Stormy Daniels Sues the President

Status
Not open for further replies.
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)
I think the 2nd unknown is whether this was laundered campaign funds.
I think that whether this was a case of campaign funds being diverted or payments made and not declared, the end result is pretty much the same: laws were broken. The difference is exactly what laws were broken and how the prosecution would proceed.
 
It cracks me up every time someone refers to the relationship between Trump and Stormy as an affair.
Why?

While they may not have had sex regularly, evidence points to at least one encounter. Plus they did remain in contact, and Trump may have tried to see her other times. So while not exactly a long term relationship, it appears to be more than just a "one night stand".
 
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.
First of all, as another poster stated, a deadlocked jury is not the government "getting their asses handed to them". It means a split jury, with at least some siding with the government's case, so at least some found the charges against him compelling.

Secondly, even if you do consider the government to have "lost" the case against Edwards, it does not mean that that case, or any other similar case was unwinnable. The problem could simply be due to missteps by the prosecution, and a more competent lawyer would have had more success. (Otherwise, you'd have to claim that murder trials should never be prosecuted because, well, OJ was found not guilty.)

Here is a list of roughly a half dozen Americans who have been convicted of campaign finance laws.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_people_convicted_of_campaign_finance_violations
 
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.
Trump has said some truly nasty things about the past accusers. But not a peep about Stormy. It's curious.
 
Democrats, you are waaaay too late with this crap. This is pre-election material. I think many conservatives are reacting to you and your desperation to knock down Trump more than they are actually defending the President. What he did was bad but what Dems are doing is much worse. Of course that is debatable.
It's increasingly clear this was pulled from a dark crevice.

You can disabuse me of this notion by citing specific credible examples.
 
CNN reveals that there's a second Trump attorney -- a full time Trump employee -- involved in the Stormy affair.

LOL. A full time Trump employee filed the case asking for the TRO, on behalf of EC LLC, Cohen's shell company.

Here's another thought I had. Does client-attorney privilege apply in this case? Cohen keeps telling us he did this as a favor to his friend Trump. So Trump was not his client but his friend, and all communication between Cohen and Trump/TrumpOrg is fair game in discovery, right?
 
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."

And the possible felonies of if the Trump campaign funelled the money to Trump businesses to pay Cohen back. That would be miss reporting of campaign expenditures. I think this is likely as why would Trump ever spend his own money when he can spend other peoples?

Then there are more felonies to go around. So people are going to be looking in those last minute expenses that total almost exactly $130k and see if they were legitimate bills or not.
 
First of all, as another poster stated, a deadlocked jury is not the government "getting their asses handed to them". It means a split jury, with at least some siding with the government's case, so at least some found the charges against him compelling.

Secondly, even if you do consider the government to have "lost" the case against Edwards, it does not mean that that case, or any other similar case was unwinnable. The problem could simply be due to missteps by the prosecution, and a more competent lawyer would have had more success. (Otherwise, you'd have to claim that murder trials should never be prosecuted because, well, OJ was found not guilty.)

Here is a list of roughly a half dozen Americans who have been convicted of campaign finance laws.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_people_convicted_of_campaign_finance_violations

Including Jareds Dad. Just think their kids could have had both grandfathers go to prison for campaign finance violations.
 
I'm sure Buzzfeed is just trolling, but this is fun:

BuzzFeed may have found a legal opening to allow the porn actress Stormy Daniels to discuss her alleged relationship with President Donald Trump and a $130,000 payment she received just before the 2016 election as part of a nondisclosure agreement she is now trying to void.

The same Trump attorney who brokered the deal with Daniels, Michael Cohen, filed a libel suit in January against BuzzFeed and four of its staffers over publication of the so-called dossier compiling accurate, inaccurate and unproven allegations about Trump’s relationship with Russia.

Now, BuzzFeed is using Cohen’s libel suit as a vehicle to demand that Daniels preserve all records relating to her relationship with Trump, as well as her dealings with Cohen and the payment he has acknowledged arranging in 2016.

On Tuesday, BuzzFeed’s lawyer wrote to Daniels’ attorney asking that the adult film actress, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, preserve various categories of documents. Such preservation letters are often a prelude to a subpoena. If Daniels’ testimony is formally demanded in a deposition, the nondisclosure agreement would likely be no obstacle, legal experts said.

The letter from BuzzFeed’s attorney, obtained by POLITICO, argues that Cohen’s role in paying Daniels is similar to allegations in the dossier about Cohen. The dossier alleges that Cohen met Russian legal officials and legislators in Prague in August 2016 in a bid to “sweep … under the carpet” details of the relationship between Russia and Trump campaign officials like Paul Manafort and Rick Gates. Cohen has flatly denied the claim.

“Mr. Cohen’s role in President Trump’s 2016 campaign, including but not limited to any payments he made or facilitated to third parties during or in connection with the campaign, is therefore directly relevant to” Cohen’s suit, BuzzFeed lawyer Katherine Bolger wrote.
 
Trump has said some truly nasty things about the past accusers. But not a peep about Stormy. It's curious.

Trump saying nasty things were designed to shame his accusers into silence and make it seem like they were money seeking attention whores.

Stormy Daniels is an porn star, kinda hard to shame. So Trumps can't even try.

She also pretty much admits she's in it for the money, so no shaming there. Trump's twitter brigade tried to attacked in the usual way but she's been destroying them utterly since their usual tactics just don't work.
 
Some of them even see him becoming President a part of God's plan, their argument being that noone as flawed as him should have a chance of winning an election. But he did, and so there must be some higher power behind him.
A similar argument was produced in the eighteenth century, to show that Moses and his followers were directly sustained by God. No society, it was argued, can survive unless people believe that God rewards good people and punishes bad ones after they die. But the Law of Moses has nothing to say about life after death. Nevertheless the Israelite community survived. Therefore it must have been sustained by divine power.
 
Trump has said some truly nasty things about the past accusers. But not a peep about Stormy. It's curious.

Stormy is not alleging sexual harassment of any sort.

Stormy is not really an "accuser".

IIRC, Stormy even said Trump was the best in bed of the famous people she has slept with.

Stormy signed an NDA and accepted money to be quiet about the relationship, so for her to complain about being "hushed" is a bit strange.

I don't think anyone doubts that there was a relationship 12 years ago.

Trump and Cohen would have to be pretty stupid to violate campaign finance laws, imo.

They could have been that stupid, but I think it's unlikely.
 
Stormy is not alleging sexual harassment of any sort.

Stormy is not really an "accuser".

IIRC, Stormy even said Trump was the best in bed of the famous people she has slept with.

Stormy signed an NDA and accepted money to be quiet about the relationship, so for her to complain about being "hushed" is a bit strange.

I don't think anyone doubts that there was a relationship 12 years ago.

Trump and Cohen would have to be pretty stupid to violate campaign finance laws, imo.

They could have been that stupid, but I think it's unlikely.

Cohen seems to have admitted it, who reported the 130k that he facilitated as the campaign contribution it was?
 
Stormy is not alleging sexual harassment of any sort.

Stormy is not really an "accuser".

IIRC, Stormy even said Trump was the best in bed of the famous people she has slept with.

Stormy signed an NDA and accepted money to be quiet about the relationship, so for her to complain about being "hushed" is a bit strange.

I don't think anyone doubts that there was a relationship 12 years ago.

Trump and Cohen would have to be pretty stupid to violate campaign finance laws, imo.

They could have been that stupid, but I think it's unlikely.
No argument overall. However, in the past, nothing has stopped Trump from trashing anyone who crossed him. I speculate that Stormy has juicy goods on Trump.

As for this part -- (1) the degree of stupidity/ignorance emanating from Trump on matters big and small is nothing short of biblical, and (2) the way Cohen has handled this is flat-out retarded. So yes, I agree, they would have to be 'stupid' and indeed they are.
 
What?

Cohen said he paid Stormy on his own from a home equity account and was not reimbursed.

No one believes that, of course, but Cohen hasn't admitted anything illegal.

Cohen paying off a Mistress of Trump without telling him about it?
That would be highly unethical for a lawyer to do - do you want your lawyer to get into your secret relationship business ?
 
What?

Cohen said he paid Stormy on his own from a home equity account and was not reimbursed.

No one believes that, of course, but Cohen hasn't admitted anything illegal.

He admitted to paying her for her silence about her photos and such of trump weeks before the election. That is illegal. He was putting money to something of value to the Trump campaign.
 
Cohen paying off a Mistress of Trump without telling him about it?
That would be highly unethical for a lawyer to do - do you want your lawyer to get into your secret relationship business ?

And helping a client violate campaign finance laws is ethical? The only way Cohen doesn't go down(disbarred at the least) is for the rule of law to no longer matter.
 
And helping a client violate campaign finance laws is ethical? The only way Cohen doesn't go down(disbarred at the least) is for the rule of law to no longer matter.

that is what they said about Edwards too, didn't happen. Extremely unlikely to happen here.

Maybe a fine from the FEC, but don't bother holding your breath
 
that is what they said about Edwards too, didn't happen. Extremely unlikely to happen here.
You're right. Trump and his lawyer can join the group of people who committed campaign finance violations and never got punished, like D'Souza, Hubbard, and Marotta. All of them got away scot free. Well, except for the fact that they all ended up convicted, with various types of incarceration involved.

Once again, since you seem to not understand: The fact that Edwards was not found guilty is not proof that Campaign finance laws are irrelevant. It can also mean that the prosecutors on that case simply did not do a good job. What about that concept do you not understand?
 
Cohen said he paid Stormy on his own from a home equity account and was not reimbursed.

No one believes that, of course, but Cohen hasn't admitted anything illegal.
I think its already been covered here... Cohen making the payment from his own funds might be considered an illegal contribution (since it would have to be declared, and we have seen no evidence that it was.)

Plus, if he made payments without involving the president, then he might get disbarred since as a lawyer he has an obligation to inform his client of activities done on his behalf.

That might end up protecting the president, but it doesn't protect Cohen, and might end up making the punishment worse for him.
 
Once again, since you seem to not understand: The fact that Edwards was not found guilty is not proof that Campaign finance laws are irrelevant. It can also mean that the prosecutors on that case simply did not do a good job. What about that concept do you not understand?

TBD doesn't care. Edwards is just a whatabout.
 
Ties deepen between Stormy payoff and Trump Organization as another lawyer now involved.

New documents obtained by CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360" on Wednesday suggest a deeper link than previously known between the Trump Organization and the company that Donald Trump's personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, established in 2016 to pay off porn star Stormy Daniels in exchange for silence about her alleged affair with Trump.

The documents also offer the first evidence of an individual employed by the Trump Organization -- other than Cohen -- being involved in an ongoing legal battle regarding Daniels' alleged affair with Trump.

A "demand for arbitration" document dated February 22, 2018, names Jill Martin, a top lawyer at the Trump Organization based in California, as the attorney representing "EC, LLC." "EC, LLC" is Essential Consultants, according to Daniels' lawsuit, a company that Cohen established in the weeks leading up to the 2016 presidential election to facilitate a payment of $130,000 to Daniels.
 
No argument overall. However, in the past, nothing has stopped Trump from trashing anyone who crossed him. I speculate that Stormy has juicy goods on Trump.

As for this part -- (1) the degree of stupidity/ignorance emanating from Trump on matters big and small is nothing short of biblical, and (2) the way Cohen has handled this is flat-out retarded. So yes, I agree, they would have to be 'stupid' and indeed they are.

Not just this case, Cohen seems to be as stupid as his boss.
 
You're right. Trump and his lawyer can join the group of people who committed campaign finance violations and never got punished, like D'Souza, Hubbard, and Marotta. All of them got away scot free. Well, except for the fact that they all ended up convicted, with various types of incarceration involved.

Once again, since you seem to not understand: The fact that Edwards was not found guilty is not proof that Campaign finance laws are irrelevant. It can also mean that the prosecutors on that case simply did not do a good job. What about that concept do you not understand?

The thing I like the best is why you went FULL STRAWMAN. that was nice.

Once again, since you seem not to understand: the Edwards case provides the clearest precedent here, hush payments to an alleged mistress. That case was widely criticized THEN, as a political hit job and stretching campaign finance laws beyond what they were intended to, and the fact that they got an acquittal and hung jury and then quickly dropped the case is a clear demonstration that it was poorly conceived.

That does not mean that "campaign laws are irrelevant" just that it would be a fools errand to bring charges.

I get the wild excitement of the TDS group, but for Pete's sake, at least read what i wrote next time, huh?

here a little bit more analysis: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/09/trump-stormy-daniels-lawyer-payment-john-edwards-451462
 
TBD doesn't care. Edwards is just a whatabout.

That is ludicrous, I am not excusing the conduct, I am using the Edwards case as a direct precedent/case study on the operation of the campaign finance laws.

Oh look another legal analysis comparing the two cases:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/14/opinions/michael-cohen-stormy-daniels-trump-callan-opinion/index.html

"The John Edwards case established the precedent that personal gifts and payments motivated by friendship rather than an attempt to assure a candidate's election need not be reported."

This is so basic, really a bummer that folks refuse to figure it out.
 
That is ludicrous, I am not excusing the conduct, I am using the Edwards case as a direct precedent/case study on the operation of the campaign finance laws.

Oh look another legal analysis comparing the two cases:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/14/opinions/michael-cohen-stormy-daniels-trump-callan-opinion/index.html

"The John Edwards case established the precedent that personal gifts and payments motivated by friendship rather than an attempt to assure a candidate's election need not be reported."

This is so basic, really a bummer that folks refuse to figure it out.

It would help if you read your own citation.

The $130,000 was paid in order to assure the election of then candidate Trump, and by your own citation, this a payment does need to be reported as such.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom