Stormy Daniels Sues the President

Status
Not open for further replies.
The adultery issue is irrelevant, other than to further point out the hypocrisy of the religious right. What's more significant is that Trump is in a bind: it's going to be difficult to enforce the agreement without admitting to it. And he's never learned the first rule of holes.
 
Trebuchet said:
Oh, I suppose it's relevant in that Trump needed to cover up this specific instance to ensure his election. It's not relevant criminally.
Click to expand...
IANAL but don't think an LLC gets to enforce their rights in court if they were not formed for any lawful purpose.
 
d4m10n said:
IANAL but don't think an LLC gets to enforce their rights in court if they were not formed for any lawful purpose.
Click to expand...

The claim that the payment related to covering up criminal adultery is specious. Let it go.
 
The Big Dog said:
The claim that the payment related to covering up criminal adultery is specious. Let it go.
Click to expand...

But continuing the claim likely causes strain on The Hair's relationship with its wife and potentially opens the specter of a divorce and custody battle with a sitting president.
 
The Big Dog said:
oh i don't know that at that point he'd be lying. Heck, even better he could say that he was converting to Catholicism to in honor of his wife!

Man, he should hire me
Click to expand...

Considering your knack for describing so many different ways to do the nasty, perhaps Stormy Daniels should hire you!
 
d4m10n said:
Adverse publicity due to what, exactly?
Click to expand...

The same stuff she told in touch magazine.

Unseemly? Maybe, criminal? Of course not.

If he can avoid tweeting about it, the fact that he went for the pin from the deep rough will drop off the front page in a couple of days.
 
Last edited:
I am totally confused. How can hush money for infidelity and an NDA possibly be legally binding? Is that even possible? Aren't NDAs for intellectual property and trade secrets and the like? How could anybody possibly force somebody not to let the cat out of the bag in a case of infidelity?
Even if it is legally binding, it is a lose lose situation for Trump. She can just break the NDA, get sued for it and still come out on top.
 
d4m10n said:
Presumably you mean the violations of NY PEN § 255.17 
Click to expand...

Oh yeah that, totally. Trump is on the actual cusp of getting arrested for that.

That does it, you totes broke the case wide open.

Sure the statute of limitations ran, it allegedly happened in another state, and is totally unconstitutional based on the precedent of the gay marriage case, but yeah, keep running with that argument, seriously.
 
I must admit the probability of this leading to impeachment and/or criminal charges in the future seem very unlikely. If the Dems win the House, it could lead to impeachement, but not a conviction in the Senate. However, that would only happen if the Democratic leadership was just as stupid as the Republican leadership 20 years ago. Clinton should never have been impeached, and Trump shouldn't be impeached for this.

When the case for impeachment has to be explained to people so that they understand that something that looks like one thing is really something else, it won't convince 2/3 of the Senate to overturn an election. In this case, what seems to be happening is that people are seeming to insist that a simple case of paying hush money and concealing it by creating some shell game to make it harder to follow is actually an unreported campaign contribution. It won't fly. As for the "criminal adultery" line of thought, that's just ludicrous.


And once again I am assuming that he paid Stormy Daniels using his own money. If that turns out not to be the case, things could end differently.
 
portlandatheist said:
I am totally confused. How can hush money for infidelity and an NDA possibly be legally binding? Is that even possible? Aren't NDAs for intellectual property and trade secrets and the like?
Click to expand...
I've been wondering the same thing. Gazanga says it isn't an NDA, and that makes sense to me, but the press is calling it an NDA. I have been wondering if there is such a thing as a legally binding contract that forces someone into silence based on something with no inherent value. (In other words, agreeing not to give up intellectual property makes sense. Agreeing to never tell about your sex life? Is that legally binding? I suppose. It just seems strange to me.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom