Even this late Trump is resorting to his ugly way of not paying for work done if he does not like it. I consider that a slow but festering bombshell with a lot of collateral damage that will be seen in the courts.
It shows a lot of what he will do to America.
I’m sure you guys have realized by now, but Trump was correct, as usual, that he could literally walk up to someone on the street and shoot them and not lose any votes. That’s how crazy his base is and he knows it. Fear is the most powerful emotion and those of us who’s circuitry produces that emotion at a lower trigger threshold are easily manipulated.Promise to keep us safe and we’ll overlook a lot.
I loathe Trump with the fire of a thousand suns, but has anyone ever actually seen this woman? Does she have an actual name?
Is this the democracy that Republicans are always telling us they wish to export to the rest of the world?
And yet the impact of Comey’s extremely ill-advised letter can’t be undone. The impact isn’t based on any kind of reality but on what people have been led to believe. It reminds me of Churchill’s observation that "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on. "
Yeah, Huffpo won’t even touch this story (other than to explain why there not making hay over it). I think that’s a pretty good indication this case has it’s issues.
It’s always seemed like a political hit job to me, but I’m literally asking if she is a real person.
Not sure exactly, to what extent, yet, this will qualify as a bombshell (which I’m sure has appeared elsewhere in one of these threads):
(not my first go-to source, to be sure):
…or if it’ll just teflon off DT like everything else. Hopefully the FBI’s examination(?) into this will be all hunky-dory.
How was she receiving death threats? No one even knows who she is.
The Daily Mail has photographs and an interview.
Though both her and the witness still used pseudonyms.
She’s OK, but I wouldn’t call her a bombshell. 
The consensus story is that it’s like the candidate age issue; both sides are vulnerable so neither side is pushing the issue.
Jeffrey Epstein is a former banker who has a taste for young women - in some cases very young. He used to throw parties where important men were invited and young women were available.
Donald Trump was present at some of Epstein’s parties. The question is whether he availed himself of some of the women and, if so, how young they were.
The problem for the Clinton campaign is that Bill Clinton was also present at some of Epstein’s parties and the same questions could be asked of him.
So both campaigns have decided they don’t want to talk about Jeffrey Epstein. In my personal opinion, this is an acknowledgement that whatever happened at those parties, both men must have engaged in it at pretty much an equal level.
From a NY Times reporter with El Trompo:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/07/us/politics/donald-trump-presidential-race.html?_r=0
Among the reasons why Trump is not making his own self defeating bombshells, (They finally took away his tweeter account!) is this very nasty one that anyone with intelligence should realize that it will end in a true constitutional crisis:
So, Nixon on steroids…
Heck NO!
Well, there was the phony “Assassination” claim last night.
A protester held up a sign “Republicans for Hillary”, 20 people around him dog-piled on top of him… one of them shouted “gun” and Trump was hustled off stage.
What was found 2 minutes later by secret service? All sign, no gun. :dubious:
Afterward, his campaign took to tweeting about an “Assassination Attempt”.
#/media/File:Marilyn_Monroe_and_Jane_Russell_at_Chinese_Theater_2.jpg){kind=link}