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

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,489
11
38
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.
Surely it is the value to the purchaser that has increased, as she sees it, and thus motivated her to raise her asking price and re-negociate a deal not yet agreed to or concluded, but entered into on assumptions — by both sides — that didn't turn out to be true.

Sorta like the poor farmer asking better than a dust-bowl price from the guy, when she finds out he's an oil company geologist whose test proves there's oil under the land, and she thanks the Good Lord the signature lines are still blank.

Maybe he should appeal to her patriotism. Or promise to recognize her as First Bimbo.

They may neither of them be nice folks but …. He's still the shyster in the deal.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,768
3
0
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?
What you don't think at her next million strip club appearances it will be -- a dollar for me a dollar for President Trump :D

Well I don't know what Michael Avenatti's motivations are, however, he is professionally close to Ron Emanuel and even more than is often the case in such situations he seems to be trying this on the talk shows rather than before the arbitrator or in court.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,768
3
0
From the get go, she was intimidated into signing a NDA, by the rich and powerful Trump with the assistance of his legal team.
Oh nonsense she could have said "no" and not just no but "Hell No!" She saw easy money and as I wrote some number of posts ago never thought he would ever be elected President. Now as Oagre posted she thinks that if she can get out of the contract she will make a lot more money. But courts don't like those who break contracts for that sort of mercenary reason.
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,497
4,903
113
Oh nonsense she could have said "no" and not just no but "Hell No!" She saw easy money and as I wrote some number of posts ago never thought he would ever be elected President. Now as Oagre posted she thinks that if she can get out of the contract she will make a lot more money. But courts don't like those who break contracts for that sort of mercenary reason.
Of course not, the courts and the lawyers are there to do the dirty work of the rich and powerful. And they are doing it enthusiastically.
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
28,784
6,790
113
Oh nonsense she could have said "no" and not just no but "Hell No!" She saw easy money and as I wrote some number of posts ago never thought he would ever be elected President. Now as Oagre posted she thinks that if she can get out of the contract she will make a lot more money. But courts don't like those who break contracts for that sort of mercenary reason.
She is a porn star and has every right to milk this situation. Trump is the President and a very sleazy one at that. He is the hypocrite that paid the hush money / bribes, he has lied about it, and then used the victims of Bill Clinton to further his case with his cult followers during the debate with Hillary Clinton. No other President or leader in the world would have the respect of it's people, based on all this evidence. This is not a true contract as one of the persons named on that contract does not exist, as it is an alias name. Yes, that particular field was not signed, but the judge will definitely ask for the reason that the name was included in the contract and who it referred to. This is a violation of all election rules as there is no way that Trump's legal counsellor paid for this bribe / hush money from his own pocket and using an official email address as such. Stop making excuses for Trump, as he is in the doldrums with respect to this whole affair. Moreover, the Judge may ask to subpoena the SAW that the bank used to flag this particular transaction that the Legal Department holds in it's records.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,768
3
0
She is a porn star and has every right to milk this situation. Trump is the President and a very sleazy one at that.
Why on earth do you believe this is true or matters? Are you saying only living saints are entitled to have contractual agreements honoured?

If you remembered earlier posts you would know that a contract between two aliases is entirely valid under U.S. law (and indeed in this instance there was a separate document spelling out the real identities of each alias).

Additionally as earlier stated this is the type case where it is highly likely that a request to seal the proceedings will be made and granted.
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
75,479
83,911
113
What you don't think at her next million strip club appearances it will be -- a dollar for me a dollar for President Trump :D

Well I don't know what Michael Avenatti's motivations are, however, he is professionally close to Ron Emanuel and even more than is often the case in such situations he seems to be trying this on the talk shows rather than before the arbitrator or in court.
Harder than it looks, if you have ever tried to collect a judgment.

She advertises a strip club appearance a week beforehand. The club pays one of her numbered companies before it is served with a garnishment notice by Trump. She hides the money. Or says she spent it.
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,497
4,903
113
Harder than it looks, if you have ever tried to collect a judgment.

She advertises a strip club appearance a week beforehand. The club pays one of her numbered companies before it is served with a garnishment notice by Trump. She hides the money. Or says she spent it.
I strongly suspect there are a lot of people who would contribute a bit of cash to pay her settlement. I know I would.

In any fair and reasonable judiciary system, the NDA would be thrown out, due to the coercion and lack of competent legal representation for Stormy.

In Canada, try to have a lawyer do a fast one and talk your fiance into signing a prenuptial agreement, or your wife to sign a separation agreement without independent counsel.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
90,279
21,655
113
Why on earth do you believe this is true or matters? Are you saying only living saints are entitled to have contractual agreements honoured?

If you remembered earlier posts you would know that a contract between two aliases is entirely valid under U.S. law (and indeed in this instance there was a separate document spelling out the real identities of each alias).

Additionally as earlier stated this is the type case where it is highly likely that a request to seal the proceedings will be made and granted.
Has she broken the contract?

This thing came out because of Cohen's sloppiness. Daniels had done a published interview before the NDA and Cohen's sloppiness let the payment become public.
That's Trump's fault.

Since then she played the edge of the NDA in interviews and only became more public once Cohen confirmed he made the payment.
She now claims that the Cohen breached the contract and that Trump didn't sign it.
 

LT56

Banned
Feb 16, 2013
1,604
1
0
I strongly suspect there are a lot of people who would contribute a bit of cash to pay her settlement. I know I would.

In any fair and reasonable judiciary system, the NDA would be thrown out, due to the coercion and lack of competent legal representation for Stormy.

In Canada, try to have a lawyer do a fast one and talk your fiance into signing a prenuptial agreement, or your wife to sign a separation agreement without independent counsel.
Stormy had a lawyer at the time the NDA was being negotiated. His name is Keith Davidson. What evidence do you have that he is not competent?

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/qz.com/...zation-email-to-deal-with-stormy-daniels/amp/

What evidence do you have that Stormy was coerced into signing the agreement?
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
28,784
6,790
113
Why on earth do you believe this is true or matters? Are you saying only living saints are entitled to have contractual agreements honoured?

If you remembered earlier posts you would know that a contract between two aliases is entirely valid under U.S. law (and indeed in this instance there was a separate document spelling out the real identities of each alias).

Additionally as earlier stated this is the type case where it is highly likely that a request to seal the proceedings will be made and granted.
It matters one hundred percent when it could have also violated campaign rules. When a contractual agreement is signed by the attorney on behalf of a client, it has to be done so only after full "consultation" with that client. By Trump denying that he knows anything about this agreement or the hush money means that such a procedure was not followed and can be considered to be in "violation" of the contractual agreement. Yes, there were different documents spelling out the identities, but once again this has to be done so with the full approval of the client. So far Stormy Daniels has been offered over a million dollars each by ten different sources to disclose everything about her affair with Trump. She has not agreed to do so, until it is legally possible. But her attorney has the trump card in this case as I explained.

No use making any more excuses for Trump. That is why The Fox News network are sheepishly avoiding discussing this whole affair. I Have watched Tucker Carlson and Hannity for three days in a row and only Carlson has mentioned it in passing. Not a word from Hannity about it. Ironically Hannity berated Obama about that photo session with Farrakhan prior to the 2008 election for trying to hide it under the carpet. He swore that the results of that election would have been so different if that photo session was made public. So laughable, that this is exactly what his cult leader Trump did during his campaign, and over and above paid $130,000 in hush / bribe money, something Obama did not do.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,768
3
0

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
28,784
6,790
113
Goodness know why you have posted that link???

Anyway, it is true, as that is what a legal contract drawn on behalf of a client is supposed to be done so "AFTER THE CONSULTATION WITH THE CLIENT":

Otherwise, can attorney's lawyers come up with contracts / legal documents implicating the clients, but without their knowledge?

Simple question!!
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,497
4,903
113
Stormy had a lawyer at the time the NDA was being negotiated. His name is Keith Davidson. What evidence do you have that he is not competent?

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/qz.com/...zation-email-to-deal-with-stormy-daniels/amp/

What evidence do you have that Stormy was coerced into signing the agreement?
It is obvious that she did not have competent and independent advice. Who in their right mind would agree to an NDA for $130,000 with a penalty clause of $1,000,000. These are worse odds than in one of Trumps casinos.
I suspect Stormy's lawyer was on the take from Trump.
 
Last edited:

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
28,784
6,790
113
The hearing for the lawsuit filed by the Lovely Stormy Daniels has been set for July 12 at the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

A couple of months before the mid term elections. Very interesting indeed.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
90,279
21,655
113
The hearing for the lawsuit filed by the Lovely Stormy Daniels has been set for July 12 at the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

A couple of months before the mid term elections. Very interesting indeed.
Buzzfeed has a good legal move.
Since they're being sued by Cohen over the piss dossier, they've called for Daniels to preserve all evidence of hush money, relationship and records of a relationship with Trump.
They argue that since this is similar to the central thesis of the piss dossier, it should be brought up in court.

So now that will cancel out the NDA.

Well played, buzzfeed.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/14/buzzfeed-stormy-daniels-trump-462261
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
90,279
21,655
113
^ Really you honestly believe the judge is going to agree with this?
You don't get it.
It doesn't matter anymore.

Daniels will get her story out through 60 Minutes.
And she's raising money in case she loses at court, so she'll end up winning either way.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,768
3
0
You don't get it.
It doesn't matter anymore.

Daniels will get her story out through 60 Minutes.
And she's raising money in case she loses at court, so she'll end up winning either way.
Perhaps if there is a sympathetic judge. As a template as to how to behave when you have signed a non-disclosure agreement. Well good luck having a positive outcome.
 
Last edited:
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts