Stormy Daniels Sues the President

Status
Not open for further replies.
mgidm86 said:
As for Trump, who do you think will care about any of this aside from the people who already hate him?
Click to expand...

Well, if the purpose of the hush money was to avoid a scandal that could possibly have influenced the result of the election, then it's legally a campaign expenditure, which has to be declared. If it's not declared (which it wasn't), then that's illegal. Also, if the money ultimately came from the Trump Organisation, then it would be an illegal campaign contribution. Furthermore, if it came from an individual (like Trump or Cohen), then it would be a campaign contribution - one that is also illegal.

So anybody who is concerned with the rule of law would be.

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...

I agree that it's a small matter when weighed against other things to do with Trump. The only thing that's really of consequence is that it proves that Trump is open to blackmail over sexual matters, which is relevant to the accusations in the Steele dossier, which forms part of the ongoing investigation on Trump.

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

I don't think any more moral high ground is required after "grab them by the pussy", is it? Having an affair is, to my mind, less egregious than boasting about sexual assault.
 
Trump has to choose one of two paths now:

A) Admit to being "David Dennison" and to having contracted to keep certain compromising information secret

B) Deny being "David Dennison," thereby freeing “PP” to discuss her relationship with “DD” (and sell any materials worth selling to whichever tabloid will buy them)

The former path seems like the obvious choice, except that the way in which Cohen drafted this particular NDA—at that particular time and given subsequent events—is quite probably . . .

1) A failure to disclose a campaign contribution in violation of federal law (52 U.S.C. 30101 et. seq.)

2) A failure to disclose a campaign contribution in violation of analogous California election law

3) A violation of the relevant laws governing LLC's, since paying to cover up a crime (adultery in New York) is not a lawful purpose

At least these are the problems related in the latest episode of Opening Arguments, which I commend to your podcast queue.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Trump has to choose one of two paths now:

A) Admit to being "David Dennison" and to having contracted to keep certain compromising information secret

B) Deny being "David Dennison," thereby freeing “PP” to discuss her relationship with “DD” (and sell any materials worth selling to whichever tabloid will buy them)
Click to expand...
Isn't there a third?...

C) Do nothing.
 
theprestige said:
Do you have a cite? I don't think I've seen an "evangelical Trump supporter" here since sunmaster left.
Click to expand...

I think what they meant was 'An Evangelical Christian who is a Trump supporter', and not 'A person who is evangelical in their Trump support'. That's why the 'E' is capitalized.


____________________________________________________________


I don't care much about who cheats on who, but the legal questions about campaign donations and such are rather important.

It is also important to show that many of the objections of many right-wing Christians to Democrats, Progressives, LGBTQ etc for morality are outright dishonest. Such criticisms should be laughed at, and the credibility of people making them on politics greatly reduced.
 
a_unique_person said:
I don't recall saying that. Let me just check. No, I didn't say that.

All rape investigations make the victim's health and safety a priority. The Replublicans comletely ignored all that.
Click to expand...
But not the victim's reputation, surely. You weren't concerned about Lewinsky's health or safety, in your previous post.

Or do you mean that they didn't take sufficient precautions to prevent the Clintons from getting to her?
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
But not the victim's reputation, surely. You weren't concerned about Lewinsky's health or safety, in your previous post.

Or do you mean that they didn't take sufficient precautions to prevent the Clintons from getting to her?
Click to expand...

They made the trial a stage show. In Australia victims of sexual assault are protected from being identified if they want.
 
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/02/monica-lewinsky-in-the-age-of-metoo

I found myself shaking his hand even as I struggled to decipher the warmth he evinced. After all, in 1998, this was the independent prosecutor who had investigated me, a former White House intern; the man whose staff, accompanied by a group of F.B.I. agents (Starr himself was not there), had hustled me into a hotel room near the Pentagon and informed me that unless I cooperated with them I could face 27 years in prison. This was the man who had turned my 24-year-old life into a living hell in his effort to investigate and prosecute President Bill Clinton on charges that would eventually include obstruction of justice and lying under oath—lying about having maintained a long-term extramarital relationship with me.
Click to expand...
Not the usual way to treat the victim of sexual assault.
 
There's something I don't get, and I haven't noticed it in this thread, and I haven't seen it in the three or four articles that I have read on this affair.

What is the basis of Stormy Daniels' lawsuit? I don't mean "why is she suing?" That would be in order to generate money and publicity, or perhaps she just doesn't like the Commander in Chief, or whatever. What harm is she alleging that Donald Trump did to her?

I have read that she says the NDA is invalid. Ok. I don't know or care, but that isn't the basis for a lawsuit. What is it that Donald Trump did (or is alleged to have done) that makes for a reason to sue? To have a suit, the plaintiff has to allege that a tort was committed, and that she is owed compensation. What was the (alleged) tort?

ETA: As for the fact that Donald Trump slept with a porn star while his wife was home taking care of their newborn son.......meh. It shows he's a sleazeball. We already knew that. As for the fact that he paid her hush money.......meh. No big deal. As for the fact that he is denying that he knew the hush money was paid......

:dl:

but it's no big deal.

The one thing that would change my mind that I can think of would be if he didn't use his own money to pay the hush money. If it came from his investors, or a charitable foundation, or campaign funds.........throw the book at him. That would be outrageous, but so far at least I'm assuming that it was his own money. If I'm wrong, and he actually stole the money for the hush money, then throw him out of office and into jail, but as long as it's his own money.....................meh.
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
There's something I don't get, and I haven't noticed it in this thread, and I haven't seen it in the three or four articles that I have read on this affair.

What is the basis of Stormy Daniels' lawsuit? I don't mean "why is she suing?" That would be in order to generate money and publicity, or perhaps she just doesn't like the Commander in Chief, or whatever. What harm is she alleging that Donald Trump did to her?
Click to expand...

None; it is a suit for declaratory relief.
 
fagin said:
Surely arbitration, by definition, means they have to consider both sides?
Click to expand...

Not really, if the arbitrators are influenced by fundage from the offender in the case - and they very often are. Actually arbitrator/arbitration is a very big fraud on "the little guy" it is actually why the side with power demands agreements to arbitration rather than trials when they can force arbitration.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
If you check out the analysis by Andrew Torrez at the Opening Arguments Podcast, you will see that Cohen is standing in for the LLC that transfered the money, but the deal is between PP and DD, not PP and the LLC or Cohen.
Neither Cohen nor the LLC can sue Daniels, only DD can.
As a side note: if the purpose of the LLC (which was created on the same day as the money transfer) was created for sending hush money to Daniels, that makes it an Illegal Enterprise since Adultery is illegal in New York: Cohen might very well lose his lisence over this.
Click to expand...

We can but hope he does lose his license .....and, if we are lucky, get some nice time in a cell!!!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom