Stormy Daniels Sues the President

Status
Not open for further replies.
The danger of being a high-profile whoremonger is that you risk being outed by your whores.
 
Segnosaur said:
The Stormy Daniels situation may be causing additional friction in the Trump administration:

From: https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/08/politics/trump-sarah-sanders-stormy-daniels/index.html
President Donald Trump is upset with White House press secretary Sarah Sanders over her responses Wednesday regarding his alleged affair with porn star Stormy Daniels, a source close to the White House tells CNN...On Wednesday, Sanders told reporters that the arbitration was won "in the President's favor." The statement is an admission that the nondisclosure agreement exists, and that it directly involves the President.

This reminds me of the Hope Hicks situation: Trump Loyalist, does something that annoys Cheeto Mussolini, and gets criticized for it. In Hick's case, it may have had a part in making her leave the white house.
Click to expand...

Sanders didn't say anything that was not already public, or anything that was not run by Trump first. The agreement is contained in the Clifford filing, and we've already been told Trump's alias. Sanders revealed nothing new.

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/03/08/no-trumps-not-mad-sarah-sanders-answers-stormygate/

No, Trump’s not mad at Sarah Sanders for her answers about Stormygate
 
Segnosaur said:
I suppose it will depend on

1) whether whatever disclosure agreements that might have existed were completed properly (as pointed out earlier and in other threads, there were some... oddities with the Stormy Daniels agreement that forms the basis of the lawsuit. (Namely it was never properly signed and payment came from the lawyer)

2) how she feels about Trump

3) if she thinks she can get money by telling her story
Click to expand...

Well Stormy Daniel's ranking on a porn site I checked out is in the top 5. I'd never heard of her before this, but I don't suppose I would have. I'd say it will work out very well for her. Why else would she reveal anything about an affair from years ago? Money.

As for Trump, who do you think will care about any of this aside from the people who already hate him? A billionaire had an affair years ago with a porn star and possibly a lot of other women...shocker.

And don't think Clinton didn't silence his women as someone suggested above, he certainly did, either that or I missed the Broderick rape trial. If it wasn't for Bill people might be a lot more shocked by Trump. Bill set the bar nice and low.

This may have mattered a few years ago. I sincerely think Trump is being attacked so much that it's just more noise. Maybe it's just me though, that's certainly possible.

Of all the crap Trump has been accused of though, screwing a porn star years before he ran for President smells of desperation more than anything. It's pathetic and I think it's funny that so many angry liberals think this matters or will change anything.

More moral highground posturing as a setup for the upcoming impeachment?
 
Last edited:
LTC8K6 said:
Sanders didn't say anything that was not already public, or anything that was not run by Trump first. The agreement is contained in the Clifford filing, and we've already been told Trump's alias. Sanders revealed nothing new.

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/03/08/no-trumps-not-mad-sarah-sanders-answers-stormygate/

No, Trump’s not mad at Sarah Sanders for her answers about Stormygate
Click to expand...
This presumes that Trump's emotional reactions to things are in any way guided by even a vague sense of rationality and awareness of the facts.
 
mgidm86 said:
Of all the crap Trump has been accused of though, screwing a porn star years before he ran for President smells of desperation more than anything. It's pathetic and I think it's funny that so many angry liberals think this matters or will change anything.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It won't change anything. Conservatives think it is cool that they finally have a horndog on par with Kennedy. That they don't seems to elude them.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Clinton never paid hush-money: big, BIG difference.
Click to expand...

Using your position of power over a young female intern to abuse her sexually...

I would say Bill Clinton is worse.

Wiki:

Lewinsky stated that between November 1995 and March 1997, she had nine sexual encounters in the Oval Office with then-President Bill Clinton. According to her testimony, these involved fellatio and other sexual acts, but not sexual intercourse.
Click to expand...

'She wrote an essay in the March 2018 issue of Vanity Fair in which she did not directly explain why she used the #MeToo hashtag in October, but she did write that although her relationship with Bill Clinton was consensual, because he was 27 years older than her and in a position with a lot more power than she was, in her opinion the relationship constituted an "abuse of power" on Clinton's part. She added that she had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder due to the experiences involved in the scandal."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
LTC8K6 said:
Sanders didn't say anything that was not already public, or anything that was not run by Trump first. The agreement is contained in the Clifford filing, and we've already been told Trump's alias. Sanders revealed nothing new.

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/03/08/no-trumps-not-mad-sarah-sanders-answers-stormygate/
Click to expand...

She brought up the arbitration ruling ("Winning" lol) and made that front page news.

LTC8K6 said:
No, Trump’s not mad at Sarah Sanders for her answers about Stormygate
Click to expand...

So yeah, NY times reporter says his sources say trump is made, FOX reporter says no. Take your pick, I guess. I know they are both biased, but I know which sources I believe to be more accurate.
 
Last edited:
Is there anyone posting who can explain the "alias" thing to a layman?

How is it possible to have a document that prohibits me from talking about someone if that someone is not named in the document?
Is there a separate document somewhere that spells out that the DD in the previous document is actually Donald Trump? If that is the case, what is the point of the alias in the first place?
I am perplexed by this. It is something that, had a previous president done it, I would be scandalized by- and expect that president would be on her way out pretty quick. Is it truly less odious a practice than I am imagining?
 
mgidm86 said:
Well Stormy Daniel's ranking on a porn site I checked out is in the top 5. I'd never heard of her before this, but I don't suppose I would have. I'd say it will work out very well for her. Why else would she reveal anything about an affair from years ago? Money.

As for Trump, who do you think will care about any of this aside from the people who already hate him? A billionaire had an affair years ago with a porn star and possibly a lot of other women...shocker.

And don't think Clinton didn't silence his women as someone suggested above, he certainly did, either that or I missed the Broderick rape trial. If it wasn't for Bill people might be a lot more shocked by Trump. Bill set the bar nice and low.

This may have mattered a few years ago. I sincerely think Trump is being attacked so much that it's just more noise. Maybe it's just me though, that's certainly possible.

Of all the crap Trump has been accused of though, screwing a porn star years before he ran for President smells of desperation more than anything. It's pathetic and I think it's funny that so many angry liberals think this matters or will change anything.

More moral highground posturing as a setup for the upcoming impeachment?
Click to expand...

At least we got to page two before devolving into BUT CLINTON
 
Distracted1 said:
Is there anyone posting who can explain the "alias" thing to a layman?

How is it possible to have a document that prohibits me from talking about someone if that someone is not named in the document?
Is there a separate document somewhere that spells out that the DD in the previous document is actually Donald Trump? If that is the case, what is the point of the alias in the first place?
I am perplexed by this. It is something that, had a previous president done it, I would be scandalized by- and expect that president would be on her way out pretty quick. Is it truly less odious a practice than I am imagining?
Click to expand...

Yes, the Side Agreement says who is actually who. It's also included in the Clifford filing. The names are blacked out, but it's already been revealed.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
She brought up the arbitration ruling ("Winning" lol) and made that front page news.



So yeah, NY times reporter says his sources say trump is made, FOX reporter says no. Take your pick, I guess. I know they are both biased, but I know which sources I believe to be more accurate.
Click to expand...

We'll know soon anyway, if Sanders leaves.

I don't think there's any way Sanders said anything that was not already discussed with Trump, though. It was obvious that she'd get questions about Clifford.
 
LTC8K6 said:
We'll know soon anyway, if Sanders leaves.

I don't think there's any way Sanders said anything that was not already discussed with Trump, though. It was obvious that she'd get questions about Clifford.
Click to expand...

I agree that it was probably discussed with Trump.

However that doesn't mean Trump wasn't pissed at the specific way she answered, or that his anger would be rational.

And he can be pissed at her and not have her leave.
 
Distracted1 said:
That makes sense-sort of. Yet if it is in writing somewhere that DD is Donald Trump, what is gained by becoming DD in the first place?
Click to expand...

That part of the NDA that reveals actual names can be hidden.

UNHIDING the names was part of Daniels intent, or so it appears.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom