Stormy Daniels Sues the President

[acbytesla]

The public has the right to know that Donald Trump rode Stormy Daniels and put her away wet in 2006, and in fact should "subvert" not only the public policy favoring arbitration but also the Federal Arbitration Act ?

How utterly ridiculous, but you are CERTAINLY entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong.

I DONT think it's ridiculous at all. I think it is spot on. The President is a married man. He is courting the Evangelical right. He is screwing a porn star days after his wife gave birth to his son. He is asking the people to trust him and make him the leader of the free world.

But this shows him to be untrustworthy, don't you think? Would YOU HIRE someone you didn't trust? I wouldn't.

Shouldn't it be up to the electorate to judge for themselves based on accurate information who they should trust with their vote? What if a person engaged in shady disreputable business dealings that may not have been illegal, should an NDA prevent employees from talking about it?

I think the moment he starts asking for votes, his right to that kind of privacy goes away.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Rikki Klieman has a pretty good summary of where we are today. Probably not going to grant expedited discovery, but there is no reason the President can't be deposed on the defamation issue. Cohen really screwed up.

https://www.cbsnews.com/video/will-judge-grant-trump-deposition-in-stormy-daniels-case/

 

[The Big Dog]

I DONT think it's ridiculous at all. I think it is spot on. The President is a married man. He is courting the Evangelical right. He is screwing a porn star days after his wife gave birth to his son. He is asking the people to trust him and make him the leader of the free world.

But this shows him to be untrustworthy, don't you think? Would YOU HIRE someone you didn't trust? I wouldn't.

Shouldn't it be up to the electorate to judge for themselves based on accurate information who they should trust with their vote? What if a person engaged in shady disreputable business dealings that may not have been illegal, should an NDA prevent employees from talking about it?

I think the moment he starts asking for votes, his right to that kind of privacy goes away.

So, you are saying it would have changed your vote?

 

[The Big Dog]

Rikki Klieman has a pretty good summary of where we are today. Probably not going to grant expedited discovery, but there is no reason the President can't be deposed on the defamation issue. Cohen really screwed up.

https://www.cbsnews.com/video/will-judge-grant-trump-deposition-in-stormy-daniels-case/

1. link not working?

2. the request for expedited discovery will not be granted (ok, probably won't)

3. the defamation claim should be dismissed long before discovery for a Myriad of reasons, including most importantly 1. the comment was about the Common cause complaint; 2. New York Times v. Sullivan; 3. innocent construction; 4. libel proof plaintiff.

Did Rikki even mention NYT v. Sullivan?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

So, you are saying it would have changed your vote?

Making a total mockery of every time you've ducked a question with the "rule of so".

 

[The Big Dog]

Making a total mockery of every time you've ducked a question with the "rule of so".

That's the joke.jpg



/what makes it super extra delightful? That post right there confirmed what I have been saying about rule of so! My heart cockles are toasty toasty warm!!

 

[acbytesla]

So, you are saying it would have changed your vote?

I already thought he was a sleazy untrustworthy SOB. But we're talking about others who may have changed their minds....Not you or me.

 

[The Big Dog]

I already thought he was a sleazy untrustworthy SOB. But we're talking about others who may have changed their minds....Not ....me.

we know.

 

[acbytesla]

1. link not working?

2. the request for expedited discovery will not be granted (ok, probably won't)

3. the defamation claim should be dismissed long before discovery for a Myriad of reasons, including most importantly 1. the comment was about the Common cause complaint; 2. New York Times v. Sullivan; 3. innocent construction; 4. libel proof plaintiff.

Did Rikki even mention NYT v. Sullivan?

Here's a better link to her argument. This is on Youtube.

https://youtu.be/LG4J5W_nM9E

Trump and Cohen are screwed.

 

[The Big Dog]

Here's a better link to her argument. This is on Youtube.

https://youtu.be/LG4J5W_nM9E

Trump and Cohen are screwed.

Thanks for the link, good to see garbage analysis on teevee in person

For the reasons I have already stated, the defamation case should be dismissed.

For pete's sake the person in that video used the wrong standard for defamation, doesn't that piss you off?

Stormy is screwed.

 

[Thermal]

Thanks for the link, good to see garbage analysis on teevee in person

For the reasons I have already stated, the defamation case should be dismissed.

For pete's sake the person in that video used the wrong standard for defamation, doesn't that piss you off?

Stormy is screwed.

That's what got her where she is today.

 

[acbytesla]

Thanks for the link, good to see garbage analysis on teevee in person

For the reasons I have already stated, the defamation case should be dismissed.

For pete's sake the person in that video used the wrong standard for defamation, doesn't that piss you off?

Stormy is screwed.

Want to bet Big Dog? I'll bet you that at most Stormy Daniels pays the 130K at most if that, and will be free to talk. Pick your stakes. Avenatti is just a much better lawyer.

 

[The Big Dog]

Want to bet Big Dog? I'll bet you that at most Stormy Daniels pays the 130K at most if that, and will be free to talk. Pick your stakes. Avenatti is just a much better lawyer.

I usually don't bet, and in this case, the ultimate determination won't be known for years. Plus can you imagine how irate I am going to get if a Judge gets it wrong despite my pinpoint analysis?

That being said, sure. If you are correct that if Stormy is found liable for less than 130k I will post in my signature "I was Spanked by Stormy Daniels." If I am correct that she will be liable for $130k or more, you will post in your signature "I am honored to call TBD a close personal friend"

for a week.

Further amended: it is a requirement that someone remind the party that has to pay off of this bet because there is no way in a million years I am going to remember this....

 

[CapelDodger]

Want to bet Big Dog? I'll bet you that at most Stormy Daniels pays the 130K at most if that, and will be free to talk. Pick your stakes. Avenatti is just a much better lawyer.

I agree that's how it will work out in the end. The problem is, of course, that legal procedures can often be strung out endlessly, or at least as long as there's money to pay the lawyers.

I imagine Trump's lawyers are billing weekly, if not daily. I certainly would. Actually, I wouldn't touch the case at all without money up-front.

 

[CapelDodger]

Here's a better link to her argument. This is on Youtube.

https://youtu.be/LG4J5W_nM9E

Trump and Cohen are screwed.

In there Cohen stands accused of "bad lawyering". What kind of track-record does Cohen actually have as a lawyer?

 

[GlennB]

Plus can you imagine how irate I am going to get if a Judge gets it wrong despite my pinpoint analysis?

I was going to describe that as funny, but decided not to. It's pathetic or funny.

 

[acbytesla]

I usually don't bet, and in this case, the ultimate determination won't be known for years. Plus can you imagine how irate I am going to get if a Judge gets it wrong despite my pinpoint analysis?

That being said, sure. If you are correct that if Stormy is found liable for less than 130k I will post in my signature "I was Spanked by Stormy Daniels." If I am correct that she will be liable for $130k or more, you will post in your signature "I am honored to call TBD a close personal friend"

for a week.

Further amended: it is a requirement that someone remind the party that has to pay off of this bet because there is no way in a million years I am going to remember this....

Works for me. But I doubt it will take years. I'm interested when they depose Trump. That's when the real fun begins.

 

[logger]

Want to bet Big Dog? I'll bet you that at most Stormy Daniels pays the 130K at most if that, and will be free to talk. Pick your stakes. Avenatti is just a much better lawyer.

Most of the time a great lawyer is still bound by the law.

 

[The Big Dog]

I was going to describe that as funny, but decided not to. It's pathetic or funny.

Perhaps you have some analysis that you need clarified? Happy to be of service to polite youngster like yourself.

 

[phiwum]

The public has the right to know that Donald Trump rode Stormy Daniels and put her away wet in 2006, and in fact should "subvert" not only the public policy favoring arbitration but also the Federal Arbitration Act ?

How utterly ridiculous, but you are CERTAINLY entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong.

A fine example of slut shaming.

Far as I'm concerned, what happened seems to be a consensual sexual encounter. Why do you continue to disparage the woman? Yes, she's a porn star. So what?

Suppose that he had "ridden" a socialite and "put her away wet" (whatever that means). Would that be any more scandalous? In either case, his wife had recently given birth and he was dallying on the side, and it matters not one whit whether the person he dallied with was paid for pornography or was otherwise "respectable".

Far as I'm concerned, the dalliance doesn't matter much, though it certainly points to a kind of hypocrisy on the part of the "character matters" contingent of the religious right, who seem mighty willing to forgive their guy, but not those on the other side. Still, that said, Trump won't suffer much political loss from this issue -- unless the payoff ends up being a legal issue regarding use of campaign funds or an illegal campaign contribution.

The end result is this: the Republicans are losing their claim that character matters to them. It doesn't, if the character in question supports their policies. That's too bad, not only for the Republican party, but for our nation as a whole. All of us ought to care about character (yes, that includes the Democrats who ignored the issues surrounding Clinton).

Anyway, he's your guy (after Bernie, right?) and so no prob.