Stormy Daniels Sues the President

[mgidm86]

Seems a bit of a stretch. Sounds to me like someone wants to get in on the publicity.

That's all this has ever been.

What if this is determined to be an illegal campaign contribution? What happens to Cohen? Trump? Fines, jail, Pence? Nothing?

ETA:
I think this is more or less over as far as John/Jane Q Public is concerned. The interview came and went and was underwhelming - most people don't care about the other details. Campaign finance is boring.

 

[acbytesla]

That's all this has ever been.

What if this is determined to be an illegal campaign contribution? What happens to Cohen? Trump? Fines, jail, Pence? Nothing?

Well, for one, the contract is voided. Cohen and Trump probably would be fined. Cohen could be censured by the Bar association and even disbarred.

 

[Trebuchet]

What strikes me as odd about Cohen is that he had to take out a home equity loan to make the payment. For a high-priced lawyer operating at the presidential level in the nation's capital he ought to be making $130K almost every month. He's either in an extremely illiquid position or he's not the high-flyer he thinks he is.

Track-covering. It provides a plausible source of the cash that isn't Trump.

 

[WilliamSeger]

That's all this has ever been.

What if this is determined to be an illegal campaign contribution? What happens to Cohen? Trump? Fines, jail, Pence? Nothing?

ETA:
I think this is more or less over as far as John/Jane Q Public is concerned. The interview came and went and was underwhelming - most people don't care about the other details. Campaign finance is boring.

Well, there was a time when a candidate paying hush money weeks before an election to cover up anything that might damage his chances would raise serious character issues. But now that America is Great Again, no problem, huh.

 

[fuelair]

What did he win?

contempt and loathing

 

[quadraginta]

Seems a bit of a stretch. Sounds to me like someone wants to get in on the publicity.

I tend to agree, but, having said that, she has the same right to try and seek redress as anyone else, regardless of the odds of her success. If she has no case it will not proceed. If she does, it will.

And, all things considered, I can't object too much to a little bit more publicity about this. It seems only fair. The Donald and his Trumpettes are getting plenty of their own.

 

[quadraginta]

That's all this has ever been.

What if this is determined to be an illegal campaign contribution? What happens to Cohen? Trump? Fines, jail, Pence? Nothing?

ETA:
I think this is more or less over as far as John/Jane Q Public is concerned. The interview came and went and was underwhelming - most people don't care about the other details. Campaign finance is boring.

It won't be if it moves into criminal violations of campaign financing laws and illegal intimidation.

 

[phiwum]

That's all this has ever been.

What if this is determined to be an illegal campaign contribution? What happens to Cohen? Trump? Fines, jail, Pence? Nothing?

ETA:
I think this is more or less over as far as John/Jane Q Public is concerned. The interview came and went and was underwhelming - most people don't care about the other details. Campaign finance is boring.

Yes, who cares about illegal actions if they're boring?

We'll see, of course, whether there was campaign finance violations or not. I'm ready to wait and see. But if so, I really don't care if it's boring. It might not raise to the level of impeachment but it still matters.

Sorry you don't find it entertaining. (Still, it involves a porn star, so what did you want? )

 

[acbytesla]

Yes, who cares about illegal actions if they're boring?

We'll see, of course, whether there was campaign finance violations or not. I'm ready to wait and see. But if so, I really don't care if it's boring. It might not raise to the level of impeachment but it still matters.

Sorry you don't find it entertaining. (Still, it involves a porn star, so what did you want? )

The judge and the litigants care.

Much more important to me is that Trump continues to violate the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution and no one seems to care. I care about this case not because he had sex with a porn star, but that he paid off a porn star for silence in the middle of an election. But whether one cares about that or not is up to them. My argument is the US courts should not endorse bullying and hush money by enforcing this type of contract.

 

[The Big Dog]

The judge and the litigants care.

Much more important to me is that Trump continues to violate the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution and no one seems to care. I care about this case not because he had sex with a porn star, but that he paid off a porn star for silence in the middle of an election. But whether one cares about that or not is up to them. My argument is the US courts should not endorse bullying and hush money by enforcing this type of contract.

Emoluments clause is totally irrelevant.

You are not really making an argument, all you keep doing is repeatedly asserting your opinion.

 

[acbytesla]

Emoluments clause is totally irrelevant.

To this case it is.

You are not really making an argument, all you keep doing is repeatedly asserting your opinion.

What do you think an argument is but facts and opinion?

The facts. The President through his lawyer paid Stormy Daniels not to talk and they did this shortly before voters cast their ballots in the Presidential election.

Opinion : That such contracts are not in the best interest of the people and therefore should not be enforced.

You're welcome to think bought and paid secrecy is good for a democracy. I do not.

 

[The Big Dog]

To this case it is.

What do you think an argument is but facts and opinion?

The facts. The President through his lawyer paid Stormy Daniels not to talk and they did this shortly before voters cast their ballots in the Presidential election.

Opinion : That such contracts are not in the best interest of the people and therefore should not be enforced.

You're welcome to think bought and paid secrecy is good for a democracy. I do not.

An “argument” that consists of nothing more than your opinion is not an “argument.” It is a fallacy that we refer to as argument by assertion.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_by_assertion

 

[acbytesla]

An “argument” that consists of nothing more than your opinion is not an “argument.” It is a fallacy that we refer to as argument by assertion.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_by_assertion

I guess you just ignore the facts. Funny how you seem to do that.

 

[acbytesla]

An “argument” that consists of nothing more than your opinion is not an “argument.” It is a fallacy that we refer to as argument by assertion.

Reasons why some cotracts are unenforceable.



Duress, or coercion, will invalidate a contract when someone was threatened into making the agreement.

Unconscionability
Unconscionability means that a term in the contract or something inherent in or about the agreement was so shockingly unfair that the contract simply cannot be allowed to stand as is.

Public Policy

Contracts can be found unenforceable on grounds of public policy not only to protect one of the parties involved, but also because what the contract represents could pose harm to society as a whole.

Does this satisfy you?

 

[The Big Dog]

n “argument” that consists of nothing more than your opinion is not an “argument.” It is a fallacy that we refer to as argument by assertion.

Reasons why some cotracts are unenforceable.



Duress, or coercion, will invalidate a contract when someone was threatened into making the agreement.

Unconscionability
Unconscionability means that a term in the contract or something inherent in or about the agreement was so shockingly unfair that the contract simply cannot be allowed to stand as is.

Public Policy

Contracts can be found unenforceable on grounds of public policy not only to protect one of the parties involved, but also because what the contract represents could pose harm to society as a whole.

Does this satisfy you?

Of course not....

 

[acbytesla]

Of course not....

Why am I not surprised?

 

[fuelair]

I tend to agree, but, having said that, she has the same right to try and seek redress as anyone else, regardless of the odds of her success. If she has no case it will not proceed. If she does, it will.

And, all things considered, I can't object too much to a little bit more publicity about this. It seems only fair. The Donald and his Trumpettes are getting plenty of their own.

try sTrumpettes..............

 

[fuelair]

Why am I not surprised?

I certainly wasn't........

 

[The Big Dog]

Why am I not surprised?

Because, obviously, you just quoted some bare legal principles.

You have cited no authority whatsoever that this contract is illegal or that the. Public has an interest in the private, consensual sex lives of people that occurred years before they became candidates for public office.

 

[quadraginta]

Why am I not surprised?

A classic example of "You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't use reason to arrive at."

With an added, "It doesn't work to use facts to change someone from a position they didn't use facts to arrive at."