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

[Aardvark154]

Sorry Frankfooter, but Norman Eisen, is living in fantasyland if he believes such an ethics violation is going to result in anything more than "bad, bad, don't do that again."

As to Professor Super, he seemingly is forgetting that a signature is all important when the person who hasn't signed is the party against whom the contract is attempting to be enforced. It is not particularly important at all when the party against whom the contact is attempting to be enforced has signed (and accepted payment) and it is the party who is attempting to enforce who has not signed.

 

[bver_hunter]

Anderson Cooper interviews Stormy Daniels for '60 Minutes'

Anderson Cooper has taped an interview with Stephanie Clifford, the adult film actress known as Stormy Daniels who alleged a sexual relationship with Donald Trump and is now suing the president.
The interview will air on the CBS newsmagazine "60 Minutes," where Cooper is a regular contributor.
But the exact air date is unknown. A source involved in the taping said it will air "on a future episode." A "60 Minutes" spokesman declined to comment.
Cooper interviewed Clifford's lawyer Michael Avenatti on CNN on Wednesday night.
On Thursday afternoon, Avenatti tweeted a picture of himself with Clifford and Cooper.

The interview is a big scoop for Cooper and "60 Minutes." "The president and the porn star" has been a top story this week due to allegations that date back to 2006.
Daniels has said she had a consensual relationship with Trump that year.
She gave a detailed interview about the alleged affair to In Touch magazine in 2011. The allegations could have resurfaced in the final days of the 2016 presidential election.
Related: Why it's likely Daniels will get to tell her Trump story
Several news outlets, including ABC's "Good Morning America," were in touch with Clifford about a possible interview regarding Trump.
But then she struck a deal with Trump's personal attorney Michael Cohen. She was paid $130,000 through a nondisclosure agreement.
Cohen said last month that "the payment to Ms. Clifford was lawful, and was not a campaign contribution or a campaign expenditure by anyone."
But there are growing questions about whether he ran afoul of campaign finance laws.
Meanwhile, Clifford sued Trump this week, claiming the nondisclosure agreement is void because Trump never signed it.
"That agreement is null and void. It doesn't mean anything," Avenatti told Cooper Wednesday night.
While the complex legal drama unfolds, there are also basic questions about Trump, Clifford, and the appearance of a cover-up.
As Cooper asked on "AC360" Wednesday night, "What did the president know and when did he know it about buying the silence -- and recent legal action to reinforce that silence -- about a porn star extramarital affair in the run-up to the election?"

http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/08/media/stormy-daniels-anderson-cooper/index.html

The dirt will be revealed for all to see. Poor Melania.

 

[Butler1000]

It wouldn’t matter how long ago the affair was...and if there was any suspicion that Obama violated campaign finance laws through a $130 K NDA the Tea Partiers woulda been burning Crosses on the White House lawn.

...And if there was even a hint that Obama had a mistress who had an abortion...OMFG!!!!! The Right Wingers would be rioting in the streets!!!!!

I'm sure there would be hyperpartisans taking advantage.

Just like with Trump.

But I measure this as unrelated to the office he holds.

 

[LT56]

Sorry Frankfooter, but Norman Eisen, is living in fantasyland if he believes such an ethics violation is going to result in anything more than "bad, bad, don't do that again."

As to Professor Super, he seemingly is forgetting that a signature is all important when the person who hasn't signed is the party against whom the contract is attempting to be enforced. It is not particularly important at all when the party against whom the contact is attempting to be enforced has signed (and accepted payment) and it is the party who is attempting to enforce who has not signed.

I dunno. I keep hearing differing views on this. Some say if found guilty of campaign finance violations Trump would at worst receive a slap on the wrist. Others, though, point to John Edwards where the charges were apparently quite serious even though he was not convicted.

I have a feeling nothing much will come of this but aI guess we’ll see.

 

[mandrill]

Sorry Frankfooter, but Norman Eisen, is living in fantasyland if he believes such an ethics violation is going to result in anything more than "bad, bad, don't do that again."

As to Professor Super, he seemingly is forgetting that a signature is all important when the person who hasn't signed is the party against whom the contract is attempting to be enforced. It is not particularly important at all when the party against whom the contact is attempting to be enforced has signed (and accepted payment) and it is the party who is attempting to enforce who has not signed.

My latest idling about the Cohen-Daniels contract is that a judge may well say that SD is estopped from denying the contract for the simple, obvious reason that she accepted the benefit of that contract.

 

[apoptygma]

You refer to a fetus as a child and talk about “killing” it. That’s Pro-Life terminology. I still don’t understand why you’re arguing about this.

If you’re opposed to abortion then so be it. I don’t care...be opposed.

Actually, your first comment was 'right-wing pro-lifer'.
Like the two are synonymous with each other. Like being pro-life automatically dumps you into a certain political spectrum.

 

[Butler1000]

Actually, your first comment was 'right-wing pro-lifer'.
Like the two are synonymous with each other. Like being pro-life automatically dumps you into a certain political spectrum.

Now ya know how the label feels......not nice being lumped in on a variety of issues is it?

 

[LT56]

My latest idling about the Cohen-Daniels contract is that a judge may well say that SD is estopped from denying the contract for the simple, obvious reason that she accepted the benefit of that contract.

I’m not a lawyer but this was my take also.

SOMEBODY paid Stormy to keep quiet. It doesn’t matter who paid her. The fact is that she accepted the money to keep quiet and thus agreed to the contract. Case closed...except it probably won’t be.

 

[apoptygma]

Now ya know how the label feels......not nice being lumped in on a variety of issues is it?

Sounds like you are trying to make a point. Like I lump people into labels and I am getting my just desserts. Is that what you are trying to say?

 

[Aardvark154]

I’m not a lawyer but this was my take also.

SOMEBODY paid Stormy to keep quiet. It doesn’t matter who paid her. The fact is that she accepted the money to keep quiet and thus agreed to the contract. Case closed...except it probably won’t be.

So the next interesting questions (with some obvious suspects) are: who put her up to this, and who is going to pay her huge legal costs. From what I've seen I believe she is on the hook for at least a million and a half dollars perhaps a lot more if it gets into punitive judgement territory and that is not counting her attorney's fees.

 

[Butler1000]

Sounds like you are trying to make a point. Like I lump people into labels and I am getting my just desserts. Is that what you are trying to say?

I'm glad you came to the realization all on your own. No need for my assistance.

 

[apoptygma]

I'm glad you came to the realization all on your own. No need for my assistance.

Hmm... I'd be interested in seeing some examples of me labeling people.
You surely wouldn't talk out of your ass would you? Or would you?

 

[LT56]

So the next interesting questions (with some obvious suspects) are: who put her up to this, and who is going to pay her huge legal costs. From what I've seen I believe she is on the hook for at least a million and a half dollars perhaps a lot more if it gets into punitive judgement territory and that is not counting her attorney's fees.

I’m assuming that she has concluded she can make more than $130K by selling her story, writing a book about it, making porn about it, etc. I don’t think she’s on the hook for any damages whatsoever at this point; that’s why she’s trying to slime her way out of the contract.

Alternatively, in light of the potential criminal charges facing Trump/Cohen regarding campaign finance violations maybe she has calculated that she can extort more money from them to keep her quiet.

I don’t see any heroes in this story......they are all a bunch of self-serving, manipulating, narcissistic scumbags imho.

 

[danmand]

I’m assuming that she has concluded she can make more than $130K by selling her story, writing a book about it, making porn about it, etc. I don’t think she’s on the hook for any damages whatsoever at this point; that’s why she’s trying to slime her way out of the contract.

Alternatively, in light of the potential criminal charges facing Trump/Cohen regarding campaign finance violations maybe she has calculated that she can extort more money from them to keep her quiet.

I don’t see any heroes in this story......they are all a bunch of self-serving, manipulating, narcissistic scumbags imho.

Maybe an absence of heroes, but there seems to me to be a victim. The weak and powerless Stormy has been and still is being intimidated and menaced by the rich and powerful. But that is the purpose of the legal system, so what is new about that.

 

[mandrill]

So the next interesting questions (with some obvious suspects) are: who put her up to this, and who is going to pay her huge legal costs. From what I've seen I believe she is on the hook for at least a million and a half dollars perhaps a lot more if it gets into punitive judgement territory and that is not counting her attorney's fees.

The attorney is doing it for the publicity?

Stormy is probably judgement proof and simply wants a shot at over-turning the contract and writing a $ million "tell-all" about how small Trump's dick is?

 

[LT56]

Maybe an absence of heroes, but there seems to me to be a victim. The weak and powerless Stormy has been and still is being intimidated and menaced by the rich and powerful. But that is the purpose of the legal system, so what is new about that.

But she wouldn’t be menaced if she followed the terms of the NDA. She’s the one driving this story...she’s the one suing Trump.

 

[mandrill]

Maybe an absence of heroes, but there seems to me to be a victim. The weak and powerless Stormy has been and still is being intimidated and menaced by the rich and powerful. But that is the purpose of the legal system, so what is new about that.

Seems to me that Stormy parlayed her one saleable asset into $130,000. That one asset was that she had had an affaire with Trump and he wanted to pay her to keep her mouth shut. There's nothing "unfair" about that. She sold an asset at what appeared to be a fair, remunerative price at the time.

Now that the price for her asset has increased, she wants to set aside the deal and get that higher price.

I'm not seeing a victim here. I'm seeing a businesswoman who enjoys cheating as much as Trump does. My only sympathy is that she has to deal with brain-dead Trumpanzee fanboys harassing her on Twitter 24/7. OTOH, any publicity is good publicity.

 

[danmand]

But she wouldn’t be menaced if she followed the terms of the NDA. She’s the one driving this story...she’s the one suing Trump.

Seems to me that Stormy parlayed her one saleable asset into $130,000. That one asset was that she had had an affaire with Trump and he wanted to pay her to keep her mouth shut. There's nothing "unfair" about that. She sold an asset at what appeared to be a fair, remunerative price at the time.

Now that the price for her asset has increased, she wants to set aside the deal and get that higher price.

I'm not seeing a victim here. I'm seeing a businesswoman who enjoys cheating as much as Trump does. My only sympathy is that she has to deal with brain-dead Trumpanzee fanboys harassing her on Twitter 24/7. OTOH, any publicity is good publicity.

From the get go, she was intimidated into signing a NDA, by the rich and powerful Trump with the assistance of his legal team. It was never a fair and proper deal, because the one part (Trump) was infinitely more powerful than the other part (Stormy). Are you sure Stormy had competent independent legal representation when she signed the NDA? Isn't that a requirement for the NDA to be valid?

The question nobody is asking, is: "Why should she not be able to tell her story? Trump would certainly be able to tell his side of the story."

It is, in my view a textbook case of legal intimidation and coercion by the rich and powerful. But as I mentioned above, that is the purpose of the legal system.

It goes without saying that the lawyers here cannot see it. They are inside the system.

 

[Aardvark154]

I’m assuming that she has concluded she can make more than $130K by selling her story, writing a book about it, making porn about it, etc. I don’t think she’s on the hook for any damages whatsoever at this point; that’s why she’s trying to slime her way out of the contract.

From what she has already done I'd argue that she has already triggered the penalty clause which from what I've heard is well over a million dollars So right there that is about 1.5 million, then we have the issue of if she is willingly breaking the non-disclosure agreement because she sees it as a cost of doing business, will there be punitive damages imposed

 

[bver_hunter]

Trump is the one who lied about not knowing her inspite of the revelations of the $130,000 hush money. He was trying to imply that she was yet another of those "locker room" ladies.