https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/stormy-daniels-sues-trump-says-hush-agreement-invalid-because-he-n854246
The outcome in court is unknown, but she signed a non-disclosure agreement that she would not talk about the affair she had with Trump, who is named as an alias in the agreement as David Dennison. But Trump or David Dennison never signed it. Instead, his attorney signed it, and whether that suffices has to be decided by the court.
Either way, Trump had an affair with a porn star, which I don't really care about, but I like watching the underlying hypocrisy, and it's funny topic. And the public knows about it, not that the public cares either, but apparently Trump cares. In the end, this is really about money. If Stormy wins she gets to be on TV and write a book. If Trump wins, Stormy will probably have to pay Trump or at least write a check to one David Dennison, because she has already disclosed the non-disclosure. And money is money. It goes in the profit column.
Meanwhile, I don't know what Trump supporters are making of all this. I suppose it depends on how you define the word, "this". I hope Stormy wins, because she's a dish, and Trump isn't much to look at. That should be an exhibit entered into the court records as far as I'm concerned, and the judges should consider it, because that would add to the absurdity of the whole thing.
Quote from: SGOS on March 07, 2018, 10:22:12 AM
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/stormy-daniels-sues-trump-says-hush-agreement-invalid-because-he-n854246
The outcome in court is unknown, but she signed a non-disclosure agreement that she would not talk about the affair she had with Trump, who is named as an alias in the agreement as David Dennison. But Trump or David Dennison never signed it. Instead, his attorney signed it, and whether that suffices has to be decided by the court.
Either way, Trump had an affair with a porn star, which I don't really care about, but I like watching the underlying hypocrisy, and it's funny topic. And the public knows about it, not that the public cares either, but apparently Trump cares. In the end, this is really about money. If Stormy wins she gets to be on TV and write a book. If Trump wins, Stormy will probably have to pay Trump or at least write a check to one David Dennison, because she has already disclosed the non-disclosure. And money is money. It goes in the profit column.
Meanwhile, I don't know what Trump supporters are making of all this. I suppose it depends on how you define the word, "this". I hope Stormy wins, because she's a dish, and Trump isn't much to look at. That should be an exhibit entered into the court records as far as I'm concerned, and the judges should consider it, because that would add to the absurdity of the whole thing.
Saw a snippet of a panel talking about this (on CNN) and an evangelical trump supporter (reminded me of an athletic supporter--ie jock strap) who did not care about the porn star story--he is simply so appreciative that abortion will soon be a thing of the past. As I've known for quite some time now, all christians are hypocrites--the more ardent they are the bigger and more blatant their hypocrisy is.
A Washington DC bar is now offering the Stormy Daniels. $9. Here's their ad:
“We don’t know much about politics, but we do know a dirty cocktail when we see one. Introducing the Stormy Daniels, $9 all weekend long,†The Brighton tweeted on Saturday. A bartender told TheWrap the drink is a configuration of the the old classic, “Dark and Stormy,†which usually is made with rum and ginger beer. “It’s a delightfully delicious southern-American style ‘Dark and Stormy’ with Jack Daniels instead of rum,†the bar’s manager, Chris Janiak, told TheWrap. “It’s really delicious.â€
(https://www.thewrap.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/PicMonkey-Collage.jpg)
Trump gettin' it iiinnnnnn
(waits for Republican indignant puritanry to fire up the same way it did over Bill Clinton getting a blow job)
(continues waiting)
(crickets chirp)
(continues waiting)
(crickets continue chirping)
(continues waiting)
(crickets die of exhaustion from all the chirping)
Quote from: trdsf on March 07, 2018, 12:46:41 PM
(waits for Republican indignant puritanry to fire up the same way it did over Bill Clinton getting a blow job)
To be fair; the world - the republicans and the people they appeal to - have changed much in the past 20 years. And half have already vocalised their distaste for trump.
But yes, all D and R party politicians are indeed retarded, corrupt hypocrites.
I can't wait for the Ds as part of the rejection of Weinstein et al, and blind to the Clinton sex ring ... will decide to become Catholic monks and nuns, and renounce reproduction entirely ;-) Yes, D party ... sex is evil, only Republicans do it ... bwahah.
Quote from: trdsf on March 07, 2018, 12:46:41 PM
(waits for Republican indignant puritanry to fire up the same way it did over Bill Clinton getting a blow job)
(continues waiting)
(crickets chirp)
(continues waiting)
(crickets continue chirping)
(continues waiting)
(crickets die of exhaustion from all the chirping)
Haha ... Clinton is the boss, he can do the saxophone while taking a blow job, and is wife is taking a bribe from Qatar at the same time!
No ethics, no morality, no legality should impede the pleasure principle .. message brought to you from the 1960s.
Since Trump broke the NDA first, I don't fancy his chances in court.
Quote from: Jason78 on March 07, 2018, 01:28:47 PM
Since Trump broke the NDA first, I don't fancy his chances in court.
I don't know if non disclosure agreements are mutually binding or not. But if Trump has talked about it, then it's out there and public knowledge, anyway. It would be useless to pay someone to sign such an agreement, if the other party was going to talk about it anyway. I just heard about this today, and don't know all the details. I was under the impression the Trump has refused to talk about the alleged affair. On the other hand, he paid her not to talk about it, which is pretty much the same thing as admitting she has something damaging to talk about, although the damage has now been done. The only thing left to gain is a monetary settlement.
Another porn star, one Jenna Jameson, associated with Stormy, tweeted that these kinds of publicities are usually career breakers for porn stars. Jameson said the left will think Stormy is a whore, and the right will think she's a rat, so it's a lose lose for Stormy. Jameson may know more than me about that, but I'm still skeptical.
I thought it was our Fearless Leader's lawyer who paid her off, with $130,000 his own money.
Here he complains the he didn't get reimbursed for it (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/376791-trump-lawyer-complained-he-wasnt-reimbursed-for-payment-to-stormy).
Quote from: SGOS on March 07, 2018, 04:29:35 PM
Another porn star, one Jenna Jameson, associated with Stormy, tweeted that these kinds of publicities are usually career breakers for porn stars. Jameson said the left will think Stormy is a whore, and the right will think she's a rat, so it's a lose lose for Stormy. Jameson may know more than me about that, but I'm still skeptical.
I think either way she'll be able to write (probably with help) a book and make millions.
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 07, 2018, 04:30:32 PM
I thought it was our Fearless Leader's lawyer who paid her off, with $130,000 his own money.
Here he complains the he didn't get reimbursed for it (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/376791-trump-lawyer-complained-he-wasnt-reimbursed-for-payment-to-stormy).
Well, he won't be the first employee to be stiffed by Trump.
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 07, 2018, 12:50:05 PM
To be fair; the world - the republicans and the people they appeal to - have changed much in the past 20 years. And half have already vocalised their distaste for trump.
Does this position extend to the ballot box? If not, it's worthless hypocrisy.
Quote from: Hydra009 on March 07, 2018, 06:35:19 PM
Does this position extend to the ballot box? If not, it's worthless hypocrisy.
What do you mean to say? That everyone who voted for trump necessarily adored him?
It's funny how everyone preaches "the lesser of two evils" but fails to realise there exists people who think *your* lesser evil is actually the bigger evil. Not all your political opponents are just cookie-cutter backwater rednecks who suck every republican dick unquestioningly, though I know it makes life simpler for you to think that.
Hillary is fucked. Trump is fucked. A sizable chunk - probably close to half for both - of both candidates voters didn't actually like the candidate all that much - they just thought they were less shitty than the alternative.
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 07, 2018, 06:44:15 PMWhat do you mean to say? That everyone who voted for trump necessarily adored him?
I'm talking about in the future elections. If Trump runs for re-election and these people vote for him, that's proof positive for where they truly stand.
Hell, there were warning signs with Trump well before the 2016 election and these people voted for him anyway. Even during scandal after scandal in his first year in office, conservatives have largely stood by their favorite buffoon with a sickening fervor. Trump himself alluded to it during the campaign:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTACH1eVIaA
Frankly, I don't trust these people to make any sort of moral stand.
Quote from: Hydra009 on March 07, 2018, 07:04:49 PM
I'm talking about in the future elections. If Trump runs for re-election and these people vote for him, that's proof positive for where they truly stand.
Doesn't follow. It's possible to vote for trump twice - without unconditionally supporting his politics both times. It just means you thought he was the lesser evil *both* times. Is this not a conceivable notion in your mind?
In my world, you can't repudiate a politician and yet somehow also support that politician.
A lot of people are single issue voters, so many of them may hate Chump but still vote for him because they think believe he'll give them what they want in their single issue.
Quote from: SGOS on March 07, 2018, 04:19:25 PM
I don't know if non disclosure agreements are mutually binding or not. But if Trump has talked about it, then it's out there and public knowledge, anyway. It would be useless to pay someone to sign such an agreement, if the other party was going to talk about it anyway. I just heard about this today, and don't know all the details. I was under the impression the Trump has refused to talk about the alleged affair. On the other hand, he paid her not to talk about it, which is pretty much the same thing as admitting she has something damaging to talk about, although the damage has now been done. The only thing left to gain is a monetary settlement.
It is always about money. If he hadn't become President, the scammers wouldn't feel the need to squeeze him further. But he set himself up, didn't he?
The embarrassing part must be his really small hands ... chuckle!
Quote from: Hydra009 on March 07, 2018, 07:04:49 PM
I'm talking about in the future elections. If Trump runs for re-election and these people vote for him, that's proof positive for where they truly stand.
Hell, there were warning signs with Trump well before the 2016 election and these people voted for him anyway. Even during scandal after scandal in his first year in office, conservatives have largely stood by their favorite buffoon with a sickening fervor. Trump himself alluded to it during the campaign:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTACH1eVIaA
Frankly, I don't trust these people to make any sort of moral stand.
Yes, FEMA camps for Democrats ... can't wait, can you? Nobody here has any morals, do you? On what basis, QFT?
Quote from: Hydra009 on March 07, 2018, 07:34:29 PM
In my world, you can't repudiate a politician and yet somehow also support that politician.
Well enjoy the weather on Planet Vulcan then.
Quote from: Hydra009 on March 07, 2018, 07:34:29 PM
In my world, you can't repudiate a politician and yet somehow also support that politician.
In your world, can you dislike a politician just short of repudiation, and then vote for that politician despite not supporting him/her unconditionally?
If so I think we're living in the same one, man.
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 07, 2018, 08:30:46 PM
In your world, can you dislike a politician just short of repudiation, and then vote for that politician despite not supporting him/her unconditionally?
If so I think we're living in the same one, man.
I never supported my wife, unconditionally ... why would I do that for a slimy politician I don't even know personally? If I ever supported any politician, and I did a few, even Obama ... it was with the realization that they were compulsive liars.
Quote from: Baruch on March 07, 2018, 08:35:29 PM
If I ever supported any politician, and I did a few, even Obama ... it was with the realization that they were compulsive liars.
Anyone that supports a politician without this realisation is an idiot.
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 07, 2018, 08:36:31 PM
Anyone that supports a politician without this realisation is an idiot.
Planet of the Ape Voters ... get your bananas here!
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 07, 2018, 08:30:46 PM
In your world, can you dislike a politician just short of repudiation, and then vote for that politician despite not supporting him/her unconditionally?
Yes. I now note that your statement that "half [of conservatives] have already vocalised their distaste for trump" means functionally nothing. It certainly makes it appear like there's some sort of rift between Trump and conservatives yet after questioning, you've revealed that this position is fully compatible with supporting Trump 100%. There's nowhere where the rubber hits the road; where words translate into action. Like I said initially, it's simply rank hypocrisy.
If conservatives "dislike" Trump, but vote for him, support his embattled presidency at every turn, and then pledge to vote for him again(!), what does that tell you about them?
Or, to put it another way, if I said that I "dislike" the Iraq War yet I supported the lead up to war, justified the war for years, and even maintain to this day that it was a good idea, what conclusion would you inevitably draw about me?
Quote from: Hydra009 on March 07, 2018, 10:46:39 PM
Yes. I now note that your statement that "half [of conservatives] have already vocalised their distaste for trump" means functionally nothing. It certainly makes it appear like there's some sort of rift between Trump and conservatives yet after questioning, you've revealed that this position is fully compatible with supporting Trump 100%.
Correct: It's not at all inconsistent for one to vote for a candidate which one doesn't really like, if the alternative is worse in ones estimation.
Quote from: trdsf on March 07, 2018, 12:46:41 PM
(waits for Republican indignant puritanry to fire up the same way it did over Bill Clinton getting a blow job)
(continues waiting)
(crickets chirp)
(continues waiting)
(crickets continue chirping)
(continues waiting)
(crickets die of exhaustion from all the chirping)
Yeah, waiting for the outraged Republican moralists to condemn Trump is silent crickets. Let a Democrat admit he posed for pictures with 100 families and admit he placed one hand wrongly from tiredness and they are demanding that person be hanged. Let there be proof that Trump as routinely cheated on all his wives frequently? Silence.
Honesty is when you demand those you support and those you don't be held to equal standards. You don't get that from Republicans these days... Just crickets...
QuoteA former attorney and adviser of Donald Trump stunned “Fox & Friends†anchors on Wednesday with a revelation about a lawsuit filed Tuesday by Stephanie Clifford (aka Stormy Daniels). Jay Goldberg, who represented the president in both of his divorces, told show hosts that Clifford may have a point that her nondisclosure agreement with Trump is invalid if he didn’t sign it.
“It’s true. An agreement, you need the signature of both parties,†he said. “And if there’s no signature by him, it’s not valid.†Goldberg added that courts tend to look at “nondisclosure agreements†skeptically “because it impairs negatively on the right of free speech.â€
The whole thing about Trump not signing the agreement puzzles me greatly. Any agreement between two parties requires signatures. Can someone come up with an exception? The agreement even provides a space for Trump's alias, David Dennison, to sign. How could you possibly not sign such an agreement designed to include your signature?
Afraid of leaving a paper trail that would allow your attorney to collect a debt of $130,000?
Afraid of leaving a paper trail that ties you to personally damaging behavior?
Sloppy legal work?
Quote from: SGOS on March 08, 2018, 10:12:54 AM
The whole thing about Trump not signing the agreement puzzles me greatly. Any agreement between two parties requires signatures. Can someone come up with an exception? The agreement even provides a space for Trump's alias, David Dennison, to sign. How could you possibly not sign such an agreement designed to include your signature?
Afraid of leaving a paper trail that would allow your attorney to collect a debt of $130,000?
Afraid of leaving a paper trail that ties you to personally damaging behavior?
Sloppy legal work?
Yes, in my opinion. But a conservative lawyer on MSNBC argued that "performance" of a contract is as good as a signature. Most other lawyers on TV disagreed though... I think Trump's lawyers would, in any other situation, would claim that "if you didn't sign it, there is no contract".
I assume that is the way the courts would go.
What does "performance" of a contract mean?
Quote from: SGOS on March 08, 2018, 10:27:32 AM
What does "performance" of a contract mean?
Apparently, that if you do what a contract says, even if you don't sign it, it has legal force. Most lawyers say that is a bad legal argument though. And it makes sense to that it is not. What is an unsigned contract worth? What is the point of signing one otherwise?
Yeah, I looked up performance of contract. It talks about it as being a way to fulfill a contract, but it doesn't deal with both parties agreeing to the contract. It does seem like Stormy's signature is the important one here. She is agreeing to abide by a document. On the other hand who is she agreeing with? Trump, David Dennison, or a disinterested mediating 3rd party who will not be affected by her performance?
It seems like the court must determine that Trump requested the 3rd Party to initiate the agreement. Trump could say, "Yes, I requested the agreement," but then he is admitting adultery which he currently denies. Beyond the scandal, which few people care about (or do they?), the only thing is the money, which presumably is owed to the attorney.
Quote from: SGOS on March 08, 2018, 10:51:53 AM
Yeah, I looked up performance of contract. It talks about it as being a way to fulfill a contract, but it doesn't deal with both parties agreeing to the contract. It does seem like Stormy's signature is the important one here. She is agreeing to abide by a document. On the other hand who is she agreeing with? Trump, David Dennison, or a disinterested mediating 3rd party who will not be affected by her performance?
It seems like the court must determine that Trump requested the 3rd Party to initiate the agreement. Trump could say, "Yes, I requested the agreement," but then he is admitting adultery which he currently denies. Beyond the scandal, which few people care about (or do they?), the only thing is the money, which presumably is owed to the attorney.
I think Trump and his lawyer are in more trouble whichever way he goes. From what I have heard the best discussions of this, either he has to admit to an affair for which he paid ridiculous money to shut up, OR his lawyer made an illegal campaign fund, given the timing. Guess who Trump will throw under the tank?
Quote from: SGOS on March 08, 2018, 10:51:53 AM
Yeah, I looked up performance of contract. It talks about it as being a way to fulfill a contract, but it doesn't deal with both parties agreeing to the contract. It does seem like Stormy's signature is the important one here. She is agreeing to abide by a document. On the other hand who is she agreeing with? Trump, David Dennison, or a disinterested mediating 3rd party who will not be affected by her performance?
It seems like the court must determine that Trump requested the 3rd Party to initiate the agreement. Trump could say, "Yes, I requested the agreement," but then he is admitting adultery which he currently denies. Beyond the scandal, which few people care about (or do they?), the only thing is the money, which presumably is owed to the attorney.
Law of Agency ... if someone is your agent, or presents as your agent ... then what they agree to, or sign, is binding on the original party.
Quote from: Baruch on March 08, 2018, 02:14:03 PM
Law of Agency ... if someone is your agent, or presents as your agent ... then what they agree to, or sign, is binding on the original party.
1. Then Trump admits to the facts.
2. Then Trump's lawyer was paying on his behalf. But IF so, the lawyer made an illegal campaign donation.
or 3. The document was never completed according to the law.
Quote from: Cavebear on March 08, 2018, 03:33:21 PM
1. Then Trump admits to the facts.
2. Then Trump's lawyer was paying on his behalf. But IF so, the lawyer made an illegal campaign donation.
or 3. The document was never completed according to the law.
Yes, it stinks all over, he should have had Bill Arkancide the witnesses. What are friends for?
Quote from: Cavebear on March 08, 2018, 03:33:21 PM
1. Then Trump admits to the facts.
No, shit. He fucked the hell out of her and probably came inside her 3 times before the night was done.
Quote from: Baruch on March 08, 2018, 07:43:23 PM
Yes, it stinks all over, he should have had Bill Arkancide the witnesses. What are friends for?
Well, aside from the fact that he shouldn't have done that stuff. he would have been better off at the start of his Presidency just admitting to it. His fans wouldn't have cared and his opponents wouldn't have had that to talk about for long. He's just a fool.
I heard someone today say that Trump going to N Korea is like Nixon going to China. Except that Nixon wasn't a moron...
Quote from: Cavebear on March 12, 2018, 02:09:38 AM
Well, aside from the fact that he shouldn't have done that stuff. he would have been better off at the start of his Presidency just admitting to it. His fans would have cared and his opponents wouldn't have had that to talk about for long. He's just a fool.
I heard someone today say that Trump going to N Korea is like Nixon going to China. Except that Nixon wasn't a moron...
Nixon was a dog lover. Enough said ;-)
President Cleveland was accused of fathering a child out of wedlock, with someone not his wife ... he said (paraphrased) Damn Right!
Quote from: Baruch on March 12, 2018, 06:46:32 AM
Nixon was a dog lover. Enough said ;-)
President Cleveland was accused of fathering a child out of wedlock, with someone not his wife ... he said (paraphrased) Damn Right!
"Out of wedlock" WOULD have been "with someone not his wife", yes... That's sort of how it works.
Quote from: Cavebear on March 12, 2018, 07:11:28 AM
"Out of wedlock" WOULD have been "with someone not his wife", yes... That's sort of how it works.
He was married, to another woman. Technically he was out of wedlock with the harlot he laid.
Quote from: Baruch on March 12, 2018, 07:13:54 AM
He was married, to another woman. Technically he was out of wedlock with the harlot he laid.
That's what I said. Go re-read it.