Stormy Daniels Sues the President

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top female porn stars can make millions.

I'd be surprised if she is not at least very well off financially.

Jenna Jameson is a multi millionaire.

But I'm really surprised that no one is bankrolling Stormy to get the goods out in public on Trump. Seems like any number of Trump opponents would pay...
 
Top female porn stars can make millions.

I'd be surprised if she is not at least very well off financially.

Jenna Jameson is a multi millionaire.

But I'm really surprised that no one is bankrolling Stormy to get the goods out in public on Trump. Seems like any number of Trump opponents would pay...

I don't see how fundraising for her legal defense is evidence that no one is bankrolling her.

It seems to me she's just playing this for maximum exposure and money. Why not get bankrolled and donations ?

Pretty sure neither of us is in a position to have any knowledge on her finances.
 
All she has on Trump is the affair, most likely.

And no one is interested in 12 year old consensual affairs.

People are barely interested in recent affairs.
Some might be interested in the potential for campaign violations. Otherwise, I agree with you. If there's no campaign funding violation, then I don't care.

That said, might be somewhat titillating to hear her story. Might put the values voters in an awkward position.

But still, the real issue is whether a payoff late in the campaign violated any campaign finance laws.
 
All she has on Trump is the affair, most likely.

And no one is interested in 12 year old consensual affairs.

People are barely interested in recent affairs.

If I may chime in ...

In politics, very often it is not the crime that is the issue, instead it is the cover-up of the crime that becomes the issue.

And in this case $130,000 of campaign funds may have been illegally used just before the November, 2018 election by the candidate who often claimed to be all for "Law and Order".

While legalities of this issue are still in question, the embarrassments about this issue are just beginning.
 
And even if he committed felonies of campaign finance to pay her off no one cares. We all know he is a crook, that is what his supporters like about him.

I can't confirm whether supporters would be fine with using the $130k to suppress her story, but all the Trupsters I've come across so far are happy about it.

"Great use of campaign funds, I'll contribute more for 2020 reelection," is the consensus I'm reading so far.

Boasting about molesting women is boasting about a crime. Asking police to smash the heads of people merely accused onto the car doorframe is expressing complicity about violent crime. Supporters didn't care - they cheered. For this bunch, "law and order," means rich white guys get to do whatever they want, and "innocent until proven guilty" is not for the little people, is what I'm reading from all this.
 
Last edited:
And even if he committed felonies of campaign finance to pay her off no one cares. We all know he is a crook, that is what his supporters like about him.
Hey, that's not fair!

What his supporters like about him is that he is a racist and a bigot. They just ACCEPT the fact that he is a crook.
 
If I may chime in ...

In politics, very often it is not the crime that is the issue, instead it is the cover-up of the crime that becomes the issue.

And in this case $130,000 of campaign funds may have been illegally used just before the November, 2018 election by the candidate who often claimed to be all for "Law and Order".

While legalities of this issue are still in question, the embarrassments about this issue are just beginning.
The most interesting part of this, if it happened, is that it would require the involved lawyer to be the dumbest lawyer in all of Lawyertown.

Unfortunately, I don't think it happened this way at all. I consider it far more likely that the lawyer went out of pocket/out of retainer for the payoff...which, AFAIK, wouldn't break any laws.
 
If I may chime in ...

In politics, very often it is not the crime that is the issue, instead it is the cover-up of the crime that becomes the issue.

And in this case $130,000 of campaign funds may have been illegally used just before the November, 2018 election by the candidate who often claimed to be all for "Law and Order".

While legalities of this issue are still in question, the embarrassments about this issue are just beginning.

Yes, the $130K is the problem here, as has been mentioned several times.

I asked what trouble Trump would be in if the payment was illegal.

Seems like very little.

What exactly is the legal penalty to Trump for reimbursing Cohen the $130K?
 
The most interesting part of this, if it happened, is that it would require the involved lawyer to be the dumbest lawyer in all of Lawyertown.

Unfortunately, I don't think it happened this way at all. I consider it far more likely that the lawyer went out of pocket/out of retainer for the payoff...which, AFAIK, wouldn't break any laws.

Yes it would though. Being of a benefit to a presidential campaign he was assosiated with it certainly would be a felony for him to pay it out of his pocket. This is what sent Dinish Desouza and Jared Kushners dad to prison. Cohen is probably the dumbest lawyer in Lawyertown, he wrote in the secret name of the company that the money was being funneled through when he signed for it instead of using the initials as the rest of the document did.

Everyone involved seems to be incredibly stupid.
 
Yes, the $130K is the problem here, as has been mentioned several times.

I asked what trouble Trump would be in if the payment was illegal.

Seems like very little.

What exactly is the legal penalty to Trump for reimbursing Cohen the $130K?

Criminal conspiracy to commit felony campaign finance violations.
 
What exactly is the legal penalty to Trump for reimbursing Cohen the $130K?
From what I understand, that would be the only think that might actually get Trump off the hook... if he reimbursed Cohen out of his own pocket. And even then it might be sketchy.

Otherwise, if Cohen (or others) paid on behalf of Trump, its a campaign contribution that needed to be declared.

If the money was reimbursed through campaign funds, that may also have legal issues.
 
Criminal conspiracy to commit felony campaign finance violations.

This article makes it seems pretty murky, though.

The issue is whether there is evidence in emails, or from witnesses, that the $130,000 payment to Daniels just before the 2016 election was made to silence Stormy Daniels because her story could hurt Trump's presidential candidacy.

If Trump lawyer Michael Cohen paid his own money "and he intended it to help the campaign then it's an excessive contribution and it's illegal," Hasen said. Same goes for President Trump's company, the Trump Organization.

If Trump paid out of his own funds, the amount is not an issue because candidates can contribute unlimited money to their campaign. But they have to disclose it, Hasen said, so there could be a disclosure violation.

"This could be construed as a knowing and willful violation of federal election law, in which case it would be a federal crime," said Brett Kappel, a federal election law expert with Akerman LLP.

Experts say there also could be tax implications involving the payment to Daniels, depending on who paid and how it was paid.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...be-election-law-violation-say-experts-n855336

I remember the Edwards case well.
 
Seems like you have to go a long way to get to a felony, though.

It could be a felony if several conditions are met.
Yes, there are several conditions that need to be met. But so far, from what we've seen, the LIKELY result is that the conditions have been met.

DD referring to Trump? Pretty much confirmed by the white house.
Trump's lawyer making the payment? He's confirmed that
That the payment wasn't counted as a contribution? Granted, you can't prove a negative, but if it were declared it would be easy to point to the payment and say "look it was declared".

The only real unknown is whether Trump was aware of the payment (and thus part of the conspiracy). If he wasn't, then his lawyer is probably going to get more punishment than he would normally. And I'm not really sure how well such a claim of ignorance would fly. "Yes I banged her and I know she might have blabbed but I just thought it was a coincidence that she kind of disappeared before the election."
 
All she has on Trump is the affair, most likely.

And no one is interested in 12 year old consensual affairs.

People are barely interested in recent affairs.

If it will help crush trumpf into the dirt he comes from I will be completely delighted!!!!
 
All she has on Trump is the affair, most likely.
And no one is interested in 12 year old consensual affairs.
People are barely interested in recent affairs.
Obviously Trump (or those in his cabal) thought that there was enough interest in the affair to necessitate covering it up. Otherwise, had Trump simply said "who cares? Let her say whatever she wants" he wouldn't be facing the possibility of prosecution for campaign finance laws.

And should enforcement of laws always be left up to popular opinion?
We should be talking about a lot more money for something that could hurt Trump.
$130K sounds like embarrassment money.
Trump is guilty of financial frauds that are far more significant than $130k. (Trump U, emoluments clause, etc.) The fact that he might find a $130k payment is a downfall is just a matter of providence.

If Bill Gates decided to steal a pack of gum from his local convenience store, hopefully we would not say "Oh, he's rich so we'll overlook the crime for something worth far less than his net worth". Hopefully they would treat all criminals equally.
 
It is a bit ironic to see so many declare so confidently that the payment was a "felony."

John Edwards was tried for doing much much worse, in a politically charged case of payback that never should have been brought in the first place. And the government got their asses handed to them.

Lets take a look at the wayback machine and see it in real time:

GREENSBORO, N.C. — John Edwards was publicly exposed at his trial as a staggeringly selfish politician and shameless liar who cheated on his wife as she suffered from incurable cancer.

Yet it was the Justice Department that wound up publicly embarrassed on Thursday as federal prosecutors’ attempt to turn Edwards’s misdeeds into criminal convictions ran aground in a courtroom here.

https://www.politico.com/story/2012/06/how-the-edwards-prosecution-stumbled-076942
 
It is a bit ironic to see so many declare so confidently that the payment was a "felony."

John Edwards was tried for doing much much worse, in a politically charged case of payback that never should have been brought in the first place. And the government got their asses handed to them.

Lets take a look at the wayback machine and see it in real time:



https://www.politico.com/story/2012/06/how-the-edwards-prosecution-stumbled-076942
A deadlocked jury is "the government getting their assets handed to them?"
 
How about this case?

Dinesh D'Souza pleads guilty

Conservative commentator and author Dinesh D'Souza has pleaded guilty to violating federal campaign finance law, prosecutors said on Tuesday.

D'Souza, 53, of San Diego, admitted to exceeding donor limits in 2012 by arranging for others to give to the New York Senate campaign of Wendy Long. He also admitted to making false statements about those donations, the office Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said.
 
Is it about what he did that needs to be covered up, or whether he violated campaign finance law?

they cannot be separated, because I have explained time and again, not everything that benefits a candidate is subject to campaign financing laws.
 
they cannot be separated, because I have explained time and again, not everything that benefits a candidate is subject to campaign financing laws.

It is true that Trump could claim that paying hush-money to pornstars has nothing to do with the election, because it is something he regularly does, whether he is running for office or not.
So to avoid the charge of campaign finance fraud, Trump would have to present three or more other cases of affairs for which he paid hush-money, and he will be off the hook.
And divorced .
 
Yes, there are several conditions that need to be met. But so far, from what we've seen, the LIKELY result is that the conditions have been met.

DD referring to Trump? Pretty much confirmed by the white house.
Trump's lawyer making the payment? He's confirmed that
That the payment wasn't counted as a contribution? Granted, you can't prove a negative, but if it were declared it would be easy to point to the payment and say "look it was declared".

The only real unknown is whether Trump was aware of the payment (and thus part of the conspiracy). If he wasn't, then his lawyer is probably going to get more punishment than he would normally. And I'm not really sure how well such a claim of ignorance would fly. "Yes I banged her and I know she might have blabbed but I just thought it was a coincidence that she kind of disappeared before the election."

I think the 2nd unknown is whether this was laundered campaign funds. If the campaign diverted cash to this illegal shell corporation, the crimes are stacking up, and there *may* be an impact to the loyalty of the subcategory of his voters described as 'reluctant Trump supporters,' especially in terms of 2020 donations.
 
It cracks me up every time someone refers to the relationship between Trump and Stormy as an affair. We'll just have to wait and see if this lawsuit has legs.
 
It is true that Trump could claim that paying hush-money to pornstars has nothing to do with the election, because it is something he regularly does, whether he is running for office or not.
So to avoid the charge of campaign finance fraud, Trump would have to present three or more other cases of affairs for which he paid hush-money, and he will be off the hook.
And divorced .

Three times, huh? Where did you get that analysis, the professors at Hollywood Upstairs Law School?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom