Stormy Daniels Sues the President

[ponderingturtle]

Does anybody believe Trump didn't have an affair with Stormy Daniels? Of course he did. Are her attempts to invalidate the NDA likely to fail? I'd say "yes"; the legal argument seems pretty thin. The problem with trying this in the court of public opinion is that we get it already: Trump cheated on his wife. With a porn star. And didn't use a rubber. Daniels and her lawyer need to go away now. The story is the cover-up. The potential violation of campaign finance laws.

It really depends, Trump has not formally responded to her case. You seem to assume her win condition is winning her case, getting the president to formally admit to a criminal conspiracy to make a settlement valid(and can a settlement that violates the law be valid?)

But with out them prodding it, it is a lot easier for the president to hang Cohen out to dry and say it was all him and Trump knew nothing of it. If that is the case then the settlement would be invalid. But if trump was in on the criminal conspiracy it might be.

And maybe the president likes the legal spanking he is receiving in this case.

 

[ponderingturtle]

We'll see about that, but you've really lost the plot: It's pretty clear that pursuing arbitration in the first place was a bone-headed decision for Trump, no doubt driven by his narcissistic need to "fight back" rather than sound legal advice and common sense. When the NDA didn't work to keep Daniels quiet, he could have simply disavowed it and denied the whole thing. Even if Daniels could prove the affair happened, so what? It wouldn't matter to the people who wouldn't believe her or to the people who didn't really believe Trump in the first place, but didn't care. And even if he and Cohen get through this now without perjury and/or campaign finance charges, and even if he does succeed in forcing this to arbitration, there's no way he's going to collect enough money from Daniels to compensate for the damage he's doing to himself. Even if he got the full $20M award and someone else paid it, what's that to a billionaire? As for Cohen, he deserves whatever he gets -- I dare say Trump might be better off if he fired Cohen and hired you.

Depends, he can't exactly alienate his fixer Cohen who knows how many more dirty secrets about trump.

 

[The Big Dog]

I guess the porn star and her lawyer believe that they have the only case in Federal Court in LA! The lawyer feels he has not gotten enough attention and has filed a motion to take the Presidents deposition.

I guess defendants don't get a chance to respond to porn star's complaints filed by her lawyer...

Man the ********** is desperate, huh?

Motion DEEEEEE-nied

 

[plague311]

I guess the porn star and her lawyer believe that they have the only case in Federal Court in LA! The lawyer feels he has not gotten enough attention and has filed a motion to take the Presidents deposition.

I guess defendants don't get a chance to respond to porn star's complaints filed by her lawyer...

Man the ********** is desperate, huh?

Motion DEEEEEE-nied

Do you have any evidence that what he is doing is not SOP for this case? Was it actually denied or this just more of your bluster?

 

[The Big Dog]

Do you have any evidence that what he is doing is not SOP for this case? Was it actually denied or this just more of your bluster?

Taking the deposition of a defendant before he gets a chance to respond? Silly.

But yes, of course. Rule 26 of the rules of procedure of the federal courts.

Look it up, and save the bluster talk, it aint bluster if the big dog can and does back if up.

 

[fagin]

Do you have any evidence that what he is doing is not SOP for this case? Was it actually denied or this just more of your bluster?

It would appear.

 

[varwoche]

Speaking in the third canine notwithstanding, what you fail to realize, TBD, is that the technical legal argument is only part of the strategy.

 

[The Big Dog]

Speaking in the third canine notwithstanding, what you fail to realize, TBD, is that the technical legal argument is only part of the strategy.

Well, as I have pointed out the "technical" strategy is nonsense and now it should be abundantly clear that he is abusing the process. Seems to me the lawyer is riding a wave of attention, and does not appear very concerned that his legal claims and strategy are a hot mess.

 

[The Big Dog]

It would appear.

Golly, you read all of Rule 26 THAT FAST?

Super, feel free to regale us with your views....

 

[Segnosaur]

I guess the porn star and her lawyer believe that they have the only case in Federal Court in LA!

So, are you saying that a claimant DOESN'T have the right to use the courts to address a potential grievance? Why? Because it involves Trump and he's too busy being a bigot to testify?

And why aren't you similarly criticizing Trump and his minions, since they seem to be adding to the legal complexities by claiming that Daniels is lying (something that they could have avoided just by remaining silent).

The lawyer feels he has not gotten enough attention and has filed a motion to take the Presidents deposition.

Uhh... so? Do you not think that people arguing a case in front of the courts have a right to know as much information about the case as possible? Given the amount of questionable comments coming from the Trump camp, a deposition seems like a good way to clarify things.

 

[plague311]

Taking the deposition of a defendant before he gets a chance to respond? Silly.

But yes, of course. Rule 26 of the rules of procedure of the federal courts.

Look it up, and save the bluster talk, it aint bluster if the big dog can and does back if up.

How about you quote the part that supports your claim instead of making others do your *********** homework for you? It's not my job to read entire rules to support your ******** claims.

Also, for the future, just because you say things here doesn't mean they're true. People with actual knowledge have called you out, and all you do is say "nuh uh", post some emoticons, or some random **** in all caps, and move on.

 

[The Big Dog]

So, are you saying that a claimant DOESN'T have the right to use the courts to address a potential grievance? Why? Because it involves Trump and he's too busy being a bigot to testify?

And why aren't you similarly criticizing Trump and his minions, since they seem to be adding to the legal complexities by claiming that Daniels is lying (something that they could have avoided just by remaining silent).

Uhh... so? Do you not think that people arguing a case in front of the courts have a right to know as much information about the case as possible? Given the amount of questionable comments coming from the Trump camp, a deposition seems like a good way to clarify things.

No, i am not claiming anything like that at all. What i pointing out is that the porn star and her lawyer are attempting to subvert the court's procedures by trying to jump ahead of all those other cases that have been pending for much longer and that may involve actual time sensitive disputes, not hysterically ginned up emergencies involving a 18 month old contract.

And as i have pointed out REPEATEDLY the contract the porn star signed has an arbitration clause. The disputes will be decided by an arbitrator. The porn star and her lawyer are DESPERATE to avoid that because:

ATTENTION and pandering to folks who don't like Trump.

Say, why aren't you similarly criticizing the porn star and her minions? She took the cash, she kept the cash. It seems a wee bit late for her to be setting herself up as some sort of hero, don't it?

 

[Trebuchet]

Daniels lawyer wants to depose Trump. So do I, but for a different definition of the word.

 

[The Big Dog]

How about you quote the part that supports your claim instead of making others do your *********** homework for you? It's not my job to read entire rules to support your ******** claims.

Also, for the future, just because you say things here doesn't mean they're true. People with actual knowledge have called you out, and all you do is say "nuh uh", post some emoticons, or some random **** in all caps, and move on.

You asked me for evidence, I gave it to you. You choose not to read it? That is fine, I get it.

Of course, you don't read what I supply, yet you think that people with 'actual knowledge" have called me out? Here's the thing about that, while they might have called me out, they have not and cannot support their claims because:

I am right and I back up what I say.

Take a gander at Rule 26, or don't, don't bother me no nevermind.

 

[The Big Dog]

Daniels lawyer wants to depose Trump. So do I, but for a different definition of the word.

HA!! VERY NICE!!

That is worth a nom!

 

[Bob001]

No, i am not claiming anything like that at all. What i pointing out is that the porn star and her lawyer are attempting to subvert the court's procedures by trying to jump ahead of all those other cases that have been pending for much longer and that may involve actual time sensitive disputes, not hysterically ginned up emergencies involving a 18 month old contract.

And as i have pointed out REPEATEDLY the contract the porn star signed has an arbitration clause. The disputes will be decided by an arbitrator. The porn star and her lawyer are DESPERATE to avoid that because:

ATTENTION and pandering to folks who don't like Trump.
....

The arbitration clause doesn't apply if the contract itself is not valid. That's the core of the dispute. And some would argue that any matter involving the sitting President is inherently time-sensitive.

 

[plague311]

You asked me for evidence, I gave it to you. You choose not to read it? That is fine, I get it.

You made a claim, then told me to read a lengthy rule. Quote the specific part, it's common practice around here.

Of course, you don't read what I supply, yet you think that people with 'actual knowledge" have called me out? Here's the thing about that, while they might have called me out, they have not and cannot support their claims because:

I am right and I back up what I say.

Take a gander at Rule 26, or don't, don't bother me no nevermind.

You not understanding things (which is what they pointed out) isn't providing proof. You think it is just like 9/11 truthers think the same thing. They just can't understand why educated professionals that have experience in the relevant industry don't get what they're saying. That's literally how this reads out, at least to me.

Say, why aren't you similarly criticizing the porn star and her minions? She took the cash, she kept the cash. It seems a wee bit late for her to be setting herself up as some sort of hero, don't it?

Have I set her up to be a hero? Can you show me where I did that? No? More bluster? Right on track.

 

[The Big Dog]

The arbitration clause doesn't apply if the contract itself is not valid. That's the core of the dispute. And some would argue that any matter involving the sitting President is inherently time-sensitive.

and the arbitrator will decide that as I have explained previously.

 

[varwoche]

You made a claim, then told me to read a lengthy rule. Quote the specific part, it's common practice around here.

Not as common as one would wish. Argument via link keeps things 'nice' and vague.

 

[The Big Dog]

You made a claim, then told me to read a lengthy rule. Quote the specific part, it's common practice around here.

You not understanding things (which is what they pointed out) isn't providing proof....

Jump through my hoops! then: "You not understanding things..."

Yeah, let me get right on spoon feeding you in compliance with all your demands.

As I said, I am WAY past caring whether you read the evidence I cited or not... may be one of those people who pointed out that I don't "understand things" can walk you through it.

Good luck!