kadee79
Senior Associate
S.W. Ga., zone 8b, out in the boonies!
Joined: Mar 30, 2011 15:12:55 GMT -5
Posts: 10,815
|
Post by kadee79 on Mar 6, 2018 21:08:47 GMT -5
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,749
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 6, 2018 21:11:38 GMT -5
|
|
steff
Senior Associate
I'll sleep when I'm dead
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 17:34:24 GMT -5
Posts: 10,772
|
Post by steff on Mar 6, 2018 21:15:20 GMT -5
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
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,252
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 6, 2018 22:36:43 GMT -5
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
Well-Known Member
Joined: Aug 14, 2012 20:42:01 GMT -5
Posts: 1,175
|
Post by irishpad on Mar 6, 2018 22:58:31 GMT -5
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
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,749
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 6, 2018 23:53:56 GMT -5
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
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,042
|
Post by happyhoix on Mar 7, 2018 12:25:00 GMT -5
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
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 6, 2011 10:22:29 GMT -5
Posts: 30,612
|
Post by andi9899 on Mar 7, 2018 12:52:35 GMT -5
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
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,390
|
Post by swamp on Mar 7, 2018 13:00:16 GMT -5
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
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 6, 2011 10:22:29 GMT -5
Posts: 30,612
|
Post by andi9899 on Mar 7, 2018 13:33:10 GMT -5
I giggled hysterically. Thank you! I so needed that! It probably looks like one of those candy circus peanuts. Hahahaha! I love you.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,617
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 7, 2018 14:01:27 GMT -5
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
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,252
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 7, 2018 14:14:00 GMT -5
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
Joined: Jun 14, 2024 9:40:17 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2018 14:38:48 GMT -5
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
Senior Associate
I'll sleep when I'm dead
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 17:34:24 GMT -5
Posts: 10,772
|
Post by steff on Mar 7, 2018 15:26:09 GMT -5
I giggled hysterically. Thank you! I so needed that! It probably looks like one of those candy circus peanuts.
|
|
steff
Senior Associate
I'll sleep when I'm dead
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 17:34:24 GMT -5
Posts: 10,772
|
Post by steff on Mar 7, 2018 15:31:46 GMT -5
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
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,042
|
Post by happyhoix on Mar 7, 2018 15:52:53 GMT -5
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
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,749
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 7, 2018 17:54:57 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 14, 2024 9:40:17 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2018 20:37:21 GMT -5
Trump's Attorney probably has "Power of Attorney"... which would make it unnecessary for Trump to sign it.
|
|
kadee79
Senior Associate
S.W. Ga., zone 8b, out in the boonies!
Joined: Mar 30, 2011 15:12:55 GMT -5
Posts: 10,815
|
Post by kadee79 on Mar 7, 2018 21:20:59 GMT -5
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
Familiar Member
Joined: Mar 11, 2017 16:45:43 GMT -5
Posts: 630
Today's Mood: Angry
|
Post by pooks on Mar 7, 2018 23:27:29 GMT -5
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
Senior Associate
I'll sleep when I'm dead
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 17:34:24 GMT -5
Posts: 10,772
|
Post by steff on Mar 8, 2018 0:01:46 GMT -5
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
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,042
|
Post by happyhoix on Mar 8, 2018 12:02:13 GMT -5
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
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,042
|
Post by happyhoix on Mar 8, 2018 12:06:43 GMT -5
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
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,390
|
Post by swamp on Mar 8, 2018 13:07:02 GMT -5
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
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,390
|
Post by swamp on Mar 8, 2018 13:09:07 GMT -5
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.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Mar 8, 2018 13:27:11 GMT -5
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.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Mar 8, 2018 13:29:10 GMT -5
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
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,472
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Mar 8, 2018 13:34:10 GMT -5
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
Joined: Jun 14, 2024 9:40:17 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2018 14:03:33 GMT -5
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
Joined: Jun 14, 2024 9:40:17 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2018 14:05:35 GMT -5
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) ?
|
|