Well, she did give that interview to InTouch in 2011, which seemed quite credible, no?
My point is that she's been motivated by the highest bidder, which is why she didn't share relevant campaign information before the election. I don't think it will be any different now. Her story would be more credible if she's not getting paid (she can always write a book later)https://twitter.com/atmendez/status/963864153990598656 …
-
-
-
was she paid for it?
-
We don’t know. But there were some credible details, such as Trump’s subsequently-verified hatred of sharks.
-
she mentioned a program being on on Shark Week about the USS whatever and sharks, a program did air that shark week narrated by Richard Dreyfus about the USS Indianapolis and sharks
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Fair enough. It sounded an awful lot like: “So how much should we pay for the Stormy Daniels story?” “The market rate is this, but because she’s _______, she should get something less.” So I guess you fill in the blank with “motivated by the top dollar.”
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.