners for videos—she was asked to fill out paperwork in another room.

    “I’m fully clothed in my outfit, I’m standing and signing my paperwork, and all of a sudden I feel two hands from behind me grab my ass and make sexual moaning noises,” remembers Reign. “I felt a pit in my stomach and thought, shit, my scene partner, Michael Vegas, is in the other room… who is this?”

    She continues: “So I turn around and it’s a crewmember from set. I look him directly in the eye and go, ‘What the f— are you doing?’ and I look so upset. So I thought, OK, I can either ruin my makeup, which took an hour and a half to do, or I can go do my scene as quickly as it’s going to take and then as soon as it’s over, I can go and confront Stormy, the director who has all the power that day on set, and the man that did this to me.”

    Stormy Daniels

    @StormyDaniels
    14 Jan
    Replying to @TashaReign
    If you are questioning my integrity as a director or “the environment” on my set, you and I are going to have a HUGE problem. And you will have zero chance of finding anyone to say they’ve been treated poorly on one of my shoots EVER. Take your agenda elsewhere.

    Tasha Reign
    @TashaReign
    I was innapropriately groped and sexually harassed by one of the men on your crew November 15th right before my BG scene. Which you were then made aware of that day. You continued to allow him to stay on the set with no reprocussion. I never questioned your directorial skills.

    9:40 PM – Jan 14, 2018
    194
    126 people are talking about this

    As soon as the scene ended and Daniels yelled “cut,” Reign says she began bawling her eyes out. “My poor partner was like, ‘What did I do!’ and I said, ‘Michael, you didn’t do anything.’ He looked alarmed and so concerned. He’s a good guy,” offers Reign.

    Vegas corroborated Reign’s post-scene emotional state, telling The Daily Beast, “I remember the shoot. Relaxed mood. Scene went fine. Right after we wrapped and there was some shuffling around I remember seeing Tasha come back into the room. Her demeanor had changed but it was hard to tell why or what had happened. Everything came to a halt so that the issue could be addressed, and everyone on set seemed concerned for the well-being of us as performers. But I don’t know if there was ever a real resolution.”

    There wasn’t, alleges Reign: “So then I confront Stormy and this guy in the hallway and I’m like, ‘This is what happened. What on earth were you thinking?’ The guy starts backpedaling and goes, ‘Oh, I was just trying to get through.’ And I said, ‘If you were trying to get through, why did you grope me? And why did you make sexual moaning noises?’ and he says, ‘Oh, it was a joke.’ I said, ‘That’s sexual harassment and assault. If you don’t know that, that’s a problem.’ Stormy is there, and she’s totally silent. Just neutral. Which is such a problem. He says sorry, starts talking about how he has a family—which all men do when they get accused.”

    Reign says she was next asked by Daniels if she needed to go into an adjacent room to cool down. She alleges that she did, and Daniels followed her in shortly after. “Stormy says, ‘I’m sorry,’ gives me a hug, and then she shames me by saying [of her alleged abuser], ‘You probably made him cry. He’s crying right now,’” Reign recounts. “And I thought, wow, I’ve lost all respect for you, and I’m also immediately calling your producer and your company and telling them exactly what occurred.”

    The on-set assault allegation first surfaced on January 14, when Reign tweeted at Daniels, “I was innapropriately groped and sexually harassed by one of the men on your crew November 15th right before my BG scene. Which you were then made aware of that day. You continued to allow him to stay on the set with no reprocussion. I never questioned your directorial skills.” Daniels then fired back: “You were not. I was right there…as were several other people and NONE of them will agree with you. How dare you try to undo 15 years of my reputation and his career. I will not allow it. Find me one person who will state otherwise. Best wishes.”

    Presented with the allegation, Daniels’ attorney, Michael Avenatti, issued the following statement to The Daily Beast on behalf of his client: “Ms. Daniels’ recollection of what happened is vastly different. Further, after the incident in question, Wicked performed a thorough investigation and found no substantiation for the allegations. It simply did not occur as Ms. Reign suggests.”

    WICKED PICTURES
    After the disappointing meeting with Daniels, Reign says that she contacted the executives at Wicked Pictures—including owner Steve Orenstein—and they immediately had a meeting.

    “We’ve had about five meetings since then, and I felt heard at first,” says Reign. “Steve is promising me that Wicked is going to implement new training policies and they’ll be the first company to do it. That gave me chills, because it would be so great that this good thing came from this bad thing, and maybe the rest of the industry will look at Wicked and follow suit.”

    “But later on,” she adds, “Steve talks to the crewmember and he says, ‘Well, that never happened.’ He’s denying it happened, and even Stormy is denying it happened—and she wasn’t there when it happened, so how could she know? I have a lawyer, so I’m still deciding what to do. The owner of Wicked said in an email that it’s ‘resolved’ because [the crewmember] will never work there again since Stormy doesn’t work there anymore, and he was only working there because of Stormy. I was like, that’s not ‘resolved,’ that’s ‘convenient.’ I asked about where the new papers are or actions that they were going to implement, and it’s been radio silence for the last two months.”

    When I brought Reign’s account to Wicked Pictures, they issued a statement through their spokesperson that read: “We have been and are appropriately investigating.” Pressed further, the company refused to elaborate.

    “Now I have to decide on my next steps,” Reign says. “I have to speak up, because this is unacceptable. And I’m not after money. I’ll sue you for a dollar, I don’t care about the money. What I want is for you to recognize, a) This occurred, and b) Here are the new protocols that people have to follow on set, because on a porn set things happen just like every other job, and they’re not being treated the same as every other job. And it’s not OK.”

    Marlow Stern
    Got a tip? Send it to The Daily Beast here.

    Sponsored Stories
    13 College Stars Who Were Total Busts in The NBA
    13 College Stars Who Were Total Busts in The NBA
    THE SPORTS DROP
    This Is What Vikings Were Actually Like. The Photos Are Strikingly Scary
    This Is What Vikings Were Actually Like. The Photos Are Strikingly Scary
    DISCOVERYTHEWORD
    After Receiving a Cochlear Implant, Annie Rediscovers the Joy of Sound in Her Life
    After Receiving a Cochlear Implant, Annie Rediscovers the Joy of Sound in Her…
    COCHLEAR HEAR AND NOW
    These New Crossover SUVs Will Take Your Breath Away
    These New Crossover SUVs Will Take Your Breath Away
    YAHOO! SEARCH
    Motley Fool’s Triple Buy Alert Looks a Lot Like Berkshire in 1992
    Motley Fool’s Triple Buy Alert Looks a Lot Like Berkshire in 1992
    THE MOTLEY FOOL
    Why This Shirt Company Is Causing So Many Guys to Switch
    Why This Shirt Company Is Causing So Many Guys to Switch
    GQ
    Watch: Made for iPhone Technology Allows Cochlear Implant Recipients to Stream Directly from DeviceWatch: Made for iPhone Technology Allows Cochlear Implant Recipients to Stream Directly from Device
    Watch: Made for iPhone Technology Allows Cochlear Implant Recipients to Stream…
    YOUTUBE
    Lutein Bilberry Eye Vision Guard 200 Softgels
    PIPING ROCK
    Recommended by
    THE LOVING ARMS OF FOX
    A Complete Guide to Trump’s 15 TV Interviews Since His NBC Meltdown
    Trump has only done little more than a dozen TV interviews since his disastrous May 2017 chat with NBC’s Lester Holt. Shocker: all 15 interviewers are known Trump boosters.
    Andrew Kirell
    ANDREW KIRELL
    05.14.18 4:14 PM ET
    Friday marked the one-year anniversary of President Trump’s disastrous interview with NBC’s Lester Holt, in which he seemed to confess to trying to halt a Russian collusion investigation by firing FBI Director James Comey.

    In the intervening twelve months, the president has not done a single televised interview with a news reporter of Holt’s stature—instead opting for the safe haven of his friends and boosters across conservative media.

    In fact, as liberal watchdog organization Media Matters for America reported Monday, the president has done a total of 15 television interviews following his Holt grilling—and all of those conversations were loaded with sycophancy and softball questions.

    The president’s first post-Holt sit-down was with Fox News weekend host Jeanine Pirro, a right-wing firebrand and Trump friend prone to conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton (shocker!).

    Unsurprisingly, Pirro offered herself up as a propagandist, wondering aloud to the president how, “given our ability, your successes,” how best “we” can “get that across to the American people?” She called the Russia probe an “excuse that the Democrats came up with for losing an election.”

    A month later, Trump returned to Fox News for a friendly chat with Ainsley Earhardt, co-host of his favorite TV show in all of cable-news land: Fox & Friends. Once again, a Fox host offered herself up as an unpaid flack, helping the president reframe a threatening tweet about having recorded his Comey chats as a stroke of genius.

    “It was a smart way to make sure he stayed honest in those hearings,” Earhardt famously declared, much to the president’s delight.

    RELATED IN ARTS AND CULTURE

    ‘Fox & Friends’ Melts Down Over Michelle Wolf’s Jokes

    Even Ann Coulter Is an MSNBC Fan

    Hannity Gets Schooled on His Own Show
    Two days later, Trump returned yet again to Fox News, chatting with unabashed Trump fan and wannabe cabinet member Pete Hegseth. The tenor of that conversation can be summarized by one of the Fox & Friends weekend host’s opening questions: “Who’s been your biggest opponent? Has it been Democrats resisting? Has it been fake news media? Has it been deep state leaks?”

    On July 13, Trump finally ventured outside his Fox News comfort zone for the warm embrace of Christian Broadcasting Network televangelist Pat Robertson, who conducted what can only be described as a reverential interview. “I want you to know there are thousands of people praying for you and holding you up all the time,” he told the president after repeatedly praising his performance.

    And then he ended a three-month TV drought by returning for another powwow with none other than Hegseth—this time discussing critical issues like NFL players kneeling during the national anthem.

    A few weeks later, in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria, Trump headed to Puerto Rico to survey the damage. He spoke with his long-time pal, Fox News star Geraldo Rivera. The conversation was rather routine, except, naturally, the president ended it with: “You’ve been a great friend, Geraldo.”

    Several days thereafter, Trump sat down with his former GOP primary rival Mike Huckabee—serving as a host on Trinity Broadcasting Network. The one-on-one was nothing short of mutually fawning. “You were a rock star [in Puerto Rico], I saw the video of it,” Huckabee beamed. “You have a lot of things out there on the horizon, including North Korea and Kim Jong Un—or as you like to call him, Rocket Man, which I thought was a great moniker.”

    GET THE BEAST IN YOUR INBOX!

    Enter your email address
    SUBSCRIBE
    Trump thanked Huckabee for having “been so fantastic.”

    Within a week, the president sat down with his unofficial cable-news adviser and current BFFL Sean Hannity for a full-on bro-down that attacked the “fake news media” and its “Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia obsession.” At one point, Hannity marveled, “I’ve never seen any one person face as much in terms of attacks as you have.”

    In the following week, Trump did not appear on television but called in for radio interviews with Fox & Friends host Brian Kilmeade (who hosts a Fox News Radio program) and Fox News contributor David Webb (who hosts a right-wing talk show for SiriusXM).

    Come late October, Trump was on Fox Business Network—which, despite its moniker, does less business news than “own-the-libs” style commentary—for a friendly chat with his fellow New York business icon Maria Bartiromo.

    And two days later, he graced FBN again to chat with Lou Dobbs, the O.G. Trumpist and unofficial adviser who, mid-interview, gushed to Trump how “You’re also one of the most loved and respected” presidents in American history.

    In November, the president chatted with then-new Fox News primetime host Laura Ingraham. The right-wing talk radio star fulfilled her role as someone who’d previously angled for Trump’s top White House communications gig, helpfully teeing up for the president attacks on his top nemesis Hillary Clinton. (She did, however, grill Trump on his failure to secure funding for a border wall.)

    Several months later, Trump returned to cable news for an esoteric financial conversation with CNBC’s Joe Kernen, the often pro-Trump conservative voice on Squawk Box, the business network’s appropriately named gabfest.

    And that same week, he was on Britain’s ITV being interviewed by his former Celebrity Apprentice sidekick and fellow trash-TV aficionado Piers Morgan. The interview was so maligned as “softball” by British media that it spawned a world-famous vulgar BBC meme of the TV host performing anilingus on Trump.

    In February, Trump returned to Pirro’s Fox News show, this time by telephone, and proceeded to turn the conversation into a lengthy monologue as the accommodating Fox News host let him go interrupted for minutes at a time. It was largely a platform for the president to offer a screed-like rebuttal to Michael Wolff‘s controversial book Fire & Fury.

    Trump’s most recent cable-news interview was another Fox News phonor, this time with all three Fox & Friends hosts (Kilmeade, Earhardt, and Steve Doocy). This one was particularly notable for how Trump seemingly screamed into the phone for nearly 30 minutes about everything from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe to Stormy Daniels to “sleepy-eyes Chuck Todd.”

    The Fox & Friends gang spent much of the interview in silence.

    Reign says she was next asked by Daniels if she needed to go into an adjacent room to cool down. She alleges that she did, and Daniels followed her in shortly after. “Stormy says, ‘I’m sorry,’ gives me a hug, and then she shames me by saying [of her alleged abuser], ‘You probably made him cry. He’s crying right now,’” Reign recounts. “And I thought, wow, I’ve lost all respect for you, and I’m also immediately calling your producer and your company and telling them exactly what occurred.”

    The on-set assault allegation first surfaced on January 14, when Reign tweeted at Daniels, “I was innapropriately groped and sexually harassed by one of the men on your crew November 15th right before my BG scene. Which you were then made aware of that day. You continued to allow him to stay on the set with no reprocussion. I never questioned your directorial skills.” Daniels then fired back: “You were not. I was right there…as were several other people and NONE of them will agree with you. How dare you try to undo 15 years of my reputation and his career. I will not allow it. Find me one person who will state otherwise. Best wishes.”

    Presented with the allegation, Daniels’ attorney, Michael Avenatti, issued the following statement to The Daily Beast on behalf of his client: “Ms. Daniels’ recollection of what happened is vastly different. Further, after the incident in question, Wicked performed a thorough investigation and found no substantiation for the allegations. It simply did not occur as Ms. Reign suggests.”

    After the disappointing meeting with Daniels, Reign says that she contacted the executives at Wicked Pictures—including owner Steve Orenstein—and they immediately had a meeting.

    “We’ve had about five meetings since then, and I felt heard at first,” says Reign. “Steve is promising me that Wicked is going to implement new training policies and they’ll be the first company to do it. That gave me chills, because it would be so great that this good thing came from this bad thing, and maybe the rest of the industry will look at Wicked and follow suit.”

    “But later on,” she adds, “Steve talks to the crewmember and he says, ‘Well, that never happened.’ He’s denying it happened, and even Stormy is denying it happened—and she wasn’t there when it happened, so how could she know? I have a lawyer, so I’m still deciding what to do. The owner of Wicked said in an email that it’s ‘resolved’ because [the crewmember] will never work there again since Stormy doesn’t work there anymore, and he was only working there because of Stormy. I was like, that’s not ‘resolved,’ that’s ‘convenient.’ I asked about where the new papers are or actions that they were going to implement, and it’s been radio silence for the last two months.”

    When I brought Reign’s account to Wicked Pictures, they issued a statement through their spokesperson that read: “We have been and are appropriately investigating.” Pressed further, the company refused to elaborate.

    “Now I have to decide on my next steps,” Reign says. “I have to speak up, because this is unacceptable. And I’m not after money. I’ll sue you for a dollar, I don’t care about the money. What I want is for you to recognize, a) This occurred, and b) Here are the new protocols that people have to follow on set, because on a porn set things happen just like every other job, and they’re not being treated the same as every other job. And it’s not OK.”

    1. Ralph Adamo,

      Ordinarily I don’t edit and approve comments that contain prohibited words and consequently go into moderation. But what you submitted had a prohibited word in a quote and I suspect overlooked. Since it seems you put some effort into the comment, I didn’t want to see that go to waste and edited out the word and approved it so that others could read what you wrote.

        1. The decision to return this article to be viewable was not for you to make and it is also not for me to judge what is qualitative and worthy of being posted here. Ralph Adamo’s contribution to this blog is equal to that of yours or anyone else’s. His opinion is just as valid as is yours for the purpose of his self-expression and for that matter his value as a person is equal as well. He hasn’t broken any Civility Rule and consequently he is welcome to post here.

          So if it was a waste on my part to restore Mr. Adamo’s comment, then the waste was mine to pay. If you somehow derive satisfaction from watching me “waste” my time, then possibly you will also be doubly-rewarded by witnessing me wasting time explaining to you what should be self-evident.

          1. Agreed. Except for one thing: It’s technically impossible to waste time–or anything else, for that matter. It’s only possible to “spend” time. Why else would the universe be at least 8 billion light-years across from one edge to the opposite edge? There’s plenty of room for both Ralph and David to “spend” time without ever “wasting” it.

          2. Darren Smith – David Benson is a man without honor and a legend in his own mind. Just imagine being forced to take a course from him.

            1. Yes, you might learn something if you were diligent.

              In preparation, study the Lambda Calculus of Alanzo Church.

              1. David Benson – I learned something in every class I took, even with professors I disliked. It was the material I was interested in, not them.

          3. 1st Amendment

            “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

      1. Darren, I appreciate your response. I did mean to shorten the post considerably, but inadvertently left in parts that I wanted to omit. Sorry about that. I’ll be more careful in the future.

  3. Note how Jonathan Turley will cover ANY story, no matter how insignificant or irrelevant to his readers because he has to desperately AVOID reporting on TOTAL EXPOSURES of his previous pet stories, the indictments of the so-called “13 Russians” and the Anal Queen and her Pimp story.

    First, the news on the phony “13 Russians.” Mr. Turley fails to report that the attorneys for the “13 Russians” showed up in court and demanded that Mueller produce the documents for his bogus allegations. Mueller said they “weren’t prepared” for any discovery (because their false charges were simply a publicity stunt and Mueller expected that the 13 Russians would never show up in federal court). If any other prosecution did what Mueller did, they would all be sanctioned and fined for their legal BS scam.

    And now on to the Anal Queen and her Pimp . . .

    Boston Herald

    Stormy Daniels may not weather her shame fame
    Joe Fitzgerald Monday, May 14, 2018

    It’s not the tawdry, no-class essence of pornographic “actress” Stormy Daniels that’s so grating as we watch her milking every misbegotten moment in the spotlight.

    No, it’s those who are enabling her.

    Having far exceeded her 15 minutes of fame, she’s doing whatever she can with whatever she has to maintain the illusion she’s a serious person with an important story to tell.

    She is nothing of the sort, and if her dalliance had been with a lustful Democrat — there have been plenty to choose from — her value as a newsmaker would have been lower than her neckline.

    But because she’s out to embarrass Donald Trump, the left-wingers who’ve been nipping at his heels ever since voters elected him have embraced her as a paragon of political substance, as if she were an Eleanor Roosevelt or Golda Meir.

    Please. If she has political kinship with anyone, it’s with Annabelle Battistella, the Argentine Firecracker. Remember her?

    Like Stormy, who was born Stephanie Clifford, the Firecracker reinvented herself as Fanne Foxe and had her own 15 minutes of fame when she was in a wee-hour Washington accident with Rep. Wilbur Mills, then chairman of the all-powerful Ways and Means Committee.

    A month later the boozy Arkansas Democrat followed her here to the seedy Pilgrim Theatre where, taking a breather from removing her clothes, she persuaded the inebriated fool to join her on stage: “Mr. Mills! Where are you?”

    That was a media circus, too, but Fanne’s pretty much forgotten now, having been seen as what she was.

    Stormy, on the other hand, continues to be treated as what she imagines herself to be, a woman of great significance.

    An old tale tells of a man who, having met a woman in a bar, asks, “Would you spend the night with me for $100?”

    “Yes,” she answered.

    “Well, would you do it for $10?”

    “Ten dollars?” she replied indignantly. “What do you think I am?”

    “We’ve already established what you are,” he said. “Now we’re just negotiating the price.”

    Stormy Daniels is what she has always been.

    That’s her business.

    But it does not mean the rest of us should permit her to affect how we feel about this president.

  4. George Papadopoulos should have found out that Obama was “paying for dinner” on his date in London with Australian Ambassador Alexander Downer, as arranged by the CIA’s Brennan and the FBI, when he drunkenly revealed that Russia had political dirt on Hillary Clinton. George Papadopoulos and Carter Page were pawns set up by Obama, Brennan, the FBI et al. culminating in Rosenstein and Mueller’s “malicious prosecution” of the President. These dupes had no idea who was “paying for dinner.” Phantom “Russian collusion” is an artificial fantasy of disinformation created by Obama in the most prodigious scandal in American political history.

    Did the FBI Have a Spy in the Trump Campaign?
    By Andrew C. McCarthy May 12, 2018

    The Steele-dossier author told Fusion GPS’s Glenn Simpson about a ‘human source.’

    Something tells me Glenn Simpson did not make a mistake. Something tells me the co-founder of Fusion GPS was dead-on accurate when he testified that Christopher Steele told him the FBI had a “human source” — i.e., a spy — inside the Trump campaign as the 2016 presidential race headed into its stretch run.

    When he realized how explosive this revelation was, Simpson walked it back: He had, perhaps, “mischaracterized” what he’d been told by Steele, the former British spy and principal author of the anti-Trump dossier he and Simpson compiled for the Clinton campaign.

    1. The FBI intentionally entrapped George Papadopoulos. It was their FBI informant that had a Russian friend feed Papadopoulos information about the Russians having Hillary Clinton’s emails. It was then the informant that fed the same information to Papadopoulos. It was the FBI that set him up with the Australian ambassador who was a donor to the Clinton campaign and I think it was the FBI blowing up his ego by hiring Papadopoulos to write a paper for $3,000 and giving him plane tickets to Great Britain. This informant working for the FBI and I think was the mole in the Trump campaign is said to be an Oxford professor in his 70’s.

      All those on this blog writing about Trump dealing with the Russians should feel pretty foolish by now.

      1. Stefan Halper first reached out to George Papadopoulos on September 2, then met with him over several days in London in mid-September.

        George Papadopolous first learned that the Russians had Clinton emails from Joseph Mifsud sometime in early April of 2016.

        That’s roughly six months before Papadopoulos met with Halper. Once again Ninny-Na-Na Nunes has chased a red herring down a rabbit hole by means of retroactive anachronism. Will wonders never cease?

        1. Annie/Inga – According to reliable sources, the mole has the initials A and M. You are not a reliable source and you do not read reliable sources. 😉 Now, there is a rumor that there was a second mole.

          1. Eenie meenie mienie whack-a-mole. One of your “reliable sources” is now claiming that George Papadopoulos, himself, is the mole. If so, then to review, briefly, one FBI mole, Halper, supposedly entrapped another FBI mole, Papadopoulos, six months before they ever met one another. Because the FBI is simultaneously ingenious (time travel) and incompetent (amnesiac).

            As for your whack-a-mole “A & M,” be advised that both Mifsud (J & M) and Millian (S & M) are Russian agents of influence. And neither one of them has been seen anywhere in the known world for quite some time now. Meanwhile, don’t you dare even think about nominating Manafort for your next whack-a-mole “P & M.” Surely at least some theses are too inane even for Paul Caviler Schulteacher.

            P. S. This is not what I meant by the comment, “Enjoy your ham sandwich, Paul.”

            1. Here’s a thought in re theses too inane even for PCS: Andrew McCarthy’s initials are A & M. Think about it.

        2. Diane, as the Russia ploy of the left and FBI has been revealed we have consistently been shown how wrong you have been over time so why should anyone listen to anything you say?

          1. Stefan Halper was a White House official in the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations. Halper did not meet with Papadopoulos until September of 2016. Papadopoulos learned that the Russians had Clinton emails from Joseph Mifsud in late March or early April of 2016. Papadopoulos blabbed about it to Alexander Downer in early May. The Australians tipped off the FBI about it shortly after Wikileaks posted the DNC emails on July 22nd, 2016. Halper did not meet Papadopoulos until September 2nd, 2016. Halper could not possibly have entrapped Papadopoulos. You are thereby stuck with Joseph Mifsud as the supposed FBI mole who supposedly entrapped Papadopoulos. Mifsud is not a Cambridge professor. Mifsud is not an American. Mifsud does not fit the description of the supposed FBI mole supposedly planted in the Trump campaign. Your story to the contrary is currently a crock of cockamamie, Allanonsense. Get back to me when your puppet-masters get their story straight.

            1. Diane, you appear to have a bit of the information but a lot of things you say are backward, where the relationships are messed up. Don’t trouble yourself because you continue to fail in your attempt to keep up with things. Right now your brain is processing yesterday’s news so it will be some time until it reaches your fingertips.

              1. If you’d care to propose the name of someone other than Joseph Mifsud for the supposed FBI mole who supposedly entrapped Papadopoulos, then you should do so. I predict that you won’t, because you have no idea on what date in 2016 you would have to place that unnamed person in the same location with Papadopoulos. Therefore, you are currently stuck with Mifsud as your supposed FBI mole supposedly entrapping Papadopoulos. Oh! How the mighty Allanonsense has fallen.

                1. “If you’d care to propose the name ”

                  I haven’t yet heard the name yet I have heard rumors it might be a professor at Oxford. Remember when Comey leaked he did so through a professor at Columbia (?).

                  I can’t have fallen because I don’t make the ridiculous predictions you seem to make. I haven’t named anyone because I am not like you who sticks her foot in her mouth every morning. Remember your statement about police risk that after quite awhile you retracted? That is the same for many of your statements that you continuously make. The law of averages says if you print enough sh-t some will likely come true. You print a lot of sh-t and not much of it turns out to be true.

                  1. Stefan Halper is a professor at Cambridge. Not Oxford. Joseph Mifsud was a professor at the London Academy of Diplomacy and Director of The London Center for International Law Practice (the latter where Papadopoulos also worked for a month or so in 2016). Papadopoulos signed a plea agreement with Mueller that contained specific factual admissions including that Mifsud had told Papadopoulos that the Russians had Clinton’s emails in late March or early April of 2016. Papadopoulos is stuck with the Mifsud story he told to Mueller because Papadopoulos signed his name to it.

                    Consequently, in order to make good on your FBI whack-a-mole entrapment theory, you’re going to have link Mifsud to the FBI. The aptly named Rush Limbaugh has already gone there. Andrew McCarthy has not gone there yet. And neither has Kimberley Strassel of The WSJ. Why not? Because McCarthy and Strassel already took the bait on Stefan Halper without checking the timeline for anachronism. Good luck with your new buddie Rush Limbaugh, Allanonsense.

                    P. S. I’m glad to see you’re still keeping your great trophy polished, Retentive One.

                    1. Coffee boys don’t compose. Trump said Papadopoulos was a coffee boy. Ergo, Trump says Papadopoulos is not composing. Since that leaves singing as the sole remaining disjunct, it follows that Trump says Papadopoulos is singing. OTOH, what if Trump is composing? Naw! Putin is the composer, for sure. Trump is the ventriloquist’s dummy.

                    2. Diane, Maybe I should go back a couple of months and copy some more of Diane’s Fractured Fiction. Then we can all laugh about it since most of what you say about uncertain affairs later is proven to be wrong. The police risk story where you believed the police had less risk than citizens was nuts but you held firm to it for quite awhile. What you said about Michael Flynn was nuts as well, but you keep spouting off without any self-control. You are non stop with your garbage.

                2. On August 2 Diane (Late 4 Dinner) wrote:
                  “According to the F.B.I.’s uniform crime reports, for the ten-year period from 2004 through 2013, there were eight times as many justifiable homicides of the first type (defined as the killing of a felon by a sworn officer) as there were sworn officers killed in the line of duty. And the per-capita homicide rate for the general population was either fifteen or sixteen times the rate of sworn officers killed in the line of duty depending on which population size one uses for the law-enforcement community.

                  ***IOW, the police are, perhaps unsurprisingly, safer than we. “…***

                  August 3 Diane wrote:
                  “Allan says that it is blatantly untrue and a misuse of statistics to point out the police are safer than the general public, because the per-capita homicide rate for the general public is substantially higher than the rate at which sworn officers are killed in the line of duty relative to the total population size of sworn officers in our country. The only way that that statistic could be misused would be to presume that sworn officers are facing either the same or a greater risk of homicide victimization than rest of us are facing.”

                  August 3 Diane wrote again:

                  “Sorry, more post-script: When sworn officers are off duty they do, in fact, face the same risk of homicide victimization as the general public. It’s only when they are on duty that their risk of homicide victimization decreases relative to ours.” …

                  August 4 Diane writes:
                  “Allan, I made a horrible mistake with the number I gave you. I asked my son to check my work. He caught the error and figured out how I made it. The statement ‘sworn officers are safer than we’ is, in fact, egregiously false. My son gave me the correct numbers. Here they are.”

                  You have continued from then till now to make mistake after mistake after mistake.

                  1. Suppose that what Allanonsense is prating on about now were true. The FBI had a mole who entrapped George Papadopoulos into claiming that the Russians had Clinton’s emails. And then the FBI suppressed their successful operation against the Trump campaign until after the 2016 election so that they could backstop their deep-state coup d’état against a POTUS whose election they could quite possibly have prevented by exposing that Papadopoulos supposedly knew that the Russians supposedly had Clinton’s emails in late March or early April of 2016 long before Trump had actually been elected POTUS.

                    IOW, the FBI supposedly allowed Trump to get himself elected POTUS so that the FBI could topple Trump from The Presidency long after the fact of the FBI supposedly entrapping Papadopoulos not for the purpose of preventing Trump’s election right up front. Talk about long-range planning. Why would the FBI have preferred to stage a deep-state coup d’état against Trump after the election rather than before the election? Does this make any sense to anyone else other than Kimberley Strassel, Andrew McCarthy, Rush Limbaugh and Allanonsense?

                    1. Diane says “suppose”. That is typical Diane. She creates a supposition and then convinces herself that the supposition is fact. Apparently, Diane can be convinced very easily as long as the storyline agrees with what she wishes to hear.

                      No one expected Trump to win. You really ought to concentrate on the Stroik and Page messages. They are damning to the FBI, Clinton and most of your arguments. In fact, they actually point to potential criminal activity while you run around like a chicken without its head yelling Trump… Russia, Trump… Russia.

                    2. L4D said, “Suppose that what Allanonsense is prating on about now were true. The FBI had a mole who entrapped George Papadopoulos into claiming that the Russians had Clinton’s emails.”

                      Allan then said, “Diane says “suppose”. That is typical Diane. She creates a supposition and then convinces herself that the supposition is fact.”

                      Allan had previously said, “The FBI intentionally entrapped George Papadopoulos. It was their FBI informant that had a Russian friend feed Papadopoulos information about the Russians having Hillary Clinton’s emails. It was then the informant that fed the same information to Papadopoulos.”

                      Anyone who bothers to read with comprehension can clearly see that Allan created the supposition at issue and reported it as though it were fact in black and white right here on the four corners of this page. Let’s pull this out and take a closer look at it.

                      Allan said, ” It was their FBI informant that had a Russian friend feed Papadopoulos information about the Russians having Hillary Clinton’s emails.”

                      A) The supposed FBI informant [Stefan Halper–?] had a Russian friend [Joseph Mifsud–?].
                      B) The Russian friend fed Papadopoulos information about Russians having Clinton’s emails.

                      Allan said, “It was then the informant that fed the same information to Papadopoulos.”

                      C) The supposed FBI informant [Stefan Halper–?] fed the same information to Papadopoulos that . . .
                      B) The Russian friend [Joseph Mifsud–?] had fed Papadopoulos.

                      Clearly and distinctly, then, Allanonsense cannot even report his own “facts” correctly to himself, let alone to anyone else on this-here blawg.

                    3. Yes, I believe that is what happened, entrapment. That is my opinion. That is different than you creating facts out of thin air and then deriving conclusions from those erroneous facts and later calling those conclusions facts themselves.

      2. More zaniness. Bedlam denizen off his meds. Next.

        This is to “why don’t we ever talk about the black helicopters” allan

        1. If we talked about the black the black helicopters, then they’d hear us. Because tin foil hats don’t block sound waves. You need a Cone of Silence for that.

            1. I’d think with 2 or 3 of the women who post here, there’d be no second date because you’d be running screaming across the state line.

              1. Assumed facts not in evidence: L4D does not date men. But go ahead on and run across that State line, anyhow. (Does anyone else smell something fishy?)

        2. Marky Mark Mark – we have talked about the black helicopters a couple of times and I have told you where to find them.

          1. Tomorrow, Thursday May 17th, 2018, is the one-year anniversary of the appointment of he who will not be deterred, Robert Swan Mueller The Third. (How’s that ham sandwich coming along, Paul?)

            1. The investigation began in July 2016. Mr. McCarthy’s most recent take discusses Peter Sztrok’s giddy texts at the time. And, of course, nothing much has been accomplished bar running of the legal bills of Mr. Mueller’s targets.

            2. Annie/Inga – the ham sandwich is still a ham sandwich. There is more to come. Manafort is not done.

              1. Excerpted from the article linked above:

                In 2009, after promising to provide information relating to Robert Levinson, a former Federal Bureau of Investigation agent who disappeared in Iran in 2007, Mr. Deripaska received a U.S. visa, according to a person familiar with the matter. The tycoon never provided the promised information, the person said.

                Over two visits to the U.S. in 2009, Mr. Deripaska met with U.S. financiers, including Lloyd Blankfein, the chief executive of Goldman Sachs Group Inc., as well as General Motors Co. executives in Detroit, according to people familiar with the meetings.

                These meetings violated Mr. Deripaska’s agreement with the Justice Department, according to U.S. officials, and he lost his visa once more. Mr. Deripaska’s press office didn’t respond to a request for comment on the businessman’s visas.

                1. Excarpted from the article linked above:

                  George Washington University constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley agreed: “If the operation with Deripaska contravened federal law, this figure could be viewed as a potential embarrassment for Mueller. The question is whether he could implicate Mueller in an impropriety.”

                  1. Oleg Deripaska and Konstantin Kilimnik were mentioned by name in the indictments Mueller brought against Paul Manafort. If Deripaska could implicate Mueller in an impropriety (as Turley suggested in the quote above), then why would Mueller mention Deripaska by name in the indictments Mueller brought against Manafort? If anything, the indictments against Manafort and the mentioning of Deripaska and Kilimnik in those indictments, argues rather strongly that Mueller couldn’t care less what Oleg Deripaska has to say about Robert Swan Mueller III.

                    So why does Turley care what Deripaska has to say about Mueller? Because Trump cares what Deripaska has to say about Mueller? Then why does Turley care what Stormy Daniels has to say about Trump? Maybe Turley is playing for the love of the game and nothing else. What do you-all blawg-hounds think?

        3. Mark, what is it about the entrapment of Papadapolous that you don’t understand?

          You seem to always have to play catch up. A little slow?

          1. The part where Sam Clovis hired George Papadopoulos as a foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign–for starters. How did the FBI pull that one off, Allanonsense?

            1. Diane, like everything else you have had to suck up, in a while, you will learn about the FBI entrapping Papadopoulos. The news is out. It’s reached your eyes and ears but there seems to be a time lapse before it is transmitted to your brain.

              1. The only people pushing the Papadopoulos entrapment story are Rush Limbaugh and Allanonsense. Andrew McCarthy did not say that Papadopoulos was entrapped. Nor did McCarthy say who the FBI mole is or even might be. The whole whack-a-mole-hunt meme comes from Kimberley Strassel of The WSJ who also did not say who the mole is, but who at least gave a generic description of the supposed mole that fits Stefan Halper fairly well. Stefan Halper cannot possibly have entrapped Papadopoulos. The most likely person to have “entrapped” Papadopoulos is the Maltese professor, Joseph Mifud, who is a known agent of Russian influence as evidenced by his proven ability to arrange a meeting between Papadopoulos, a Russian government official and the goddaughter of Vladimir Putin.

                You need to name somebody else besides Stefan Halper to make good on your next crock of cockamamie, Allanonsense.

                1. “Andrew McCarthy did not say that Papadopoulos was entrapped.”

                  Did he say he wasn’t?

                  Diane, you are bumbling around as usual. All one has to do is look at your writing in the past to see how wrong you continually get things. I don’t know for sure what happened but the FBI has been using methods that are not appropriate and I believe entrapment is one of them.

                  We already see how Flynn was entrapped though that news might still be travelling towards your brain.

                  1. Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat

                    He who asserts that the FBI entrapped George Papadopoulos must shoulder the burden of proving that the FBI entrapped George Papadopoulus.

                    Even so, L4D has already demonstrated that Stefan Halper could not possibly have entrapped George Papadopoulos. And that whosoever supposedly entrapped Papadopoulos must necessarily have done so in tandem with Joseph Mifsud. Those are the parameters within which Allanonsense and his good buddy Rush Limbaugh must shoulder their burden of proof. And that is the most plausible explanation for the fact that they have not yet named the supposed FBI mole at issue. Even likelier, still, they never will.

                    1. “He who asserts that the FBI entrapped George Papadopoulos must shoulder the burden of proving that the FBI entrapped George Papadopoulus.”

                      True and I don’t say I can prove it, but that is what it sounds like to me and is my opinion. What you write is frequently stated as fact when it is junk.

                      “L4D has already demonstrated that Stefan Halper could not possibly have entrapped George Papadopoulos. ”

                      You brought up Halper, not me. I believe Strassel says she is aware of the name but is not releasing it and some other people followed suit. Diane, however, states she knows the name and that it cannot be him. I’ll wait for the facts while Diane pollutes the waters.

                    2. Allan said, “You brought up Halper, not me. I believe Strassel says she is aware of the name but is not releasing it and some other people followed suit. Diane, however, states she knows the name and that it cannot be him.”

                      Strassel gave a description of the supposed FBI informant claiming that he is a seventy year old American professor at Cambridge who has dual citizenship with The US and The UK and a previous history as a US government foreign policy adviser that fits Stefan Halper to a tee. Strassel did not say that the supposed FBI informant had a Russian friend. Limbaugh said that. Strassel did not say that the FBI informant entrapped Papadopoulos. Limbaugh said that, too.

                      Meanwhile, Papadopoulos signed a plea agreement with Mueller claiming the specific factual admissions that Joseph Mifsud, The Maltese professor, had told Papadopoulos that the Russians had Clinton’s emails in late March and again in early April of 2016, six months before Halper ever met Papadopoulos on September 2nd, 2016. In that same plea agreement that Papadopoulos signed, Papadopoulos also made the specific factual admission that Mifsud had arranged a meeting between Papadopoulos and a Russian woman (whom Mifsud told Papadopoulos was Putin’s niece) and a Russian man (whom Mifsud told Papadopoulos was a Russian government official). Papadopoulos also made the specifric factual admission that the meeting was to convey to Papadopoulos Putin’s desire to arrange a meeting with Trump.

                      Mueller has emails from Papadopoulos to Manafort relaying Putin’s desire to meet with Trump. Mueller also has emails from Manafort to someone else in the Trump campaign whose name I cannot recall to have no one other than a low-level campaign aide meet with Putin.

    1. I agree. I wouldn’t trust someone so interested in an apparent use of money to impress me. Where’s the character, sense of humor, or any other characteristic that is more important – hiding.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.