Toronto Escorts

Court filings imply that Trump got Stormy Daniels pregnant and she had an abortion

LT56

Banned
Feb 16, 2013
1,604
1
0
Court filings imply that Donald Trump got Stormy Daniels pregnant and she had an abortion

Now that Stormy Daniels has filed a lawsuit against Donald Trump aimed at giving her the all-clear to tell her story about their affair, the legal proceedings alone are already quickly pushing much of that story into the public domain. Earlier today it was revealed that Daniels’ court filings implied she may have lewd photos of Trump. Now it looks like the court filings are also implying that Trump got Daniels pregnant during the affair.

While paying her off, Trump originally forced Daniels agree to keep quiet about a specific set of things that went beyond the mere fact that they were having sex. MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell managed to pick this passage out of Daniels’ court filings, which he presented on-air on Wednesday evening: “sexual partners, alleged sexual actions or alleged sexual conduct, related matters, or paternity information.” Unless Trump’s attorneys were so incredibly sloppy that they merely copy-pasted boilerplate language into the nondisclosure agreement that had nothing to do with the affair, this implies that Trump got Daniels pregnant.

As far as anyone knows, Daniels only has one child, born in 2011. This affair took place circa-2006. So unless Daniels secretly gave birth to Trump’s kid in 2006 or 2007, and has somehow managed to keep the existence of that child a secret all this time, the fairly clear implication here is that Trump got Daniels pregnant and she had an abortion.

This wouldn’t be the first time in which a secret affair has ended in this manner. But two things are notable here. The first is that, as Palmer Report pointed out yesterday, Stormy Daniels is succeeding in getting (verified or implied) dirt about Donald Trump out there simply by filing this lawsuit. The second is that Trump spent the entire campaign taking an anti-abortion stance in order to appeal to conservative Republican and evangelical voters; this can’t possibly play well with them.

http://www.palmerreport.com/analysis/pregnant-stormy-daniels-trump/8625/


I was wondering why Stormy didn’t just keep her $130K and keep quiet. Now things are beginning to make more sense.
 

LT56

Banned
Feb 16, 2013
1,604
1
0
This is why the Stormy story is different than the others.
 

LT56

Banned
Feb 16, 2013
1,604
1
0
LT56, sorry to disappoint you and Lawrence O’Donnell but typical boilerplate language.
I dunno...I’ve never included the provision of “paternity information” in any of my NDA’s.

Maybe I have a shitty lawyer?
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,773
3
0
I dunno...I’ve never included the provision of “paternity information” in any of my NDA’s.

Maybe I have a shitty lawyer?
Really you've had more that one non-disclosure agreement involving people we suppose you had an affair with?


Why wouldn't you put it in, to give a loophole for someone to break a non-disclosure agreement?
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,353
4,776
113
Really you've had more that one non-disclosure agreement involving people we suppose you had an affair with?
Relax Aardie, you are getting hyper again.
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
27,340
5,560
113
Now Jessica Drake is apparently back in the mix - being named in the NDA.
Trump denied that he ever knew her. But she was the one who came up with the sexual allegations against Trump in the 2016 Campaign.
We now know the fourth person who either knows details of Stormy Daniels’ sexual relationship with Donald Trump or has seen or is in possession of the text logs, “certain still images” and possible dick pics. The woman referred to in the agreement as “Angel Ryan” is Jessica Drake. Who is Jessica Drake? She is another porn actress. But that’s not at all. She was also one of Trump’s accusers back in October of 2016.

A TPM Reader flagged this to our attention. I was trying to get solid confirmation. (Drake’s birth name is listed in various places as Angela Patrice Heaslet.) But now CNN has apparently confirmed that “Angel Ryan” is in fact Drake. So that’s settled.

Now, let’s review. Drake was one of four people who Daniels listed in the agreement as people who she had shared either the information about the affair or the digital evidence of it. The point of this was that Daniels had to say who she’d already told or shared the goods with before saying she would remain silent.

So that’s Drake’s connection to the agreement.

And what were her accusations?

Drake was at the 2006 Golf Tournament in Lake Tahoe. This was the same event where Trump met Daniels. Here’s a description from an October 2016 article in The New York Daily News.

Trump started flirting with Drake immediately, later asking for her phone number and inviting her to his penthouse hotel suite, she recounted.

A slightly-spooked Drake invited two female friends along, and Trump aggressively greeted the trio in his pajamas, according to Drake.

“He grabbed each of us tightly in a hug and kissed each of us on the lips without asking for permission,” she recalled.

The three women left after Trump inquired about Drake’s relationship status and experiences as an adult film star. One of Trump’s underlings called later to invite her back, and then Trump himself called.

“What do you want?” he asked her, according to Drake. “How much?”

A second phone call came with an actual cash offer.

“I received another call from Donald, or a male calling on his behalf offering me $10,000,” she said. “I declined once again, and once more gave as an excuse that I had to return to Los Angeles for work.

“I was then told Mr. Trump would allow me the use of his private jet to take me home if I accepted his invitation.”

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/angel-ryan-is-jessica-drake
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,353
4,776
113
More to come.
 

essguy_

Active member
Nov 1, 2001
4,432
16
38
Trump had a thing for Jessica Drake but had to settle for a campaign manager/ counselor who looks like Drake’s mother. I wonder if Kellyanne let Trump call her “Jessica” when he toured the islands with her on his private jet during the campaign? “I’m going to grab your pussy while I pound your ass, Jessica!” growled Candidate Trump. “Is it in yet, Mr. President?” purred KellyAnne...
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,760
17,579
113
CNN notes how Daniels has played Trump very well.

The recent lawsuit by Stephanie Clifford, also known as adult film actress Stormy Daniels, against President Trump, may appear to be just another sideshow in the ongoing chaos in the White House. But her legal claims offer more than just fodder for first-year law school contracts exams -- the suit also raises some serious political headaches and potential legal consequences for the Trump administration.

The basis for Clifford's lawsuit is a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) that she entered into before Trump took office, prohibiting her from discussing any alleged relationship she had with the President. Clifford isn't seeking money from the court, but a "declaratory judgment" on the validity of the NDA.
Clifford's NDA involved three parties: Clifford, named in the contract as "Peggy Peterson;" a private company, or LLC, called "Essential Consultants;" and "David Dennison," whom Clifford claims is a pseudonym for President Trump. The NDA prohibits Clifford from discussing any aspect of her alleged relationship with "David Dennison" in exchange for $130,000, which Essential Consultants (represented by President Trump's private attorney, Michael Cohen) paid her.
Clifford's suit makes two arguments. First, she argues that the NDA did not form a valid, binding contract because one of the parties -- ostensibly President Trump -- did not sign it. In contract law, a valid agreement requires what is known as a "meeting of the minds," or an agreement to the terms of the contract. One element of that agreement is each party signing it.
Contract law is governed by state law -- in this case, California -- and even in the absence of a signature of one of the parties to the agreement, a "meeting of the minds" can be proven in other ways.

Second, Clifford argues that even if the NDA is valid, it is no longer enforceable because when Cohen spoke publicly in January about the NDA and his payment to her under the agreement, he breached the agreement's required confidentiality and nullified the bargain.
Whether Clifford prevails on her legal claims remains to be seen, but what's more significant about Clifford's lawsuit is that she has used her complaint as a vehicle to tell her side of the story, including the circumstances of her alleged affair with the President, the creation of the NDA and even the consequences she has suffered since her story surfaced in January.
Most importantly, the lawsuit includes as an attachment a copy of the NDA itself (in order to show that it was not signed by one of the parties), which ultimately undermines the very point of the agreement to begin with.

If Clifford is successful in her suit, making the NDA and the circumstances surrounding its creation public doesn't cause her any problems. But if she isn't, then the lawsuit itself could constitute a breach of the NDA on her part, which could expose her to legal liability -- which could include having to pay damages to the tune of $1 million.

How to respond to the lawsuit is a dicey proposition for both Donald Trump and his lawyer. In order to countersue Clifford for breach of contract, a court would have to examine who the parties to the contract were, including the person under the alias David Dennison.

The court would also have to inquire into what that person knew about the contract, and whether they were aware of and agreed to its terms: If David Dennison is the President, this means that, at the very least, the President would have to acknowledge that he was the party to the agreement and agreed to pay a settlement in order to force Clifford not to talk.
If the court finds that the NDA is not a valid agreement, then the fair result is that Clifford should not be enriched at the expense of Cohen or a third party. The problem is that for Cohen to recover his money, he would have to prove to the court that he made the payment to Daniels out of his own funds, as he has publicly stated.

If this is true, it could cause him professional problems, since lawyers cannot ethically pay third-party settlements from their own funds. And if it is not true, it could open a Pandora's box by opening up an inquiry into where the money came from: If the money trail leads to Trump's campaign funds, this would be illegal under campaign finance laws.

Ultimately, Clifford's suit could back the President into a corner. The Supreme Court's precedent in Clinton v. Jones held that the president does not have immunity from a civil lawsuit for acts performed before he assumed office. While that case was brought in federal court, the same rationale would likely apply to state court in a case like this.
If so, then the President, as the named defendant in Clifford's lawsuit, would be forced to respond to her complaint, and potentially deposed, which is the last thing Trump would want to do. (Remember that President Bill Clinton was caught lying in a deposition in a civil suit for sexual harassment by Paula Jones -- and perjury was one of the articles of impeachment brought against him.)

And choosing not to respond at all would result in a default judgment -- meaning that Clifford would win simply because her claims are not contested -- leaving her able to discuss her version of the story in detail with no legal consequences.

In short, the Clifford v. Trump lawsuit is a brewing storm for an administration already facing legal troubles elsewhere.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/08/opin...-could-be-trouble-rangappa-opinion/index.html
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,773
3
0
^ Although rare in U.S. Jurisprudence, this case, like suits involving business secrets, seems one where a request to seal the proceedings would likely be granted.

Clinton v. Jones is readily distinguishable from this matter, that case involved a lawsuit alleging sexual harassment, while this matter involves whether a non-disclosure agreement should be enforceable.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts