Stormy Daniels Sues the President

[Toontown]

Given the level of smokeshows that Donald typically dates, I would suggest that the minimum level for doing this should be at least a solid 9.

Why is Don dating anyone? Is it not a sin in the RCC to date outside marriage? No?

Trump's biblical trangressions are many and continuous, belying any notion of his repentance and spiritual rebirth.

Revelation 22:15

For outside are dogs and sorcerers, and whoremongers and murderers and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

 

[The Big Dog]

You've made a countercase, but it's not very convincing. It's for the courts to decide. There's certainly a good case for it to be an illegal contribution, and enough that I figure a competent lawyer would protect himself.

Actually it is for the FEC to decide and it was convincing enough under significantly more egregious circumstances to get Edwards off the hook.

 

[The Big Dog]

Trump's biblical trangressions are many and continuous, belying any notion of his repentance and spiritual rebirth.

Revelation 22:15

For outside are dogs and sorcerers, and whoremongers and murderers and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

pretty sure Trump ain't a Catholic

 

[blutoski]

Actually it is for the FEC to decide and it was convincing enough under significantly more egregious circumstances to get Edwards off the hook.

Agreed, FEC. I used the phrase 'courts' colloquially. Meaning: not us.

 

[Toontown]

Evidence?

Retracted. I can't verify that the FBI is investigating the matter. That will have to wait. My point that Trump could not legally give Cohen blanket authority to carry out possibly illegal actions without consulting Trump stands. That would be Rico territory.

 

[Toontown]

pretty sure Trump ain't a Catholic

Do Catholics use a different bible?

Are you suggesting he can't actually be a sinner if he ain't a Catholic?

 

[The Big Dog]

Do Catholics use a different bible?

Are you suggesting he can't actually be a sinner if he ain't a Catholic?

Oh no, not at all! It is just that he is going to hell anyway!



j/k

 

[Bob001]

I actually explained this some days ago, it is one the myriad legal theories that the President has at his disposal.
....

Whether or not that might be generally true, the fact is that in this particular case, Trump has said he didn't know anything about the agreement and didn't know where the money came from. If he didn't approve the agreement, or give some blanket approval to his lawyer to "just make stuff like this go away," and if he didn't put up any money, it's hard to imagine that Trump is a party. And Cohen has explicitly claimed that he acted without Trump's knowledge. If Trump's not a party, how can he claim injury or collect damages? And if Cohen is putting up his own money (hard to believe) to benefit a presidential candidate, it sure looks like a campaign contribution.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...tormy-daniels-payment/?utm_term=.46319b34f52e

 

[The Big Dog]

Whether or not that might be generally true, the fact is that in this particular case, Trump has said he didn't know anything about the agreement and didn't know where the money came from. If he didn't approve the agreement, or give some blanket approval to his lawyer to "just make stuff like this go away," and if he didn't put up any money, it's hard to imagine that Trump is a party. And Cohen has explicitly claimed that he acted without Trump's knowledge. If Trump's not a party, how can he claim injury or collect damages? And if Cohen is putting up his own money (hard to believe) to benefit a presidential candidate, it sure looks like a campaign contribution.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...tormy-daniels-payment/?utm_term=.46319b34f52e

He did? Do you have a source for that?

 

[Bob001]

He did? Do you have a source for that?

Well, Cohen's own lawyer said this:

“It’s been said all along — this wasn’t new news. Michael Cohen said from the very beginning that he did this on his own and did not tell the President, so the fact that I came out and said that, it’s not new news.”

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livew...w-news-that-trump-didnt-know-about-hush-money

And early in the matter, Cohen said this (although some noted that he didn't say Trump didn't get him the money some other way):

Cohen says, "Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford [Stormy's real name], and neither reimbursed me for the payment, either directly or indirectly."

https://www.tmz.com/2018/02/14/donald-trump-lawyer-michael-cohen-stormy-daniels-paid-hush-money/

Of course, later Cohen was mad that Trump hadn't paid him back:

President Donald Trump's personal attorney Michael Cohen complained to friends he had not been reimbursed for a six-figure payment to a porn star alleged to have had an affair with Trump, The Wall Street Journal reported Monday.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/05/politics/michael-cohen-stormy-daniels/index.html

 

[Segnosaur]

And Cohen has explicitly claimed that he acted without Trump's knowledge.

He did? Do you have a source for that?

From: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...clear-loser-jonathan-turley-column/414898002/
When Trump was accused of a campaign-finance violation over the Daniels payment, Cohen insisted that “neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford"
...
First, if he is speaking truthfully that Trump had no knowledge of the payment, he signed a document on behalf of a client (and ostensibly binding the client) without either consulting with his client or securing his consent.

Even if someone tries to justify it by claiming "Oh, he's only referring to the payment amount and not that an agreement was signed, the size of the payment is a significant factor that Trump should have been made aware of.

 

[The Big Dog]

Well, Cohen's own lawyer said this:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livew...w-news-that-trump-didnt-know-about-hush-money

And early in the matter, Cohen said this (although some noted that he didn't say Trump didn't get him the money some other way):

https://www.tmz.com/2018/02/14/donald-trump-lawyer-michael-cohen-stormy-daniels-paid-hush-money/

Of course, later Cohen was mad that Trump hadn't paid him back:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/05/politics/michael-cohen-stormy-daniels/index.html

None of those come close to showing "And Cohen has explicitly claimed that he acted without Trump's knowledge."

The closest is Cohen's "lawyer's" comment and does not actually fill the bill (and given that he does not have an appearance in the case and appears to be more than a little unhinged, ain't worth too much in any event).

None of those statement contradicts the working hypothesis that Trump authorized Cohen to get the deal done and don't bother him with the details.

 

[The Big Dog]

From: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...clear-loser-jonathan-turley-column/414898002/
When Trump was accused of a campaign-finance violation over the Daniels payment, Cohen insisted that “neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford"
...
First, if he is speaking truthfully that Trump had no knowledge of the payment, he signed a document on behalf of a client (and ostensibly binding the client) without either consulting with his client or securing his consent.

Even if someone tries to justify it by claiming "Oh, he's only referring to the payment amount and not that an agreement was signed, the size of the payment is a significant factor that Trump should have been made aware of.

I highlighted two VERY important words

 

[Bob001]

....
None of those statement contradicts the working hypothesis that Trump authorized Cohen to get the deal done and don't bother him with the details.

That is very likely the truth, or close to it. But neither Cohen nor Trump have said so, and Trump has said otherwise.

 

[The Big Dog]

That is very likely the truth, or close to it. But neither Cohen nor Trump have said so, and Trump has said otherwise.

what Trump said fits nicely with "don't bother me with the details."

 

[W.D.Clinger]

So that reply is the same information as "no comment". I didn't see any 'clever' in there, just a lot of words saying nothing, Trump SOP.

A "no comment" that's obfuscated well enough to fool some people into thinking it's clever might count as clever, but I don't think this particular comment fooled anyone who didn't want to be fooled.

How extraordinarily generous of you!

Your legal advice will actually be worth less than the paper that it is written on.

Yes, well I understand that the Judge has gone fully paper free, as such perhaps next time one will wish to create a "burn" from this Century?

The Big Dog is servicing the world pro bono, so I will reciprocate pro bono by thanking him for stepping into Crossbow's joke: If the legal advice is not written on paper, then the paper on which it is written is worth nothing at all, and legal advice that is worth less than the paper on which it is not written is worth less than no legal advice at all.

For anyone who's wondering about my use of the word "servicing": Yes, I'm from Texas.

 

[The Big Dog]

If the legal advice is not written on paper, then the paper on which it is written is worth nothing at all, and legal advice that is worth less than the paper on which it is not written is worth less than no legal advice at all.

For anyone who's wondering about my use of the word "servicing": Yes, I'm from Texas.

HI, WD Clinger and thanks for taking the time to explain the joke. The really funny thing is? If a lawyer tried to file something on paper in that court it would be rejected as violating the rules! As such, you literally could not be more wrong.

But I am sure y'all will let us know what exactly was wrong with my legal analysis.

 

[CapelDodger]

pretty sure Trump ain't a Catholic

Revelations is actually more an Evangelical's favourite read.

 

[CapelDodger]

I think it is amusing that our correspondent believes that Brent Blakely will not receive whatever compensation he and his clients have agreed to.

It's a joke, not a belief. You surely realise that Trump has a well-earned reputation for stiffing anyone he can, including, so it's said, lawyers.

 

[WilliamSeger]

That is a good point. Please go back in time and tell the GOP that in 1994. Out of curiosity, Do you really think she doesn't care?

"Liberal assclown" Seth Meyers joke: It was reported that Melania will not accompany Trump to Peru to attend the Summit of the Americas. When asked for comment, she said, "Why do you think?!"