Stormy Daniels Sues the President

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fast Eddie B said:
I think the flaw here is that often even the 1% of the 1% - the Sam Walton’s and Warren Buffett’s and Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos of the world seem to navigate these waters without exhibiting what I see as pathology.
Click to expand...

As far as I know, they weren't born into massive wealth, even though their families were rich.

However, there are examples - for example the British Royal Family has produced some people with a massive sense of entitlement (Prince Charles having a valet to apply toothpaste to his toothbrushes, for example) but even they don't have Trump's utter lack of redeeming features.
 
P.J. Denyer said:
Does 'spending your entire life learning that as a member of the one percent you can get away with anything, because the law doesn't apply to you' count as a personality disorder? Or just the inability to realise that their might be limits to this rule?
Click to expand...

jimbob said:
Well, obviously something caused it, and it's going to be a mix of nature and nurture.

His upbringing almost certainly contributed to it.
Click to expand...


Affluenza defense.
 
quadraginta said:
Affluenza defense.
Click to expand...

I don't think of it as a defence, but in this and the thread about his mental health, at least one poster seemed to think that his upbringing might explain his attitude and behaviour without it being a mental illness. Which seems to miss the point.

Spoilered because it's a derail and on a different thread

Emily's Cat said:
I would like to know if there exist any other physical illnesses, metabolic disorders, chemical deficiencies, and prescription drug interactions could potential explain any of the specific symptoms listed for NPD, in full or in combination with other potential causes.

I would also like to know what the range of 'normal' is for the NPD symptoms as listed. For example, how much of a sense of entitlement is appropriate and expected for a person with a wealthy upbringing, who became a highly successful businessman and billionaire, then went on to become president of the united states? What's the acceptable level of self-importance for the POTUS to have - what constitutes "grandiose" in that context?

*** I'd also like someone else to ask these questions, because I'd actually like to know ***
Click to expand...
 
jimbob said:
Given that Trump doesn't seem to be able to distinguish between truth and reality, I'd guess that could actually be true.
Click to expand...

I don't know enough about what you think of Trump to know if you meant this the way you wrote it. Presumably you don't think Trump is incapable of lying?
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
I don't know enough about what you think of Trump to know if you meant this the way you wrote it. Presumably you don't think Trump is incapable of lying?
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying that he seems to convince himself that the most self-serving story is (or should be) the truth.

It would be hard to detect a lie in someone who doesn't seem to have a concept of truth.
 
jimbob said:
No, I'm saying that he seems to convince himself that the most self-serving story is (or should be) the truth.

It would be hard to detect a lie in someone who doesn't seem to have a concept of truth.
Click to expand...
OK. So you mean something along the lines of he can't distinguish fantasy from fact. Got it. Without being able to see if you're wearing a MAGA hat it was difficult to tell.
 
jimbob said:
No, I'm saying that he seems to convince himself that the most self-serving story is (or should be) the truth.

It would be hard to detect a lie in someone who doesn't seem to have a concept of truth.
Click to expand...
He exhibits a mixture of both and the mix fluctuates some. Often he spends an enormous effort refuting anything negative that is said about him. I imagine it applies that if you hear a lie repeated often enough you begin to believe it is true.
 
Checkmite said:
CNBC's Brian Schwartz on Twitter after the Fox interview:

I got a hold of Michael Cohen over the phone. At first he said he would have to call me back and then I asked him what's his reaction to the Trump interview on Fox & Friends. Cohen said "Did you hear what I said to you? I’m on the other line with my lawyers…." He then hung up.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Why did Cohen even take the call? Was he expecting someone more important than his lawyers to call him? From a number he probably didn't recognize?
 
Craig4 said:
Yet Trump shows real fear at this raid. With Russia, he could make his son or son-in-law a speed bump for a Greyhound but here, it's just him and what Cohen recorded or wrote down. Mueller may end up being an asterisk in history compared to what Stormy does to him.

Or Mueller suspects that he will get fired after Rosenstein and this is his way of throwing a grenade over his shoulder as he walks out. Still an elegant move.
Click to expand...

Anything that destroys trumpf and bring the destroyed parts way down low is something I like!!!!!
 
quadraginta said:
Mebbe not, but "I never retained him, received an invoice, or paid legal fees." covers enough of the territory that aside from very tortured semantics most reasonable people would consider it to be the idea he was intending to communicate.

What other specific act that he left out would be reasonably considered to provide the cover of attorney-client privilege?
Click to expand...

Who knows? it as a meaningless word salad statement. It was a statement to feel like he was being honest while not saying anything of value. It neither asserts privilege nor says there isn't one but implies he believes it to be privileged with out saying it.
 
quadraginta said:
I'm pretty sure he went on to say exactly that.
Click to expand...

No he only implied things, such as that both Cohen wasn't his lawyer, and that their communications should be privileged with out saying either. It feels like a statement that means something but it doesn't mean anything.
 
Hmmm.

President Donald Trump’s personal attorney Michael Cohen, sources familiar with the payments tell ABC News, raising questions about whether the Trump campaign may have violated campaign finance laws.

Federal Election Commission records show three payments made from the Trump campaign to a firm representing Cohen. The “legal consulting” payments were made to McDermott Will and Emery — a law firm where Cohen's attorney Stephen Ryan is a partner — between October 2017 and January 2018.

Cohen has said that he did not have a formal role in the Trump campaign, and it is illegal to spend campaign funds for personal use – defined by the FEC as payments for expenses “that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s campaign or responsibilities as a federal officeholder.”

"They're on shaky legal ground," said Stephen Spaulding, chief of strategy at the nonprofit watchdog group Common Cause. "It sounds like they are really pushing the envelope … If the campaign were to say they are campaign-related payments, then maybe it's okay to use campaign funds. But he can't have it both ways."
Click to expand...
 
Bob001 said:
Stormy sues Trump for defamation.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/30/politics/stormy-daniels-defamation-lawsuit/index.html
Click to expand...

Earlier this month, Trump called the sketch "a total con job."

"By calling the incident a 'con job,' Mr. Trump's statement would be understood to state that Ms. Clifford was fabricating the crime and the existence of the assailant, both of which are prohibited under New York law, as well as the law of numerous other states," Daniels' lawyer, Michael Avenatti, wrote in the lawsuit.
Click to expand...

Trump is a defendant in the suit against Cohen. He can't say that accusations against him or anyone on his side are untrue? Is it illegal for him to discuss this publicly? I'm wondering exactly why this is illegal. IAN even close to being AL
 
mgidm86 said:
Trump is a defendant in the suit against Cohen. He can't say that accusations against him or anyone on his side are untrue? Is it illegal for him to discuss this publicly? I'm wondering exactly why this is illegal. IAN even close to being AL
Click to expand...

Disputing it is one thing, but saying it's a con job might be something different.
 
jimbob said:
Disputing it is one thing, but saying it's a con job might be something different.
Click to expand...

Also a particularly stupid accusation to make, because how can he know she wasn't threatened? He can't prove the negative, whereas he might know if she actually was threatened...
 
Dragon said:
Also a particularly stupid accusation to make, because how can he know she wasn't threatened? He can't prove the negative, whereas he might know if she actually was threatened...
Click to expand...

Given Trump's previous behaviour and use of threats to intimidate tenants, I'm thinking it's more likely than not.
 
mgidm86 said:
Trump is a defendant in the suit against Cohen. He can't say that accusations against him or anyone on his side are untrue? Is it illegal for him to discuss this publicly? I'm wondering exactly why this is illegal. IAN even close to being AL
Click to expand...
I think the problem is that he suggested it was a 'con job'. Trump was not there and does not have any proof that the incident did not happen; the best he could say (in theory) is that "If it happened I had no part in it". Calling it a "con job" suggest not only that the story wasn't true, but it was told for reasons that were less than reputable.

I don't expect this suit to go very far. But hey, if it annoys Trump, all the better.
 
Dragon said:
Also a particularly stupid accusation to make, because how can he know she wasn't threatened? He can't prove the negative, whereas he might know if she actually was threatened...
Click to expand...
Surprised Trump didn't tweet something like "that looks nothing like kneecap-em Mike!"
 
Bob001 said:
Stormy sues Trump for defamation.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/30/politics/stormy-daniels-defamation-lawsuit/index.html
Click to expand...

Popehat is on the case!

This sentence strikes me as a bit peculiar:
The President's lawyers will have a strong argument, boosted by the Jacobus case, that it does not, because his tweet can't be taken as a factual allegation. The context is (a) this President and (b) Twitter. Twitter in general, and this President on Twitter in particular, are widely understood by anyone familiar with the context to be full of bombast and truculent rhetoric, not reliable fact.
Click to expand...
So basically, the tweet isn't defamatory because it can't be expected to be taken seriously, while in fact virtually every Trump supporter in the country will be taking it as the Gospel Truth. Talk about having it both ways!
 
mgidm86 said:
Trump is a defendant in the suit against Cohen. He can't say that accusations against him or anyone on his side are untrue? Is it illegal for him to discuss this publicly? I'm wondering exactly why this is illegal. IAN even close to being AL
Click to expand...

Trump isn't responding to accusations against him. He's saying that Daniels' claim that she was threatened is false. According to other commentators, making a false report of that kind would be a crime. In effect, Trump is saying she committed a crime. That's what's defamatory.
 
mgidm86 said:
Trump is a defendant in the suit against Cohen. He can't say that accusations against him or anyone on his side are untrue? Is it illegal for him to discuss this publicly? I'm wondering exactly why this is illegal. IAN even close to being AL
Click to expand...

It's not illegal. Defamation is civil law. He sent a tweet that went to a million people claiming she was a criminal. She believes that impacts her reputation. Damages are in proportion to the seriousness of the crime she's accused of, and the number of people who were exposed to the claim.

I agree with an earlier post that this is likely to fail: reasonable people regard Trump's tweets as entertainment/parody/performance art, which is a historically successful defense.

Alex Jones used that excuse ("When I accuse a pizza parlour of running a child porn ring, I'm just playing a character, everybody knows it's not real."); seemed to work.
 
Last edited:
blutoski said:
It's not illegal. Defamation is civil law. He sent a tweet that went to a million people claiming she was a criminal. She believes that impacts her reputation.

I agree with an earlier post that this is likely to fail: reasonable people regard Trump's tweets as entertainment/parody/performance art, which is a historically successful defense.
Click to expand...
I don't think it will fail because people regard Trump's tweets as entertainment/parody. I think it will fail because it will be hard to justify damages.
Alex Jones used that excuse ("When I accuse a pizza parlour of running a child porn ring, I'm just playing a character, everybody knows it's not real."); seemed to work.
Click to expand...
Not sure if the Jones case is all that relevant. If I remember correctly , when he used the 'playing a character' excuse, it was during child custody hearings (which he lost). The "character" justification seemed to be at best irrelevant.

We will have a better idea how much the whole "playing a character" argument works when the lawsuit raised by the families of shooting victims (that Jones claimed were actors) reaches its verdict.
 
Segnosaur said:
I don't think it will fail because people regard Trump's tweets as entertainment/parody. I think it will fail because it will be hard to justify damages.
Click to expand...

Yeh, i was being a bit facetious when I said the parody thing. I don't think many people think it's parody.

Justifying damages for harm to reputation is challenging for a porn actress, and in general, for famous people. However, the Gawker judgement proved that even a celebrity can successfully obtain damages if the harm was reckless enough. Sauce for the goose.



Segnosaur said:
Not sure if the Jones case is all that relevant. If I remember correctly , when he used the 'playing a character' excuse, it was during child custody hearings (which he lost). The "character" justification seemed to be at best irrelevant.
Click to expand...

I think it was part of a "I'm not crazy" argument to reinforce the request for child visitation rights.


Segnosaur said:
We will have a better idea how much the whole "playing a character" argument works when the lawsuit raised by the families of shooting victims (that Jones claimed were actors) reaches its verdict.
Click to expand...

Agreed. They're in a similar case to Daniels in that the allegedly harmful claim is that the plaintiff engaged in fraud for pretending to be a victim of a violent crime.
 
Trebuchet said:
Popehat is on the case!

This sentence strikes me as a bit peculiar:

So basically, the tweet isn't defamatory because it can't be expected to be taken seriously, while in fact virtually every Trump supporter in the country will be taking it as the Gospel Truth. Talk about having it both ways!
Click to expand...
Sounds like a judge's official ruling states that nothing DJT says on Twitter can be taken seriously.
 
Trebuchet said:
And the number one rule when involved in litigation is this very simple one: Keep your mouth shut. Trump can't.
Click to expand...

But that is why his followers love him, because he says what's on his mind, and doesn't hold back. They intentionally elected a loudmouth boor, because they somehow think that's what the country needs as a leader - and for some reason because of that he should be given a pass on his boorishnes.
 
a_unique_person said:
Sounds like a judge's official ruling states that nothing DJT says on Twitter can be taken seriously.
Click to expand...

It's something worth challenging, though. What that section challenges is the value of damages... yes, it's a lie, yes in principle it would be harmful, but this person lies so often that people regard him as a pathological liar and therefore there is no damages because everybody knows he's FOS.

I'm reminded of the Labours of Hercule Poirot, where he neutralized a damaging compromising leak regarding the royal family by flooding the media with an enormous quantity of competing defamy.

Defamy's OK if you do it for a living, appears to be the lesson.
 
Trebuchet said:
Popehat is on the case!

This sentence strikes me as a bit peculiar:

So basically, the tweet isn't defamatory because it can't be expected to be taken seriously, while in fact virtually every Trump supporter in the country will be taking it as the Gospel Truth. Talk about having it both ways!
Click to expand...
It would strike me as very problematic and worrying if the argument "everybody knows Trump is an inveterate liar" takes precedent over "Trump is the POTUS". There is one crucial difference between the cited Jacobus case and this one: in the Jacobus case, Trump was still a candidate and thus a private citizen. Since January 2017, his tweets are official White House statements, according to Sean Spicer.

Second, Popehat argues that the tweet is opinion and hyperbole. However, the first sentence: "A sketch job years later about a nonexistent man" strikes me as a factual claim. A man exists or does not exist, there is no room for opinion or hyperbole there.
 
Trebuchet said:
Popehat is on the case!

This sentence strikes me as a bit peculiar:

So basically, the tweet isn't defamatory because it can't be expected to be taken seriously, while in fact virtually every Trump supporter in the country will be taking it as the Gospel Truth. Talk about having it both ways!
Click to expand...
Not to mention there have been enough assertions from the WH that Trump's Tweets are official messages from POTUS.
 
a_unique_person said:
Sounds like a judge's official ruling states that nothing DJT says on Twitter can be taken seriously.
Click to expand...



That's, quite frankly, the dumbest thing I have heard out of 3 years of dumb Trump stuff.

So the President has free reign to say whatever the **** he wants on twitter, but we have teenagers being arrested for the exact same type of name calling bullying on Facebook...

Talk about letting Trump have his cake and eat it too.

Wow. I'm just going to have to assume that judge is a christian conservative and/or Trump supporter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom