• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Stormy Daniels Sues the President

Status
Not open for further replies.
newyorkguy said:
Stormy was asked Saturday night what snack foods she recommended for viewing Sunday's 60 Minutes broadcast. Here's her tweeted response:
Click to expand...

Tacos and mini corndogs? Gee, she must have been reading my posts, although I believe the Restatement (First) of Sexy Talk is "taking the silly sausage to town on the taco trolley."
 
Stormy's amended complaint is here:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/stormy...t-to-include-trump-attorney-defamation-claim/

the last page is the release that Cohen issued in relation to the Common Cause complaint and that forms the basis for Stormy's frivolous defamation complaint, because the release is clearly and unmistakably talking about the Common cause complaint, and not the porn star.

Guess filing frivolous pleadings is one of them those "traps" the lawyer is setting up, huh?
 
Stormy Daniels’ Lawyer Makes The Most Absurd Legal Claim Yet:

“Cohen didn’t say anything specifically about Stormy Daniels in that statement. All he said was that things that aren’t true can still hurt you, and that he’ll always protect Trump. Exactly what part of that is false?”

Some good stuff here, and hopefully some of the thread lawyers will spend a few minutes chewing the fat off the claims asserted in this article.

https://lawandcrime.com/uncategoriz...his-mind-a-little-with-this-defamation-claim/
 
ponderingturtle said:
And you can argue that by covering it up illegally right before the election the content she has on trump is actually important for the public to know about more so than some random revenge porn sex tape.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Trump still thinks of himself as a private person where privacy is a personal asset and one is entitled to higher level of privacy.. But you lose that asset first as someone who made himself a public person and second, when one is seeking the highest office in the land. I can see a lawyer successfully arguing that the NDA runs counter to the nation's interests and the people's right to know and throw out the contract based on that alone.
 
mgidm86 said:
I don't think so. The left keeps trying to push the "He'd screw his daughter" thing and it hasn't worked yet.
Click to expand...
I don't know... its produced hours of prime political satire. Seems to be working. (And the best political satire is based on truth.)

The only people it doesn't work on are trump supporters and evangelical Christians, but I think we've already established that racism and hypocrisy is rife in those groups, so its not like they have a strong moral compass.
The part about the threat in the parking lot - "Be a shame if something happened to your little girl" - give me a break. When she said that I had to start rethinking some of the other stuff she said. It could be true, yes, but I think she made it up (or her lawyer helped her remember it). The whole threat is probably fantasy.
Click to expand...
Well, lets see. One of Trump's celebrity supporters (Nugent) has talked about making Obama and/or Hillary "suck on his machine gun". Trump himself hinted that perhaps someone should do something about Hillary and tied it to the second amendment.

Not sure why you'd think talks of violence would be something Trump or his supporters would shy away from.

He's a terrible person for it. Okay. But I want to say what a piece of crap one needs to be to knowingly screw a famous married person then go public with it.
Click to expand...
Far less of a piece of crap than to be the one who was actually married at the time.

Your attacks on Daniels are textbook deflection.
And since he is now the President let's disrupt the entire nation just for you.
Click to expand...
Trump did something wrong that makes him vulnerable in various criminal/civil lawsuits. The fact that he managed to get enough racists to vote for him doesn't absolve him from that.
 
So do any of the non-Trump-defender-but-actually-defenders want to explain why Trump doesn't just man up and admit that he was the DD in the agreement?
 
I Am The Scum said:
So do any of the non-Trump-defender-but-actually-defenders want to explain why Trump doesn't just man up and admit that he was the DD in the agreement?
Click to expand...

I think there is still the whole campaign finance issue that he does not want to tie himself to violating the law like that.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
No. Trump's lawyer's lawyer let it slip, and Sarah Sanders also said that he'd won arbitration, which indicates that he is, but that's it.
Click to expand...

It is clear DD refers to Trump, that would be pretty crazy for them not to claim at this point, it is if he was involved and knew about the illegal campaign contributions at the time or not.
 
ponderingturtle said:
I think there is still the whole campaign finance issue that he does not want to tie himself to violating the law like that.
Click to expand...

And Ms. Daniels has already described the sex as generic and made an oblique reference to a mini corn dog. I'm thinking there is no aspect of this gig he wants publicized
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom