Stormy Daniels Sues the President

[Trebuchet]

10 years from now, Cohen will be disbarred, with some comfy corporate job.

and a new generation will just get pummeled with "Make America Great Again!" or some other useless mantra.

Cohen will be on the Supreme Court, having been appointed by President Kushner.

 

[CORed]

Exactly laws don't matter, republicans have given up on caring if their leaders are honest, ethical or even law abiding. It is only about power.

It's kind of funny, really. I remember all the repupblican politicians and conservative talk radio folks tut-tutting Clinton about his various sexual escapades and saying that character matters. Apparently that only applies when the president is a Democrat.

Lying in a deposition about a blowjob is an impeachable offence for a Democrat, but violating campaign laws to cover up an affair is not for a Republican.

 

[Thermal]

Blame the person who took the 130k and the made her contractual obligations the star of her latest bdsm film.

She took the money, kept her clam shut and then started spilling her seed to get the left hot and bothered.

Daniels is a republican. Why would she want to fire up 'the left'?

 

[The Big Dog]

Daniels is a republican. Why would she want to fire up 'the left'?

Just easier I reckon.

evidence: this thread.

 

[Thermal]

Just easier I reckon.

evidence: this thread.

But it would more likely be personally motivated, not partisan. If she has something genuinely damning to the President up her (ahem) sleeve, Republicans would be just as fired up, if not more so, n'est pas?

 

[The Big Dog]

But it would more likely be personally motivated, not partisan. If she has something genuinely damning to the President up her (ahem) sleeve, Republicans would be just as fired up, if not more so, n'est pas?

Huh, super theory. I guess Stormy brings all the boys and girls, lefts and rights to her yard.

 

[Cain]

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?)

I thought my post was rather explicit in stating the opposite: She's trying her case in the court of public opinion (since it seems unlikely to me that she'll win under the law). She's "winning" publicity war, but the public interest is not perfectly aligned with Daniels'. Her story's eating up too much of the news cycle.

 

[The Big Dog]

Stormy's motion to expedite discovery and trial?

Denied .

Check out the big brain on Brad TBD!

The Judge also took the time to note that Stormy's hotshot counsel had violated an order by filing an overlong brief, and had failed to file certificates of service.

Lolz!

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm kinda old-school about adultery myself: you're at least supposed to feel guilty about it. It's one thing if a relationship has fallen apart, but I view marriage as an ethical contract as well as a legal one, and cheating on a spouse while stringing them along, trying to have your cake and eat it too, is deplorable selfishness and dishonesty. Trump flagrantly disrespected his marriage vows with all three of his wives and thought nothing of it, apparently because he thinks that "when you're a star" you can do anything you want. He has spent his entire life in what Dan Rather called a "cocoon of privilege and ego," avoiding responsibility and consequences for his actions and his mistakes. Trying to bully people with NDAs is just part of a larger, pervasive pattern.

But how well will the afluenza defense work for him in his future trials?

 

[johnny karate]

Just easier I reckon.

evidence: this thread.

Yes, because how silly to make such a big deal of the President committing adultery with a porn star and then buying said porn star’s silence just before the election. It seems too trivial to be worthy of discussion.

This message brought to you by “OMG the Obamas are fist-bumping!!!!1!!” conservatives and their alleged “principles”.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Daniels is a republican. Why would she want to fire up 'the left'?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormy_Daniels#Politics

A group of fans attempted to recruit Daniels to run against Republican Senator David Vitter in Louisiana in 2010. The recruitment process was centered around the website DraftStormy.com. On May 21, 2009, she formed an exploratory committee, initially inspired by revelations about "Vitter's connections to a prostitution ring". In August, 2009, her campaign manager's car was blown up, although no one was in the car at that time.

In April 2010, Daniels finally declared herself a Republican candidate. Her decision was inspired by disclosures that the Republican National Committee (RNC) had paid expenses for fundraisers at a "lesbian bondage themed nightclub" in Los Angeles, stating that the revelations "finally tipped the scales". She explained that the RNC's use of party funds for sex convinced her that Republicans represented her libertarian values best: Daniels said she has been a registered Democrat throughout her life, "But now I cannot help but recognize that over time my libertarian values regarding both money and sex and the legal use of one for the other is now best espoused by the Republican Party."

I think, at best, her Republicanism can be adequately defined as "trolling".

 

[ponderingturtle]

I thought my post was rather explicit in stating the opposite: She's trying her case in the court of public opinion (since it seems unlikely to me that she'll win under the law). She's "winning" publicity war, but the public interest is not perfectly aligned with Daniels'. Her story's eating up too much of the news cycle.

No, many people consider her case a matter of brilliant legal maneuvering. In many ways it doesn't matter what Trump does he loses. Either he joins in and says he has been a part of a criminal conspiracy or she gets to put out her evidence. Now likely the evidence is just embarrassing, while the criminal conspiracy could at one point have mattered.

To say that it is all about public opinion means that presidents violating the law and engaging in criminal conspiracies doesn't matter. I am not sure it does though.

 

[Cleon]

I think, at best, her Republicanism can be adequately defined as "trolling".

Kinda like Trump's, then.

 

[Bob001]

More commentary from lawyers about that NDA:

Former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti said that, the way the NDA was written, there “was no deal without [Trump's] knowledge or consent.”

“The contact binds 'DD' (Trump) in many ways and grants enforcement remedies solely to Trump,” Mariotti said. He added: “Cohen could argue that when the contact lists various rights and responsibilities for 'DD,' it really means the LLC, but I doubt a judge would buy that. The contract appears to bind DD and grant him rights.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...tormy-daniels-payment/?utm_term=.29563ea111dc

 

[Segnosaur]

No, many people consider her case a matter of brilliant legal maneuvering. In many ways it doesn't matter what Trump does he loses. Either he joins in and says he has been a part of a criminal conspiracy or she gets to put out her evidence. Now likely the evidence is just embarrassing, while the criminal conspiracy could at one point have mattered.

There is also a chance that the judge will rule that Trump wasn't involved in formulating the agreement, but its still enforceable. However, that also brings up the other problem: a lawyer making agreements on behalf a client and not informing them might have legal problems of their own (disbarment or worse). So even if Trump avoids punishment for both criminal charges and embarrassment, his lawyer may not

 

[logger]

Stormy's motion to expedite discovery and trial?

Denied .

Check out the big brain on Brad TBD!

The Judge also took the time to note that Stormy's hotshot counsel had violated an order by filing an overlong brief, and had failed to file certificates of service.

Lolz!

 

[The Big Dog]

No, many people consider her case a matter of brilliant legal maneuvering. In many ways it doesn't matter what Trump does he loses. Either he joins in and says he has been a part of a criminal conspiracy or she gets to put out her evidence. Now likely the evidence is just embarrassing, while the criminal conspiracy could at one point have mattered.

To say that it is all about public opinion means that presidents violating the law and engaging in criminal conspiracies doesn't matter. I am not sure it does though.

So brilliant that his first motion was summarily denied (without the defendants even objecting!) and violated an order and the Court's rules.

In just one motion!

Sensational law talking guying!

 

[phiwum]

It's kind of funny, really. I remember all the repupblican politicians and conservative talk radio folks tut-tutting Clinton about his various sexual escapades and saying that character matters. Apparently that only applies when the president is a Democrat.

Lying in a deposition about a blowjob is an impeachable offence for a Democrat, but violating campaign laws to cover up an affair is not for a Republican.

To be fair, the latter doesn't yet have sufficient evidence. At least, it hasn't been formally alleged.

 

[C_Felix]

It's kind of funny, really. I remember all the repupblican politicians and conservative talk radio folks tut-tutting Clinton about his various sexual escapades and saying that character matters. Apparently that only applies when the president is a Democrat.

Lying in a deposition about a blowjob is an impeachable offence for a Democrat, but violating campaign laws to cover up an affair is not for a Republican.

That ship has yet to sail.
Let Mueller finish his probe.

 

[Darat]

No just another euphemism for the beast with two backs.

Golly the porn star does not get so grumpy when people refer to her in much, much more negative ways on twitter.

But I get that lots of people really admire her, for seducing a married man and new father, and then taking 130k to keep her dalliance a secret before the election.

She got paid! And gave a Dondi Eyeball tour de force performance on Chatting with the Porn Stars, err, 60 Minutes

Ah a defence of Trump's actions that could have come straight from the Taliban.