Stormy Sues Trump

jersey_boy

I wanted to post something with "Stormy Weather" in it:

This is not what I expected to find, but it was too amazing to not share:



Like  1 Like
LOST

She took the money. Does she intend to give it back?


Like  
conandrob240

Yeah, that's the important part. We should definitely focus on that. Lol

LOST said:

She took the money. Does she intend to give it back?



Like  
cramer

Here's the complaint - have fun! 

https://drive.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4403872/DanielsComplaint.pdf

If the court finds that the agreement is null and void, it may ask Daniels to give the money back, but then she would be free to tell her story and make a lot more than $130,000.


Like  2 Likes
cramer


cramer said:

Here's the complaint - have fun! 

https://drive.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4403872/DanielsComplaint.pdf

If the court finds that the agreement is null and void, it may ask Daniels to give the money back, but then she would be free to tell her story and make a lot more than $130,000.

Puts Trump in a tough spot - Does he (his lawyers) argue that the agreement is valid and enforceable?


Like  
Dave

Doesn't Trump want the RNC to pay for it?


Like  
unicorn33

Let's see him blame this on Obama or Hillary!


Like  1 Like
cramer

This isn't just Stormy Daniels' word vs. that of Trump. Paragraph 2.1 of the recitals in the "Hush" agreement refers to "still images and/or text messages" which Daniels has in her possession, which she agrees to turn over to Trump and not divulge to third parties. 


Like  
bub

There are some interesting legal issues here though of course not as interesting  as the personalities and the tawdriness.

For one thing, there is a fair amount of case law about whether a contract is deemed to be effective despite lack of full execution (signature) or whether full execution is a condition to  the contract's effectiveness.  I've actually litigated this before.  A problem for her is, she took the money, which would be viewed as an affirmation of the contract (Cohen's public denial of a deal, on the other hand, cuts the other way).  No idea whether there are consequences, if any, to using pseudonyms in contracts.

Another issue is whether she has to arbitrate her claim per the agreement, even if her claim is that the agreement is void/ineffective.  Seems like a maximally broad arbitration clause.  Courts generally like arbitration clauses.

The big non-legal picture is, she seems to have him by the Presidential b*lls.  He can't have this playing out in public.  How does he fight this without drawing more attention to it?  I suspect they will respond by asking the court to compel her to go to arbitration but unless they can convince the court to proceed in secret going forward, he's a big loosah anyway this plays out. 



Like  
Jasmo


unicorn33 said:

Let's see him blame this on Obama or Hillary!

He will blame it on Bill....    Meanwhile, the question of his small fingers may be settled once and for all.


Like  
Michael

contract says it could be signed by the attorney or Donald (whatever last name he used). 

The case itself gives it the publicity he was trying to avoid.  And I think if she thought she could get a big enough pay day from a tv movie or something she would return the money.  

However, this is just another distraction and unless they can prove the money came from his campaign funds, this will be much ado about nothing to his supporters.  


Like  
tjohn


mikescott said:

contract says it could be signed by the attorney or Donald (whatever last name he used). 

The case itself gives it the publicity he was trying to avoid.  And I think if she thought she could get a big enough pay day from a tv movie or something she would return the money.  

However, this is just another distraction and unless they can prove the money came from his campaign funds, this will be much ado about nothing to his supporters.  

Melania is the only one who ends up suffering - more humiliation.  Trump's other children are shameless.  And anybody who didn't understand that Trump is a complete pig of a man as of election day will never understand.


Like  2 Likes
BCC


mikescott said:

contract says it could be signed by the attorney or Donald (whatever last name he used). 

The case itself gives it the publicity he was trying to avoid.  And I think if she thought she could get a big enough pay day from a tv movie or something she would return the money.  

However, this is just another distraction and unless they can prove the money came from his campaign funds, this will be much ado about nothing to his supporters.  

Agreed. I don't know the legal ramifications here but politically he can point out this goes back 12 years. trash her in general and his supporters will buy it. He will have the usual problems with the MSM which will be dismissed by Fox, Limbaugh and others on the Right. The only shift of the needle will come if he loses the Center by stepping on his tongue as he frequently does.



Like  
bub

I think every one of these episodes peels supporters away.  Maybe not the core supporters, maybe not massive defections, but some.  The incorrigible robotic supporters are the ones who go on the internet screaming "fake news."   The queasy, on the fence from the beginning supporters don't do as much screaming.   But they vote.


Like  
yahooyahoo

It's a brilliant maneuver by Stormy.  

This scandal would have brought down any other POTUS but people don't seem to care.

cramer said:



cramer said:

Here's the complaint - have fun! 

https://drive.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4403872/DanielsComplaint.pdf

If the court finds that the agreement is null and void, it may ask Daniels to give the money back, but then she would be free to tell her story and make a lot more than $130,000.

Puts Trump in a tough spot - Does he (his lawyers) argue that the agreement is valid and enforceable?



Like  
BCC


bub said:

I think every one of these episodes peels supporters away.  Maybe not the core supporters, maybe not massive defections, but some.  The incorrigible robotic supporters are the ones who go on the internet screaming "fake news."   The queasy, on the fence from the beginning supporters don't do as much screaming.   But they vote.

This  poll,. Indicates more are sticking with him than deserting

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/31/politics/monmouth-poll-trump-approval/index.html



Like  
BCC


BCC said:



bub said:

I think every one of these episodes peels supporters away.  Maybe not the core supporters, maybe not massive defections, but some.  The incorrigible robotic supporters are the ones who go on the internet screaming "fake news."   The queasy, on the fence from the beginning supporters don't do as much screaming.   But they vote.

This was a poll,taken a while back. Indicates more are sticking with him than deserting

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/31/politics/monmouth-poll-trump-approval/index.html



Like  
bub

btw, the body of the contract seems to emphasize her signature over his - it says she must sign and has no parallel clause for him - but I don't see anything saying the lawyer gets to sign for DD.  Can you point that out to me if it exists?  That last clause about facsimile signatures etc. has nothing to do with who signs.  It's a standard contract clause meaning all of the signatures do not have to appear on the same copy.  You can have multiple copies that, taken together, show all of the signatures.  The vague "as to form" qualification for the attorney signatures also tends to suggest that the client signatures make the contract effective.   The lawyers are saying "we looked at it, it looks okay, but its the parties who are giving it effect and binding themselves to it by signing, not us."


Like  
conandrob240

what is the scandal exactly? Is this just an affair? Or more in the space of sexual harassment/assault? 


I could care less about an affair and the only one who gets hurt there is Melania and his young son. What consenting adults do is their own business. Let’s not go down this stupid path again. Surely there’s more serious stuff that could bring this man down. 




Like  
Jasmo

I think that, other than the tawdry aspects of an affair one year after he married Melania, reflecting on his character once again, it may be considered as a political effort to influence the election, and wasn't legally reported.

conandrob240 said:

what is the scandal exactly? Is this just an affair? Or more in the space of sexual harassment/assault? 




I could care less about an affair and the only one who gets hurt there is Melania and his young son. What consenting adults do is their own business. Let’s not go down this stupid path again. Surely there’s more serious stuff that could bring this man down. 



Like  
conandrob240

there’s a legal obligation to report affairs?


This one is really dumb. We know his character through much more despicable things than an affair. Who cares who he sleeps with?


Like  
Michael

the scandal is where did the money come from.  If it came from campaign funds then there are all kinds of legal issues.  


Like  1 Like
South

I think this is like when there is bad news about the economy, and it doesn't really affect stocks.  The commentators say that the market had already taken the expected bad news into account.  So Trump voters had already taken the fact that he was a cheating creep into account when they voted for him.

BCC said:



bub said:

I think every one of these episodes peels supporters away.  Maybe not the core supporters, maybe not massive defections, but some.  The incorrigible robotic supporters are the ones who go on the internet screaming "fake news."   The queasy, on the fence from the beginning supporters don't do as much screaming.   But they vote.

This  poll,. Indicates more are sticking with him than deserting

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/31/politics/monmouth-poll-trump-approval/index.html



Like  
LOST


conandrob240 said:

Yeah, that's the important part. We should definitely focus on that. Lol
LOST said:

She took the money. Does she intend to give it back?

To me it was legally significant. She agreed to do or not do something in return for money. If she wants out does she not have to give back the money. As bub explained:


bub said:

There are some interesting legal issues here though of course not as interesting  as the personalities and the tawdriness.


For one thing, there is a fair amount of case law about whether a contract is deemed to be effective despite lack of full execution (signature) or whether full execution is a condition to  the contract's effectiveness.  I've actually litigated this before.  A problem for her is, she took the money, which would be viewed as an affirmation of the contract (Cohen's public denial of a deal, on the other hand, cuts the other way).  No idea whether there are consequences, if any, to using pseudonyms in contracts.



Like  
Klinker

I feel bad for Barron but Melania could divorce this pig at any time. Divorce the pig, get a book ghost written and start a company selling some sort of fashion related nonsense.  She will be set for the rest of her life in spite of the inevitably brutal pre nup.


Like  
Klinker

As for why it is important, there are significant issues related to campaign laws.


Like  
conandrob240

ah, potential misuse of campaign funds.That makes sense. 


Like  
Klinker


conandrob240 said:

ah, potential misuse of campaign funds.That makes sense. 

I think it is more a matter of undisclosed donations (the money the lawyer paid out of his own pocket to cover up this damaging affair).


Like  
LOST

No one who voted for Trump did so because they saw him as a paragon of virtue. They voted for him because they favored tax cuts or deregulation or were vehemently opposed to abortion, or hated Hillary Clinton. There were also those who voted for him because they saw him as a great businessman. They were misinformed. And the "deplorables" voted for him because they are racists. 

Some who voted for Trump out of hate for Hillary Clinton, that is, who saw Trump as the lesser of evils, may regret it, but in any event if he runs for reelection his opponent will not be Hillary, so they are up for grabs. Those who I say were misinformed about his business skills may now be coming to realize their mistake, assuming they are paying attention. 

Those who voted for him because they favor tax cuts, deregulation and/or oppose abortion may prefer a different Republican but they are not going to vote for a Democrat. 


Of course since he won by winning about 70,000 votes in three States there may be enough people who were so clueless they didn't know what a pig he was who may actually be turned off by the porn star scandal. It's the type of thing that may actually influence those who get their news from the supermarket magazine rack.


Like  

In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.