Only the parts that were obvious nonsense, like every american should be defended.
The Death Spiral
- Thread starter RxCowboy
- Start date
- Status
NDAs are usually executed because one party doesn't want information disclosed. That's kind of the point. And she had to pay back the money because she disclosed anyway. Last we heard from her she was making appearances at titty bars in western Kansas and her creepy porn lawyer was in jail for tryna blackmail Nike.
HacklemanPoke
Deputy
Why do you have to defend him? There is nothing to defend. He is no longer president. If 23 people hear evidence that you and I haven’t and 12 of those regular people vote to bring 34 charges then shouldn’t we wait to see what those charges are?
I’m just saying don’t cheat on your wife and then don’t arrange for payment to keep it quiet and then don’t reimburse someone who paid to keep it quiet.
If he did those things even if he didn’t cheat on his wife, don’t you want it investigated and if laws were broken let the process reach its natural conclusion? Let another jury decide if he’s proven guilty based on evidence?
It isn't, and his AG didn't. His AG had more sense and acted like a responsible adult.
But this takes us further down the death spiral because it is actually happening. You know, like when Pelosi refused seats to Republicans on investigatory committees and now that Republicans are in charge of the House they are doing the same thing to Democrats. Political tit for tat. It's like when Harry Reid changed the Senate rules not realizing that the rule changes could bite the Dems in the ass when they were no long in control of the Senate. Faster and faster down the death spiral. And you seem to be for it. I want it to stop. Stopping it requires political courage which absolutely no one in Washington has.
HacklemanPoke
Deputy
Where do you see she paid back the money? Who did she pay and why?
It won't reach a jury. It can't. It's bootstrapping.
One question for you and @RxCowboy should a former president ever be investigated?
HacklemanPoke
Deputy
Where do I say I’m for any of the stuff you say is happening in Congress?
I’m all for if anyone has acted against the law they should be treated in accordance w the law. I don’t care which team you play for.
Are we supposed to let a candidate for President, a sitting President or a former president commit crimes?
Let’s just say Trump acted illegally in 2016 leading up to the election. Take the alleged affair off the table. Does he get off Scott free just because he is a candidate who happens to be a former president? What is the solution?
1. Its Friday afternoon, I have all my work done and im bored. This is a new site and a Trump conversations bring people out of the woodwork.
The rest I'm cool with especially the last sentence. I just think this is a dicey thing and scary and the absolute best outcome for the subject is he spends time in jail. The other way around and we no longer have a country.
HacklemanPoke
Deputy
Help me out. I usually know bootstrapping in a couple of different contexts. How are you using it here?
Stormy Daniels must pay $300k to Donald Trump after losing defamation case appeal
“I will go to jail before I pay a penny,” the adult film actor tweeted after an appeals court ruled against her.
March 22, 2022, 1:36 PM EDT / Updated March 22, 2022, 4:53 PM EDT
By Dareh Gregorian
Adult film star Stormy Daniels has lost her appeal in her failed defamation suit against Donald Trump — leaving her owing almost $300,000 in legal fees to the former president.
"I will go to jail before I pay a penny," Daniels tweeted Monday after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against her in the long-running case.
Trump hailed the ruling by the appeals court, which he often bashed as president, calling it "a total and complete victory and vindication for, and of me."
Michael Avenatti filed the defamation suit against Trump in 2018, when he was Daniels' lawyer. Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, said in a statement Tuesday that Avenatti had filed the suit "without my permission and against my wishes."
"Once it was filed, Trump's lawyers overwhelmed Avenatti and I was left the victim of an attorney's fee award," she added, calling it a "sad reality" that a "predator" like Trump "can openly brag about assaulting women and become president and be awarded money for his bad behavior."
Michael Cohen, then a lawyer for Trump, paid Daniels $130,000 before the 2016 presidential election to remain silent about a sexual encounter she alleged she had had with the married Trump in 2006.
Trump has denied the encounter happened, and he did so again in his statement Monday. "As I have stated many times throughout the years, I never had an affair with Stormy Daniels, nor would I ever have wanted to," he said.
After news of the hush money payment became public, Daniels said she was menaced and warned to keep quiet about the allegation in 2011, when a man approached her while she was with her infant daughter in Las Vegas and told her to "leave Trump alone."
She said the man then looked at her daughter and said: "That's a beautiful little girl. It'd be a shame if something happened to her mom."
Daniels and Avenatti released a sketch of the man in 2018, which Trump mocked on Twitter.
“A sketch years later about a nonexistent man. A total con job, playing the Fake News Media for Fools (but they know it)!” Trump tweeted.
Daniels' lawsuit called Trump's tweet "false and defamatory."
"Mr. Trump knew that his false, disparaging statement would be read by people around the world, as well as widely reported, and that Ms. Clifford would be subjected to threats of violence, economic harm, and reputational damage as a result," it said.
A federal judge in California, however, sided with Trump and found that the tweet “constitutes ‘rhetorical hyperbole’ normally associated with politics and public discourse in the United States.”
“The First Amendment protects this type of rhetorical statement,” Judge James Otero wrote, finding that Trump was entitled to attorneys’ fees in the case.
The 9th Circuit upheld the ruling Friday, finding in part that Daniels had waited too long to challenge the lower court's ruling. In her statement Tuesday, Daniels blamed Avenatti for the delay.
Daniels' new attorneys did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Avenatti was found guilty this year of wire fraud and identity theft for wrongly pocketing about $300,000 of the $800,000 advance Daniels was paid for her book, “Full Disclosure.”
He was also convicted in 2020 of extortion, wire fraud and transmission of interstate communications with intent to extort in connection with threats he made against Nike, the sports equipment and apparel giant. Last year, a federal judge sentenced him to 2½ years behind bars for those crimes.
HacklemanPoke
Deputy
I’m cool w that line of thought. I’m actually conflicted. I don’t think it’s ok to use any of these investigations as leverage by either party to get him to not run. But on the same hand I don’t know how you send a former President to jail.
My point is that there is one person to blame for this. It’s not the democrats for doing any of the things that Rx legitimately pointed out. It’s not the republicans for getting behind a guy who advocated the same thing for his opponent or who impeached a president for lying about Oral sex.
If Trump didn’t want to be investigated by a grand jury he should have been open about the payments and their purpose.
Bootstrapping is trying to claim jurisdiction over a nonjurisdictional matter. The felony Bragg is claim is under federal campaign law, not New York state law. Bragg can only charge crimes under New York or Manhattan statutes and they must have occurred in Manhattan. Bragg wouldn't, for instance, have jurisdiction, if the money were paid at Mar a Lago. To try to claim a crime had been committed in Manhattan, because Trump owns property in Manhattan, when the transaction occurred in Florida, is bootstrapping. To try to use federal law in order to make a felony out of what is a misdemeanor under New York law is bootstrapping, because Bragg has no jurisdiction.
He probably should have lost to Hillary. It was obvious from election night that we were going to become eerily close to Beria. I didn't agree with the Clinton mess because I knew this would happen eventually. Tit for tat. Also his biggest crime was beating 41. Plus we were that close to having Al Freaking Gore as president.
Clinton didn't "lie about oral sex". Clinton lied under oath about oral sex. He committed perjury. A sitting president committed perjury. He was disbarred for it. Whatever Trump may or may not have done with Stormy Daniels prior to running for president was an orange. Clinton committing perjury while in office was an apple.
And, oh, by the way, she was an intern, an employee, who was half his age. I cannot imagine a greater difference in power between a white house intern and the president of the united states. It could not be more inappropriate. Where are the feminists to condemn it?
You should also be for prosecutors acting by the rules that they are governed by and not acting by political motivations, regardless of the parties involved. Statutes of limitations are statutes of limitations for good reasons. Misdemeanors and felonies are what they are for good reasons. Jurisdictional boundaries are what they are for good reasons. They all actually protect us common folk. We allow those lines to be torn down at our own peril.
If you go back and look at the data from the 2016 primaries, the primaries that Trump won were open primaries, ones where anyone could vote. Closed primaries and caucuses were won by Ted Cruz, who finished second to Trump. Trump certainly wasn't who I wanted. Cruz would have lost to Hillary. My contention is that there were a lot of Dems that voted in the open primaries because they wanted Trump to be the Republican candidate because they thought he would be easy to beat. Instead, he was the one candidate they couldn't beat. If not for covid they wouldn't have beaten him in 2020 either.
I'm no longer a Republican after the Jan 6 garbage. It was too much for me.
I absolutely agree.
Except I haven't been a republican since John McCain won the nom.
I should add that both myself and the other mods have personal political opinions that are our own, differ from one another and do not represent the site, which is apolitical, etc.
I think the hand wringing over this indictment is pretty overblown. It appears the former president broke the law. If one of us did what he did, we would be in jail. Convicting a former president is not a bad trend, hell, Sarkozy was/is in jail for corruption in France and I would argue their democracy functions better than ours.
I think the case could be made that our current/last 4 presidents broke laws that any one of us would/should go to prison for. Bush for launching a war knowingly on false pretenses (we could even make a case for war crimes), Obama for extrajudicial killings of american citizens, Trump for this, embezzlement and a litany of other things and Joe for his likely cover for his son's crimes.
Our bar is on the floor at this point.
I think the hand wringing over this indictment is pretty overblown. It appears the former president broke the law. If one of us did what he did, we would be in jail. Convicting a former president is not a bad trend, hell, Sarkozy was/is in jail for corruption in France and I would argue their democracy functions better than ours.
I think the case could be made that our current/last 4 presidents broke laws that any one of us would/should go to prison for. Bush for launching a war knowingly on false pretenses (we could even make a case for war crimes), Obama for extrajudicial killings of american citizens, Trump for this, embezzlement and a litany of other things and Joe for his likely cover for his son's crimes.
Our bar is on the floor at this point.
That is a depressing post.
- Status
Similar threads
