Stormy Daniels Sues the President

[The Big Dog]

If you're ever really bored, and I mean REALLY bored, go through the Hillary email thread and find out how TBD thinks certificates (Like SSL certs, etc) and the like work. It's an absolute hoot.

The Hillary email thread was littered with your lack of knowledge. You learned about servers, certs and encryption the same way you taught yourself here. You were laughingly off base in that thread, and lawyers here seem to say you're off here as well. Given what I know, I'll believe them.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

Can you show me where I've done that in this thread? If you can't, then I'd expect an apology.

No need to apologize! We get it

 

[SezMe]

I think you will wish to review those parts of your post following "So" and the remainder of my post that you inexplicably cut out.

No. My real wish is that you'd answer my question.

...

Actually, no. I don't give a damn whether you answer my question. I've got your number and it's in the negative integer range.

 

[acbytesla]

hey folks, look, he just said it wasn't an ad hominem when it clearly was!

Whether they "probably" understand the law better is not an actual rebuttal to my arguments. You do understand that, right? That is why saying that I am not a lawyer is.....pause.... an ad hominem fallacy!

ta da!

You really don't know what you are talking about. The issue isn't you, but your lack of qualifications compared to actual lawyers. So NO, it's not an ad hominem fallacy. The argument being made is comparing qualifications. Nothing ad hominem about it. If I attempted to say that Avenatti was wrong about the law, it too wouldn't be believable because I lack the qualifications that he has.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Yet, as I have pointed out the numerous times that posters have debased this thread with ad hominem fallacies, my analysis was 100% correct and on point.

I am certain that someone would point it out is it was anything other than correct. Indeed I am thinking about putting a minor error in one of my posts just to keep y'all on your toes. Like saying that the page limit in Judge Otero's order is 15 pages instead of the 18 pages that it is...

/:wink

By the way? GW is most definitely not in the Ivy League

Um, IIRC, the only decision the judge has made so far was to reject the motion to expedite, wasn't it? I remember you gloating about that, but your "analysis" of that was after the fact. How have you been "100% correct" on decisions the judge hasn't made yet?

 

[The Big Dog]

Um, IIRC, the only decision the judge has made so far was to reject the motion to expedite, wasn't it? I remember you gloating about that, but your "analysis" of that was after the fact. How have you been "100% correct" on decisions the judge hasn't made yet?

Well, here is a for instance, I pointed out that a challenge to an entire agreement as opposed to the specific arbitration clause had to be decided by the arbitrator and not the court. Thirsty then amended his complaint to ADD allegations challenging the arbitration clause in order to circumvent this principle.

But to sum up, I have made numerous posts including summaries of the law, and you will note that while people have repeatedly attacked me hammer and tongs, none have actually taken the time, nay even attempted to rebut the substance of what i have been saying.

 

[Dr. Keith]

How have you been "100% correct" on decisions the judge hasn't made yet?

He guessed the same way every other legal professional guessed. It was a bit like predicting the sunrise, but he did get it right. So, there is that.

 

[The Big Dog]

He guessed the same way every other legal professional guessed. It was a bit like predicting the sunrise, but he did get it right. So, there is that.

Golly, feel free to comment on other stuff I have explained. For instance, do you think that telling someone to "talk to my lawyer" constitutes a waiver of the attorney client privilege?

 

[beren]

If you're ever really bored, and I mean REALLY bored, go through the Hillary email thread and find out how TBD thinks certificates (Like SSL certs, etc) and the like work. It's an absolute hoot.

I was literally about to post this. It is jaw dropping how wrong he is there.

 

[plague311]

No need to apologize! We get it

None of that is me doing what you said. I didn't regale anyone about stories about me. I made fun of you because you had no clue what you were talking about, did internet research, and then acted like you were some authority on the topic.

I'll be waiting for my apology, but I doubt I'll get it.

 

[The Big Dog]

None of that is me doing what you said. I didn't regale anyone about stories about me. I made fun of you because you had no clue what you were talking about, did internet research, and then acted like you were some authority on the topic.

I'll be waiting for my apology, but I doubt I'll get it.

'k

 

[plague311]

'k

Exactly, you made a false claim, and now you refuse to apologize for it. Yet, you have some weird expectation that people should take you and your theories seriously.

It's not shocking TBD, everyone saw you doing this coming a mile away. It's SOP

 

[The Big Dog]

Exactly, you made a false claim, and now you refuse to apologize for it. Yet, you have some weird expectation that people should take you and your theories seriously.

It's not shocking TBD, everyone saw you doing this coming a mile away. It's SOP

Folks I want to apologize for even acknowledging the next level nonsense you have inserted in this thread.

Happy?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Golly, feel free to comment on other stuff I have explained. For instance, do you think that telling someone to "talk to my lawyer" constitutes a waiver of the attorney client privilege?

Sure - here is my comment: When did someone claim "talk to my lawyer" constitutes a waiver of the attorney client privilege?

ETA: I mean other than you, just now...

 

[LTC8K6]

Apparently she is NOT free to speak. Even in the 60 Minutes piece she stated that her lawyer advised her to not answer a question about materials she has (or doesn't have) in her possession.

Okay, but her lawyer could have advised her that way for several reasons.

Wouldn't having such things in her possession violate the agreement? I think I remember seeing that in the agreement.

How can she have accepted the $130K and not abided by the agreement?

Is that the root of the "I'll give back the money" idea?

Are both sides playing a game of "who violated the agreement first" ?

But as I said, if Stormy and her lawyer believe the agreement is not valid, and it seems like they really do believe that, then they are free to speak out, imo.

Cohen seems to have broken the agreement by speaking about the payment, and Stormy seems to have broken it as well.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/09/...-of-trumps-longtime-lawyer-michael-cohen.html

The F.B.I. on Monday raided the office of President Trump’s longtime personal lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, seizing records related to several topics including payments to a pornographic-film actress.

 

[The Big Dog]

F.B.I. Raids Office of Trump’s Longtime Lawyer Michael Cohen

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/09/...gtime-lawyer-michael-cohen.html?smid=pl-share

The payments to Ms. Clifford are only one of many topics being investigated, according to a person briefed on the search. The F.B.I. also seized emails, tax documents and business records, the person said.

The seized records include communications between Mr. Trump and Mr. Cohen, which would likely require a special team of agents to review because conversations between lawyers and clients are protected from scrutiny in most instances.

Now this is interesting....

This may put a screeching halt on Thirsty's suit.

 

[Vixen]

Man it's sad to see this as the justification for how Trump acts. You've had absolutely nothing but bad things to say about Stormy, but you haven't seemed to find the ambition to be as critical of Trump. Trump used his show as leverage to bang a porn star, then tried to pay her off, and the only thing you're getting butthurt about is her talking about it?

Before you say "I've said Trump is responsible" as a retort, keep it. Your posts make it obvious to anyone your agenda.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

I dislike Trump and Melania as much as anyone (even though, apparently I share a common ancestor with him). However, just because you dislike someone doesn't mean it is OK to behave unethically towards them.

Just because he is a slimeball doesn't make it OK for prostitutes to blackmail him. Let's face it, she is a gold digger.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I dislike Trump and Melania as much as anyone (even though, apparently I share a common ancestor with him). However, just because you dislike someone doesn't mean it is OK to behave unethically towards them.

Just because he is a slimeball doesn't make it OK for prostitutes to blackmail him. Let's face it, she is a gold digger.

It's clear you don't know the definition of :

• prostitute
• blackmail
• gold digger

 

[Vixen]

Yes .. you have any evidence she is a prostitute ?

I thought she was? Is she not, then?

So she had sex with him <yawn> . That's no excuse for blackmail.

She was consenting, I take it? Happy to wreck a marriage but now wants to join the #metoo movement and make money out of it?

 

[Vixen]

A classic.

It's immigrant stories which made America great.

What? 'Escort girl meets rich American'...?