Stormy Daniels Sues the President

[The Big Dog]

Yes, I'm sure all of them had absolutely no idea that those cases existed. Only TBD knows, and has thought to use them.

Did you say this is going to federal court?

IANAL, so if someone is maybe they could correct me, but if this turns out to be an illegal campaign donation doesn't that make the NDA moot? You can't have an NDA for illegal activity, unless I'm missing something.

Golly, you read all those cases that fast?

We are actually at the point where I have cited several cases clearly stating what the law is, and therefore unless you have something to support your claim other than a slate article that does not mention the Ninth Circuit's cases or the twin principles of course of dealing/performance, then it would appear that you are wasting everyone's time.

If you have authority for your belief that this contract is illegal and therefore unenforceable, please feel free to cite it, because I am aware of none.

 

[acbytesla]

It's not a fictitious person, it's an alias. And it's completely legal. There's a small matter of proving that the alias belonged to the aggrieved person, but that's easily overcome.

This is not to say this NDA is enforceable. The fact that it wasn't signed by one party is deeply troubling. The fact that the penalty bears no relationship to the actual harm is also a problem. Then, there's the possibility that the whole thing may be void as a matter of public policy. It's really important that people know what their leaders are up to. An NDA put into effect 11 days before the election is something the public should want to know.

It seems wrong to me that the courts should enforce contracts with aliases. Now maybe there is a justifiable reason for this that I have not thought about. But transparency in the law should be valued more.

 

[plague311]

Golly, you read all those cases that fast?

We are actually at the point where I have cited several cases clearly stating what the law is, and therefore unless you have something to support your claim other than a slate article that does not mention the Ninth Circuit's cases or the twin principles of course of dealing/performance, then it would appear that you are wasting everyone's time.

If you have authority for your belief that this contract is illegal and therefore unenforceable, please feel free to cite it, because I am aware of none.

No, TBD. You've cited cases you believe support your claim, and they very well might. I'm of the opinion that we don't have all of the information, and I'm not a lawyer so I don't pretend to be. I don't act like just because I can google some **** that makes me an expert on legal matters. The fact is the law is very tricky, which is why I listen to experts, look at evidence, and then form my own opinion.

Personally, I don't really care what happens to Stormy Daniels. I don't know her, she isn't my friend, and her fate means nothing to me. That being said, she's doing a good job at showing just how insecure and pathetic donald is, which has entertainment value. Watching you trip over yourself to try and defend Trump, and make him out to be the good guy, is absolutely hilarious.

 

[acbytesla]

Actually If Stormy is to be believed, this escapade give Credibility to women who say that the president of the United States used Mobsterist tachtics to cover up one or more Affairs with Women.
Someone who uses Violence and cohersion to Silence women from talking might also be a sexual predator like so many women have testified he is.

I believe her. I think she is a gold digger. But that can be said about all of Trump's wives.

 

[The Big Dog]

No, TBD. You've cited cases you believe support your claim, and they very well might. I'm of the opinion that we don't have all of the information, and I'm not a lawyer so I don't pretend to be. I don't act like just because I can google some **** that makes me an expert on legal matters. The fact is the law is very tricky, which is why I listen to experts, look at evidence, and then form my own opinion.

Yeah, well I just delivered to you direct evidence of why the agreement is enforceable, including a case by the federal appellate court in California.

Yet rather than focusing on the evidence and the cases, you decided to come in here and wave around some made up "internet rule" and to regale us all with tales of how "hilarious" you find things.

The good news is that people who are genuinely curious and want to learn things (like whether the agreement is enforceable despite not being signed) can do so.

Thanks to your old pal, TBD.

 

[jimbob]

Unless there's some really disturbing stuff on that DVD, like him talking more about his daughter, the worst of it may be out. I'm amused because some of the details Daniels shared were humiliating for Trump and that's never a bad thing. Over all, I kind of already knew why a porn star and a misogynist prick would have an NDA. I didn't think they'd been making cupcakes together.

(Assuming making cupcakes isn't a sexual euphemism I wasn't previously aware of).

The BBC has been carrying the story that she says that was physically threatened and told to lay off Trump.

 

[acbytesla]

Which is actually a major problem with this because it has people talking about stuff that doesn't matter like Trumps sexual tastes, and not the important part like how vulnerable he is to blackmail from say Recorded Russian Sex parties he attended or the crimes involved in the illegal payoff.

Also of interest is her original Lawyer was also the same lawyer who represented the playboy model he was banging at the same time. Not in itself a problem unless her lawsuit against him shows he colluded with Trump which would be a crime.

It may be a problem and we don't liked It, but that is the way of the world. Trump has done far worse things then cheat on his wives. But most people don't pay attention to that. It's human nature. I remember a scene in the movie Charlie Wilson's War where Philip Seymour Hoffman's character says 'as long as the public sees sex and drugs in the right hand, you can park a battleship in the other and they won't notice.'

 

[ponderingturtle]

It may be a problem and we don't liked It, but that is the way of the world. Trump has done far worse things then cheat on his wives. But most people don't pay attention to that. It's human nature. I remember a scene in the movie Charlie Wilson's War where Philip Seymour Hoffman's character says 'as long as the public sees sex and drugs in the right hand, you can park a battleship in the other and they won't notice.'

Yep Trump can never be held accountable to any law of god or man and that is the core principle of the republican party as it stands now. The divine right of Trump.

 

[plague311]

Yeah, well I just delivered to you direct evidence of why the agreement is enforceable, including a case by the federal appellate court in California.

Yet rather than focusing on the evidence and the cases, you decided to come in here and wave around some made up "internet rule" and to regale us all with tales of how "hilarious" you find things.

The good news is that people who are genuinely curious and want to learn things (like whether the agreement is enforceable despite not being signed) can do so.

Thanks to your old pal, TBD.

Oh good, more of the same. Coming from the guy that made up the "rule of so", I'll take that with a grain of salt.

Like I said, several here have posted many rebuttals to your claims. All you've done in retort is linked to those same cases ad nauseum, and then claim to be "winning". People are genuinely curious, I'm genuinely curious. If I weren't, I wouldn't have read this whole thread. The only problem is I'm not privy to several facts that would help me form an opinion. That's why I'm not headboard raising to try and win the argument. I'll wait for the rest to come out, but to each their own. That's where I'm lucky, I don't have a dog in this fight. Neither one of them mean anything to me, whereas you obviously have an incessant need to defend Trump on almost anything.

 

[The Big Dog]

Like I said, several here have posted many rebuttals to your claims. All you've done in retort is linked to those same cases ad nauseum,

I have linked to legal cases ad nauseum? And you say that is a bad thing?

But tell you what, y'all go ahead and do us all a solid and link us to where "several" posters have "rebutted" my analysis of course of dealing/performance.

/protip: I didn't "make up" the "rule of so" either, but at least you are consistent.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Oh good, more of the same. Coming from the guy that made up the "rule of so", I'll take that with a grain of salt.

Like I said, several here have posted many rebuttals to your claims.

What is the rebuttal? It's been almost a decade now since I had to learn about business law. But I seem to recall arbitration clauses being very hard to get out of.

 

[Trebuchet]

Oh, and Karen McDougal says he said the same thing to her, as did the 13 year-old girl who accused him and Brian Epstein of raping her.

So I doubt it'd come as a shock to her.

That would be Jeffrey Epstein. Brian was the Beatles' manager.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I believe her. I think she is a gold digger. But that can be said about all of Trump's wives.

She has explicitly said that she thought of it as a business transaction. Which shouldn't really come as a surprise for someone whose day job is treating sex as a business transaction.

I'm not really sure whether "gold digger" fits, but it's not in dispute that she did it for the perceived potential material benefits.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Yet rather than focusing on the evidence and the cases, you decided to come in here and wave around some made up "internet rule" and to regale us all with tales of how "hilarious" you find things.

Made up "internet rules" are just the worst, aren't they? You certainly can't take someone who uses them seriously at all, can you?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

(Assuming making cupcakes isn't a sexual euphemism I wasn't previously aware of).

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cupcakes

 

[The Big Dog]

Made up "internet rules" are just the worst, aren't they? You certainly can't take someone who uses them seriously at all, can you?

Oh gosh, I suppose there are a few that make sense, like Godwin's Law or Rule 34 and the like, but there are others, and in particular "Danth's law" or whatever it is that get serially abused and therefore actively distract from people who are eager to actually learn things.

 

[Segnosaur]

I don't think Daniels' story is going to change anybody's mind about the kind of guy Trump is.

No, but there must be a lot of people who voted Trump due to a disgust with HRC and who, now, are becoming more and more disgusted with Trump.

And keep in mind that Hillary had a shot at winning the presidency until the FBI announced they were investigating the email issue again. How could that have hurt her? After all, the email issue had been out in the open for months, so the "surprise" revelation of more email investigation shouldn't have really mattered. But it did; it caused a few more potential voters to turn away. It was the straw that broke the camel's back for some voters.

I suspect Stormy Daniels may be the same way. Yeah, Trump has his regular block of racists and religious hypocrites supporting him. They stuck to him through the Bush "grab em by the pussy" tape, the multiple affairs and the general sexism. But for a few this might be the straw that broke the camel's back.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Oh gosh, I suppose there are a few that make sense, like Godwin's Law or Rule 34 and the like, but there are others, and in particular "Danth's law" or whatever it is that get serially abused and therefore actively distract from people who are eager to actually learn things.

So what you're saying is that sometimes it's okay to cite made up "internet rules" rather than addressing the point that it's being posted in response to?

 

[The Big Dog]

So what you're saying is that sometimes it's okay to cite made up "internet rules" rather than addressing the point that it's being posted in response to?

Sure, it is all about the context.

Like here, I am supplying well explained and detailed analysis of the issues with citations to directly controlling authority.

In response we get "danth's law," which of course makes no sense at all.

 

[plague311]

Sure, it is all about the context.

Like here, I am supplying well explained and detailed analysis of the issues with citations to directly controlling authority.

In response we get "danth's law," which of course makes no sense at all.

I didn't claim Danth's Law because you cite things. I claimed Danth's law because you repeatedly imply that you "beat" people like Seth Abramson, or you're "destroying" other people's arguments or statements. It's in the posts I've quoted. I have never claimed Danth's law because you've supplied evidence.