Stormy is Sueing DT

[kadee79]

Donald Trump never signed the nondisclosure agreement that his lawyer arranged with adult film star Stormy Daniels, according to a lawsuit filed by Daniels in Los Angeles Tuesday and obtained by NBC News.

The suit alleges that her agreement not to disclose her "intimate" relationship with Trump is not valid because while both Daniels and Trump's attorney Michael Cohen signed it, Trump never did.

Stephanie Clifford, known professionally as Stormy Daniels, signed both the agreement and a side letter agreement using her professional name on October 28, 2016, just days before the 2016 presidential election. Cohen signed the document the same day. Both agreements are appended to the lawsuit as Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2.



The "hush agreement," as it's called in the suit, refers to Trump throughout as David Dennison, and Clifford as Peggy Peterson. The side letter agreement reveals the true identities of the parties as Clifford and Trump.

www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/stormy-daniels-sues-trump-says-agreement-invalid-because-he-never-signed/ar-BBJXOEQ?li=BBnb7Kz

[Tennesseer]

[steff]

Her suit also alludes to "texts & pics".   OH dear gawd there's an orange  dick pic out there.   I don't know whether to throw up or giggle hysterically. 

[tallguy]

Mar 6, 2018 21:11:38 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

All of a sudden all that crap's comin' down
And Don's world is cloudy and gray
She didn't go away
Oh Stormy, oh Stormy
Bring that man down today

[irishpad]

But you know, it's OK for President Donald Trump to do this but not OK for President Bill Clinton to do this.    After all, he is Donald Trump so that excuses all, including being smug about calling attention to President Clinton's infidelity by having his sexual partners present at a debate with candidate Hillary Clinton.     There is no hope for this country if we (as a country) accept this blatant hypocrisy.  

[Tennesseer]

Mar 6, 2018 22:58:31 GMT -5 irishpad said:

But you know, it's OK for President Donald Trump to do this but not OK for President Bill Clinton to do this.    After all, he is Donald Trump so that excuses all, including being smug about calling attention to President Clinton's infidelity by having his sexual partners present at a debate with candidate Hillary Clinton.     There is no hope for this country if we (as a country) accept this blatant hypocrisy.  

Prior to swearing the oath of office on the Lincoln bible, the same bible Obama swore the oath of office, twice, trump found his Lord and Savior. So all is forgiven by his supporters.

All the other bad news about trump post inauguration is just fake news according to his fans.

[happyhoix]

I don't really understand her lawsuit.

So Trump never signed the document, which allows her to now talk publically about that - I get it. So she can ignore the document and tell whoever she wants (or whoever can stand to hear the details). What does she have to sue about?

As a side note, who wants to place bets that Trump is having to pay Melania a certain amount of money per year so she won't divorce him - at least not until he's no longer president? 

After all, he paid his first wife a chunk of money for every baby she had. Everything has a price tag in Trumpland.

 

[andi9899]

Mar 6, 2018 21:15:20 GMT -5 steff said:

Her suit also alludes to "texts & pics".   OH dear gawd there's an orange  dick pic out there.   I don't know whether to throw up or giggle hysterically. 

I giggled hysterically. Thank you! I so needed that!

[swamp]

Mar 7, 2018 12:52:35 GMT -5 andi9899 said:

Mar 6, 2018 21:15:20 GMT -5 steff said:

Her suit also alludes to "texts & pics".   OH dear gawd there's an orange  dick pic out there.   I don't know whether to throw up or giggle hysterically. 

I giggled hysterically. Thank you! I so needed that!

It probably looks like one of those candy circus peanuts.   

[andi9899]

Mar 7, 2018 13:00:16 GMT -5 swamp said:

Mar 7, 2018 12:52:35 GMT -5 andi9899 said:

I giggled hysterically. Thank you! I so needed that!

It probably looks like one of those candy circus peanuts.   

Hahahaha! I love you.

[billisonboard]

Mar 7, 2018 12:25:00 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

I don't really understand her lawsuit.

So Trump never signed the document, which allows her to now talk publically about that - I get it. So she can ignore the document and tell whoever she wants (or whoever can stand to hear the details). What does she have to sue about?

...

Maybe it is to protect whoever publishes her story? They could be hesitant unless the question of her legally being able to release things is cleared up first.

[tallguy]

Mar 7, 2018 12:25:00 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

I don't really understand her lawsuit.

So Trump never signed the document, which allows her to now talk publically about that - I get it. So she can ignore the document and tell whoever she wants (or whoever can stand to hear the details). What does she have to sue about?

As a side note, who wants to place bets that Trump is having to pay Melania a certain amount of money per year so she won't divorce him - at least not until he's no longer president? 

After all, he paid his first wife a chunk of money for every baby she had. Everything has a price tag in Trumpland.

The claim is that the agreement is invalid because Trump never signed it.  Isn't the lawsuit meant to have a judge approve that claim?  At the moment, it is not yet legally affirmed that the agreement is invalid.  She is still at risk if she talks about it before the judge invalidates the agreement.  Isn't that it? 

[Deleted]

Mar 6, 2018 22:58:31 GMT -5 irishpad said:

But you know, it's OK for President Donald Trump to do this but not OK for President Bill Clinton to do this.    After all, he is Donald Trump so that excuses all, including being smug about calling attention to President Clinton's infidelity by having his sexual partners present at a debate with candidate Hillary Clinton.     There is no hope for this country if we (as a country) accept this blatant hypocrisy.  

Those setting standards (sex in the oval office) usually catch more flack than those ascribing to the same standard at a later date.  Wasn't the liberal conclusion at the end of the 'Clinton Affair', that sexual escapades don't diminish the ability of the president to do his job ?  Or doesn't that apply when it's not your favored potus ?

[steff]

Mar 7, 2018 13:00:16 GMT -5 swamp said:

Mar 7, 2018 12:52:35 GMT -5 andi9899 said:

I giggled hysterically. Thank you! I so needed that!

It probably looks like one of those candy circus peanuts.   

[steff]

Mar 7, 2018 14:38:48 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Mar 6, 2018 22:58:31 GMT -5 irishpad said:

But you know, it's OK for President Donald Trump to do this but not OK for President Bill Clinton to do this.    After all, he is Donald Trump so that excuses all, including being smug about calling attention to President Clinton's infidelity by having his sexual partners present at a debate with candidate Hillary Clinton.     There is no hope for this country if we (as a country) accept this blatant hypocrisy.  

Those setting standards (sex in the oval office) usually catch more flack than those ascribing to the same standard at a later date.  Wasn't the liberal conclusion at the end of the 'Clinton Affair', that sexual escapades don't diminish the ability of the president to do his job ?  Or doesn't that apply when it's not your favored potus ?

the "standard" here is John Edwards, not Clinton.  Edwards was prosecuted for something IDENTICAL to this.

[happyhoix]

Mar 7, 2018 14:38:48 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Mar 6, 2018 22:58:31 GMT -5 irishpad said:

But you know, it's OK for President Donald Trump to do this but not OK for President Bill Clinton to do this.    After all, he is Donald Trump so that excuses all, including being smug about calling attention to President Clinton's infidelity by having his sexual partners present at a debate with candidate Hillary Clinton.     There is no hope for this country if we (as a country) accept this blatant hypocrisy.  

Those setting standards (sex in the oval office) usually catch more flack than those ascribing to the same standard at a later date.  Wasn't the liberal conclusion at the end of the 'Clinton Affair', that sexual escapades don't diminish the ability of the president to do his job ?  Or doesn't that apply when it's not your favored potus ?

I didn't care what Clinton did, sexually, and I really don't even want to think about what Trump does.

The problem for Clinton was he lied under oath about what happened, and the problem for Trump is that there is some question that the $130,000 might violate campaign finance law.

www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/stormy-daniels-lawsuit-raises-election-law-questions-for-trump/ar-BBJYNiF

So the take away seems to be - it's not the sex, it's the cover up that gets you in hot water. Ask John Edwards.  

Apparently, if you just confess to having sex outside marriage but insist it was before you were saved, you're all good with the voters. 

[Tennesseer]

[Deleted]

Trump's Attorney probably has "Power of Attorney"... which would make it unnecessary for Trump to sign it.

[kadee79]

Mar 7, 2018 20:37:21 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Trump's Attorney probably has "Power of Attorney"... which would make it unnecessary for Trump to sign it.

In that case, if memory serves me correctly, he has to sign it in DT's spot too...which wasn't done.  And I seriously doubt DT would give ANYONE POA!  He's too much a control freak to let someone else have that much of his power. 

[pooks]

Mar 7, 2018 21:20:59 GMT -5 kadee79 said:

Mar 7, 2018 20:37:21 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Trump's Attorney probably has "Power of Attorney"... which would make it unnecessary for Trump to sign it.

In that case, if memory serves me correctly, he has to sign it in DT's spot too...which wasn't done.  And I seriously doubt DT would give ANYONE POA!  He's too much a control freak to let someone else have that much of his power. 

One thing I heard from a CNN guest(not sure if it is true) is that DT can't simultaneously hold the position that he didn't know about the NDA and that his lawyer had authority to sign for him.   It is one or the other and it is a pickle.  

[steff]

Ready for another good giggle?   Part of the lawsuit paperwork & NDA includes that she isn't allowed to talk about any PATERNITY information.    well well well.....

[happyhoix]

Mar 7, 2018 20:37:21 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Trump's Attorney probably has "Power of Attorney"... which would make it unnecessary for Trump to sign it.

Apparently the legal speculation is that DT didn't sign it in order to have deniability - he didn't know Stormy, never had an affair with her, didn't know anything about the $130,000 his attorney gave her, etc etc.

However - if he didn't know anything about any of this, would the NDA be enforceable? Can there be a NDA between two people if one of those people don't know anything about it?

It's quite the mess.

[happyhoix]

DT is apparently now angry at Sarah Sanders because of her response to a question about Stormy - she said the arbitration was won in the President's favor.

Problem is, Trump's public response on Stormy has always been denial that anything happened. Sander's statement is an admission that an NDA exists, and it directly involves the president.

www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-upset-with-sanders-over-stormy-daniels-response/ar-BBK19dE

I don't know why Trump just doesn't admit he banged a porn star. His base will think it's fake news and the rest of us don't care.  It's not like any of us are shocked to find out he's been unfaithful. His affair with Marla while he was married to his first wife was all over the NYC tabloids - so you'd have to be living under a rock to think he's a choir boy.

[swamp]

Mar 7, 2018 20:37:21 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Trump's Attorney probably has "Power of Attorney"... which would make it unnecessary for Trump to sign it.

Its still a violation of the attorney ethics rules, and it's still a violation of campaign financing.  

GEtting someone else to pay on your behalf doesn't make it OK. 

[swamp]

Mar 8, 2018 12:02:13 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Mar 7, 2018 20:37:21 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Trump's Attorney probably has "Power of Attorney"... which would make it unnecessary for Trump to sign it.

Apparently the legal speculation is that DT didn't sign it in order to have deniability - he didn't know Stormy, never had an affair with her, didn't know anything about the $130,000 his attorney gave her, etc etc.

However - if he didn't know anything about any of this, would the NDA be enforceable? Can there be a NDA between two people if one of those people don't know anything about it?

It's quite the mess.

No and No.  

It's not a mess.  Trump is fucked.  

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

Mar 6, 2018 22:58:31 GMT -5 irishpad said:

But you know, it's OK for President Donald Trump to do this but not OK for President Bill Clinton to do this.    After all, he is Donald Trump so that excuses all, including being smug about calling attention to President Clinton's infidelity by having his sexual partners present at a debate with candidate Hillary Clinton.     There is no hope for this country if we (as a country) accept this blatant hypocrisy.  

It isn’t the sex, it is the fact she has been paid off.  I read some place that this is a felony in the election laws someplace.

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

Mar 8, 2018 13:09:07 GMT -5 swamp said:

Mar 8, 2018 12:02:13 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Apparently the legal speculation is that DT didn't sign it in order to have deniability - he didn't know Stormy, never had an affair with her, didn't know anything about the $130,000 his attorney gave her, etc etc.

However - if he didn't know anything about any of this, would the NDA be enforceable? Can there be a NDA between two people if one of those people don't know anything about it?

It's quite the mess.

No and No.  

It's not a mess.  Trump is fucked.  

Curious to see how he weasels out of this.  

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

So much for surrounding himself with the "best and brightest" because if he had they would have had two words for him "John Edwards".

[Deleted]

Mar 7, 2018 15:52:53 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Mar 7, 2018 14:38:48 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Those setting standards (sex in the oval office) usually catch more flack than those ascribing to the same standard at a later date.  Wasn't the liberal conclusion at the end of the 'Clinton Affair', that sexual escapades don't diminish the ability of the president to do his job ?  Or doesn't that apply when it's not your favored potus ?

I didn't care what Clinton did, sexually, and I really don't even want to think about what Trump does.

The problem for Clinton was he lied under oath about what happened, and the problem for Trump is that there is some question that the $130,000 might violate campaign finance law.

www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/stormy-daniels-lawsuit-raises-election-law-questions-for-trump/ar-BBJYNiF

So the take away seems to be - it's not the sex, it's the cover up that gets you in hot water. Ask John Edwards.  

Apparently, if you just confess to having sex outside marriage but insist it was before you were saved, you're all good with the voters. 

A 'question of campaign finance law" vs admitting to lying under oath ?  Not the same to me. 

[Deleted]

Mar 7, 2018 15:31:46 GMT -5 steff said:

Mar 7, 2018 14:38:48 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Those setting standards (sex in the oval office) usually catch more flack than those ascribing to the same standard at a later date.  Wasn't the liberal conclusion at the end of the 'Clinton Affair', that sexual escapades don't diminish the ability of the president to do his job ?  Or doesn't that apply when it's not your favored potus ?

the "standard" here is John Edwards, not Clinton.  Edwards was prosecuted for something IDENTICAL to this.

Wasn't looking for identical.  What law was broken (Trump) ?