Stormy Daniels Sues the President

[pgwenthold]

Fiction can often reflect, at least broadly, the values of the time. Regardless of any particular television show, the sorts of scandal that people would find acceptable if publicly known have shifted over time.

Gary Hart

 

[LTC8K6]

I think Cohen broke the NDA when he admitted to paying Clifford the $130K.
Clifford even said so at the time.

So I don't understand what all the back and forth is about.

Clifford has already gone ahead and told her story to the highest bidder, 60 minutes.

The only thing that can possibly bother Trump is the oddly small $130K payment, imo.

I'm sure they were aware of the danger of that payment when it was negotiated, and it was probably done legally.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Thanks much. This is about what I was thinking as well.

While in many ways, this story about Story Daniels is quite boring, in some very important ways it could result in the first real dent that the Trump lovers may sustain.

After all, if it turns out that Trump actually did pay a porn star to keep quite about the affair that he had with her after his third wife just give birth to his son, then does sure does not reflect well on Trump. Also, there may well be several rather lurid messages between Daniels and Trump that will soon wind up on as cover stories for just about every news organization in the country.

Similarly, if it turns out that Cohen actually did pay off Stormy Daniels, then one has to wonder what other Trump dirt that Cohen may know about. Furthermore, Cohen may well have to disbarment proceedings for doing something so unethical and/or embarrassing to the rest of the legal profession.

And another case where it is not the crime but the cover up that gets you. Call that the Hastert Law.

 

[Oystein]

And another case where it is not the crime but the cover up that gets you. Call that the Hastert Law.

Again, hanky-panky with a porn star is not actually a crime, even if you have a wife and new born son.

So the hush money and the agreement as such was not the cover-up for a crime.

Furthermore, the agreement as such is not criminal.

Additionally, I believe the agreement is valid even if DD is not actually a party to it. If Daniels has a contract with Cohen, she has to keep it. I could set up a contract with you, turtle, where your duty is to pay me 1 million and mine is not to reveal that TBD made hanky-panky with SG in 2006, and it wouldn'z matter if TBD knows about the deal, nor whether the story is true or not: by way of my contract with turtle, I'd be obligated to not tell the story.

The only (likely) crime here is undeclared campaign contribution.
And Cohen may well face disbarment for setting up an LLC for the sole purpose of funneling an undeclared campaign contribution.

The payment is likely campaign related a) because of the timing b) because of its predictably real effect of preventing that some voters would refrain from voting for Trump if the story broke before election day.

 

[mgidm86]

I like how they keep calling a one night stand with a porn star an "affair". She shows up at his hotel room, screws him, the end. That sounds more like a one night stand or prostitution. Nitpick maybe. Either way it's a bad thing he did, problem is that nobody cares except the press and his sworn enemies.

Do people think that conservatives and Trump voters will wish they'd voted for Hillary or Bernie because of this? Does anyone think this will aid in a successful impeachment? I don't.

Democrats, you are waaaay too late with this crap. This is pre-election material. I think many conservatives are reacting to you and your desperation to knock down Trump more than they are actually defending the President. What he did was bad but what Dems are doing is much worse. Of course that is debatable.

Anyways the woman is a money hungry piece of crap:

The exchange would allow Clifford to speak publicly about her allegations of an affair with Trump, and according to the letter "use and publish any text messages, photos and/or videos relating to the President that she may have in her possession, all without fear of retribution and/or legal liability for damages." By sending the money to Trump, it would involve the President -- who has never acknowledged the agreement or the affair -- in the case.

Hilarious. A credit to women the world over.

Originally Posted by Crossbow View Post
Thanks much. This is about what I was thinking as well.

While in many ways, this story about Story Daniels is quite boring, in some very important ways it could result in the first real dent that the Trump lovers may sustain.

After all, if it turns out that Trump actually did pay a porn star to keep quite about the affair that he had with her after his third wife just give birth to his son, then does sure does not reflect well on Trump. Also, there may well be several rather lurid messages between Daniels and Trump that will soon wind up on as cover stories for just about every news organization in the country.

Similarly, if it turns out that Cohen actually did pay off Stormy Daniels, then one has to wonder what other Trump dirt that Cohen may know about. Furthermore, Cohen may well have to disbarment proceedings for doing something so unethical and/or embarrassing to the rest of the legal profession.

No it does not reflect well on Trump but it will not affect him significantly as President and it will not get him removed from office.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Deleted

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Additionally, I believe the agreement is valid even if DD is not actually a party to it. If Daniels has a contract with Cohen, she has to keep it. I could set up a contract with you, turtle, where your duty is to pay me 1 million and mine is not to reveal that TBD made hanky-panky with SG in 2006, and it wouldn'z matter if TBD knows about the deal, nor whether the story is true or not: by way of my contract with turtle, I'd be obligated to not tell the story.

But if that contract claims to represent TBD, as Daniel's contract claims to represent Trump, no representative of TBD signing it is grounds for nullification.

Here's Seth Abramson's take on it:

https://twitter.com/sethabramson/status/971427139965865986

tl;dr - he thinks Cohen's attempts at obfuscation (i.e. EC, LLC) introduce enough sloppy language for a good lawyer to get it tossed. But it doesn't matter anyway - were Trump to sue her for breach of contract, he'd have to testify about it in court and that's unlikely to happen.

 

[johnny karate]

What he did was bad but what Dems are doing is much worse.

This is quote from someone who wants us to believe he’s not defending Trump.

 

[SezMe]

I have already expertly explained that he will simply say that he did it to keep his wife and child from finding out, he is totally sorry, she forgave him and will be converting to Melania's religion because they love each other so so much.

C'mon, this is a layup.

Yeah, he can say that but who's gonna believe him ... especially in a courtroom.

 

[SezMe]

Because Stormy chose to bring it up then, obviously.

Trump thought, oh man, I am already on thin ice with my lady due to Billy Bush tape, the last thing she needs is to hear this now or I will be in the dog house for sure!

What's relevant to your claim is how many other "ladies" has he paid off and when (relative to the affair itself) did the payment take place. If there are several others with the same pattern as Stormy, then you have a point. If not, Occam's Razor says the payoff was 100% political.

 

[ddt]

Again, hanky-panky with a porn star is not actually a crime, even if you have a wife and new born son.

Unless... "David Dennison" paid Stormy for the hanky panky. Then it's a crime by both.

So the hush money and the agreement as such was not the cover-up for a crime.

Furthermore, the agreement as such is not criminal.

Additionally, I believe the agreement is valid even if DD is not actually a party to it. If Daniels has a contract with Cohen, she has to keep it. I could set up a contract with you, turtle, where your duty is to pay me 1 million and mine is not to reveal that TBD made hanky-panky with SG in 2006, and it wouldn'z matter if TBD knows about the deal, nor whether the story is true or not: by way of my contract with turtle, I'd be obligated to not tell the story.

Fair enough. But the agreement seems to be very poorly set up, with "DD" not signing it but on the other hand, EC/Cohen not entitled to arbitration. And there's the fundamental problem with such an agreement that if you want to enforce it, you have to publicly acknowledge you're the party. That problem never goes away, how well you set it up.

The only (likely) crime here is undeclared campaign contribution.
And Cohen may well face disbarment for setting up an LLC for the sole purpose of funneling an undeclared campaign contribution.

While the latter is technically not a crime, it certainly is a severe consequence for Cohen. Though, viewed from an anti-Trump angle, I wonder if that's a bonus. IIRC, it's not the first time that Cohen serves his master poorly. I'd rate the question "do you want Cohen to remain Trump's house lawyer" similar to "do we want Mussolini as ally or as enemy?"

I like how they keep calling a one night stand with a porn star an "affair". She shows up at his hotel room, screws him, the end. That sounds more like a one night stand or prostitution. Nitpick maybe.

What I've read, the affair started in 2006 and continued into 2007. But maybe you're right and it was a one-night stand on New Year's Eve

 

[The Big Dog]

Here's Seth Abramson's take on it:

https://twitter.com/sethabramson/status/971427139965865986

tl;dr - he thinks Cohen's attempts at obfuscation (i.e. EC, LLC) introduce enough sloppy language for a good lawyer to get it tossed. But it doesn't matter anyway - were Trump to sue her for breach of contract, he'd have to testify about it in court and that's unlikely to happen.

It has a mandatory arbitration provision in it, and the poet's analysis is based on the ridiculous claim that: "It turns out Mr. Cohen was colluding with my prior lawyer."

Worthless.

 

[Segnosaur]

I like how they keep calling a one night stand with a porn star an "affair". She shows up at his hotel room, screws him, the end. That sounds more like a one night stand or prostitution.

Probably a bit more to it than that. While we don't know all the details (and won't know, until/unless the contract is ruled invalid or is broken), they probably saw each other socially outside of their meet up at the hotel room.

From: https://www.denverpost.com/2018/03/08/trump-stormy-daniels-affair-timeline/
she said she kept in touch with Trump and saw him several more times, though she said they never again had sex.

Do people think that conservatives and Trump voters will wish they'd voted for Hillary or Bernie because of this?

While the majority of Trump supporters are quite happy wallowing in the bigotry and racism that Trump provides, its quite possible that there may be a few voters for whom this scandal may be the "straw that broke the camel's back".

Does anyone think this will aid in a successful impeachment? I don't.

It may or may not. It depends on the results of the mid-term elections and whether the republicans in congress have any morals.

But does that fact that it won't lead to impeachment mean that we should stop investigating whether a crime has been committed? Are you suggesting that the president and his coworkers should be given a pass on any and all crimes they committed just because the republicans in congress are content with a criminal in charge?

I think many conservatives are reacting to you and your desperation to knock down Trump more than they are actually defending the President.

If they are, then its sad and pathetic. Is pathethetisad a word?

What he did was bad but what Dems are doing is much worse. Of course that is debatable.

The only people that would see that as 'debatable' are people who are happy with a racist/bigot in the white house. Anyone who is uncomfortable with bigotry will look at the various crimes and scandals of Trump and the republicans, and of the Democrats, and recognize that the rot of the GOP is much deeper and much more serious than the problems affecting the Democrats.

Anyways the woman is a money hungry piece of crap:

So people like money. Why does it mean she is a "piece of crap"?

And given a choice, I have a little more respect for someone who may want to get money from a racist adulterer than from someone who gets his money by short-changing contractors, bilking dozens of innocent students (see: Trump U) and misappropriating charitable donations.

No it does not reflect well on Trump but it will not affect him significantly as President and it will not get him removed from office.

Unless of course it is determined that 1) the payment is considered an illegal campaign contribution, and 2) that Trump knew about it. Which would be illegal. You know, the law... the thing that Trump swore to uphold?

And even if Trump manages to survive this, it is still a valuable experience, as any potential voters in future elections (midterms or 2020 presidential) can look at the republicans, see what their response is to their leader engaging in possibly illegal activities, and ask themselves "Do I really want to support a politician who is that cavalier about breaking the law?"

 

[ddt]

Democrats, you are waaaay too late with this crap. This is pre-election material.

Stormy Daniels is a registered Republican:

A group of fans attempted to recruit Daniels to run against Republican Senator David Vitter in Louisiana in 2010.[8] The recruitment process was centered around the website DraftStormy.com.[19] On May 21, 2009, she formed an exploratory committee.[20] Daniels was unaffiliated with any party until April 2010 when she declared herself as a Republican.

 

[The Greater Fool]

Stormy Daniels is a registered Republican:

She's not the first republican...

Nope, can't follow through, sorry.

 

[dudalb]

This is quote from someone who wants us to believe he’s not defending Trump.

If he's not defending Trump, he is doing one hell of a good imitation of defending him.

 

[dudalb]

I do not want to hear a Republican ever accuse a Democrat of being unfit for public office for moral or ethical reasons again. Just don't.

 

[The Big Dog]

I do not want to hear a Republican ever accuse a Democrat of being unfit for public office for moral or ethical reasons again. Just don't.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I moved no goal posts.

1) I asked you who is owed the money. You claim "DD". If it's a valid contract, I agree. It's not a dodge to point that out.

2) Please answer the question I have asked from the beginning:
What was the breach ? What is your evidence it occurred ?
3. You claim the agreement was breached. You linked to a TRO "precluding" PP from disclosing any information as evidence that the information was already disclosed, thus breaching the contract ?

A TRO put in place to preclude something from happening means that something didn't yet happen.

k thx

Still waiting on the answer to number 2 from TBD ...

Still waiting for TBD to explain how aa TRO "precluding" an action is evidence that thing already happened...

Am also mildly interested to know if TBD believes "DD" is Donald Trump.

 

[LTC8K6]

https://hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/ec.jpg

Agreement says EC, LLC and/or David Dennison.

Looks like Trump did not need to sign it?