What can they be hiding?

[kallend 2,027]

wolfriverjoe

Well, it's an interesting situation.

We live in interesting times.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,995]

>If Cohen was acting without Trump's knowledge or authority then whole contract can
>nullified, as that side of the deal that Daniels thought she was agreeing to doesn't actually
> exist.

Nope. There's a clause that says if any one part of the contract is deemed illegal or unenforceable, the remainder of the contract remains in effect. Did you read it?

>So perhaps you can tell me which part of it states they are attempting to nullify the
>contract because fake names were used? Oh wait, you can't because it isn't there.

That is an excellent strawman!

>because he hasn't signed it he isn't bound by his side of the agreement as she expected
>him to be, therefore the contract was never executed.

The contract was executed because she agreed not to talk, took the money and deposited it. She is bound by it.

Again, you sound like every first jump student who broke their leg and then tried to find ways to weasel out of the waiver they signed. "But my client didn't know skydiving was dangerous! And the date is wrong. This contract is UNENFORCEABLE!"

[kallend 2,027]

The fact remains that regardless of the outcome of the latest court issue, Trump is now known to be hiding something in addition to his tax returns, and to have used an alias in the process.

David Dennison indeed. I wonder if HE filed tax returns.

Still awaiting rushmc's analysis of all this.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jakee 1,497]

billvon

>If Cohen was acting without Trump's knowledge or authority then whole contract can
>nullified, as that side of the deal that Daniels thought she was agreeing to doesn't actually
> exist.

Nope. There's a clause that says if any one part of the contract is deemed illegal or unenforceable, the remainder of the contract remains in effect. Did you read it?

That's not the same thing as one entire party not being bound by any conditions of the contract.

Quote

>So perhaps you can tell me which part of it states they are attempting to nullify the
>contract because fake names were used? Oh wait, you can't because it isn't there.

That is an excellent strawman!

Now you're just being a dick.

"A week later he puts a stop payment on the check. "I'm not paying. The receipt says 'JayEss Furniture Shop' not 'Jake Smith' like you said your name was. It's not a binding transaction if you didn't reveal that you were really JayEss, not Jake.""

You knew perfectly well that hypothetical scenario would be taken at face value as representing your thoughts on the situation. Luckily you're not Rushmc, and you're man enough to retract the 'strawman' accusation, yes?

Quote

>because he hasn't signed it he isn't bound by his side of the agreement as she expected
>him to be, therefore the contract was never executed.

The contract was executed because she agreed not to talk, took the money and deposited it. She is bound by it.

The money was only one part of what she is supposed to get from the agreement. Something else she is supposed to get is protection from any Trump legal action for things she said or did before the NDA, like the interview with whatever magazine it was. So what happens now if Trump decides that since the cat is out of the bag anyway he might as well go scorched earth, double down on his lies, and attempt to sue the crap out of her for libel and slander for the interviews she gave and things she told people about him before the NDA? Because if he isn't bound by it, he could do that.

And call me cynical, but there are no odds you could offer me to take a bet that both carrot and stick weren't involved in Cohen's approach to Daniels. 'Take the money or we'll bury you in legal procedings for years'. If it turns out Trump still holds the stick, it's a really big deal.

Quote

Again, you sound like every first jump student who broke their leg and then tried to find ways to weasel out of the waiver they signed. "But my client didn't know skydiving was dangerous! And the date is wrong. This contract is UNENFORCEABLE!"

Change 'now you're being a dick' to 'now you're being a giant douche'.

More like the first jump student who was in a plane crash then found out the DZO hadn't carried out any federally or manufacturer mandated maintenance and the pilot's licence and medical were out of date. "My client didn't know you were running an illegal operation!"

I think I'd win, don't you?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 2,995]

>Now you're just being a dick.

>Change 'now you're being a dick' to 'now you're being a giant douche'.

Ah well. Was an interesting discussion. I'll let you talk to RushMC at his level.

[ryoder 1,590]

Does anyone remember that 5 months ago Larry Flynt was advertising a $10M reward for information that would lead to Trump's impeachment? I'm thinking Stormy may have a benefactor eager to help cover the penalties for talking.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[jakee 1,497]

billvon

Ah well. Was an interesting discussion. I'll let you talk to RushMC at his level.

So you'll stick with making accusations you know are completely false?

You've got more integrity than that, Bill. Don't let yourself down

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[ryoder 1,590]

Don't miss "60 Minutes" next weekend: https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/trump-lawyers-are-considering-a-challenge-to-60-minutes

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[kallend 2,027]

ryoder

Don't miss "60 Minutes" next weekend: https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/trump-lawyers-are-considering-a-challenge-to-60-minutes

Hmmm.

Maybe Trump has something to hide.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Bob_Church 7]

gowlerk

Quote

That's the best bit, isn't it? It's like an ongoing test to see if Trump has any self control whatsoever. You just know that he's dying to unleash a tweetstorm about how it's all a fake media conspiracy and he's never even met a lawyer named Michael Cohen, let alone a porn star called Stormy Daniels Laugh

More than likely what his instincts really tell him is to brag about his porn star liaison. That would be more his style. Being POTUS is cramping him big time!

This is assuming that they actually had sex, instead of "It's ok Don, it happens to everyone now and then."

edit: that wasn't meant as a joke

[SkyDekker 1,465]

He may prefer that story, adultery is a class B misdemeanor in New York State.

[billvon 2,995]

This should be interesting. I have a feeling the response will be "Stormy who?"

=======================
Stormy Daniels Offers to Return Payment to End Deal for Her Silence
By JIM RUTENBERG
MARCH 12, 2018
NYT


The pornographic film actress who says she had an affair with President Trump offered on Monday to return $130,000 she received from Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer in 2016 for agreeing not to discuss the alleged relationship.

In exchange, the actress, Stephanie Clifford, seeks an end to her deal to keep quiet about what she says was an affair with Mr. Trump that started in 2006 and lasted for several months.

In the letter, which was sent to Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, early Monday, Ms. Clifford’s lawyer, Michael Avenatti, wrote that Ms. Clifford would wire the money into an account of Mr. Trump’s choosing by Friday.
===========================

[kallend 2,027]

billvon

This should be interesting. I have a feeling the response will be "Stormy who?"

=======================
Stormy Daniels Offers to Return Payment to End Deal for Her Silence
By JIM RUTENBERG
MARCH 12, 2018
NYT


The pornographic film actress who says she had an affair with President Trump offered on Monday to return $130,000 she received from Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer in 2016 for agreeing not to discuss the alleged relationship.

In exchange, the actress, Stephanie Clifford, seeks an end to her deal to keep quiet about what she says was an affair with Mr. Trump that started in 2006 and lasted for several months.

In the letter, which was sent to Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, early Monday, Ms. Clifford’s lawyer, Michael Avenatti, wrote that Ms. Clifford would wire the money into an account of Mr. Trump’s choosing by Friday.
===========================

If David Dennison aka John Barron aka John Miller aka John Baron aka D. Trump has nothing to hide, (t)he(y) should take the money.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ryoder 1,590]

billvon

In the letter, which was sent to Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, early Monday, Ms. Clifford’s lawyer, Michael Avenatti, wrote that Ms. Clifford would wire the money into an account of Mr. Trump’s choosing by Friday.

That would be his petty cash fund, aka "The Trump Foundation", right?

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[kallend 2,027]

The WSJ is doing a good job keeping up with this:

/www.wsj.com/articles/top-trump-company-lawyer-worked-to-silence-stormy-daniels-1521072252

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,027]

So Trump's personal lawyer and a Trump organization lawyer are both involved in a hush money deal with a porn star, but Trump is not involved in any way.

Y-E-A-H R-I-G-H-T.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jaybird18c 24]

This doesn't surprise me at all. I was very much against Trump's nomination. I think he is a very morally challenged individual. I also think he's narcissistic and impulsive. I am also not on the bandwagon with folks who think he suddenly became a Christian after winning the election. This sort of thing should surprise no one. It's what people like him do. I did not vote for him in the primaries. I did vote for him against Hillary Clinton. I'd do it again given the same choice.

[yoink 321]

jaybird18c

This doesn't surprise me at all. I was very much against Trump's nomination. I think he is a very morally challenged individual. I also think he's narcissistic and impulsive. I am also not on the bandwagon with folks who think he suddenly became a Christian after winning the election. This sort of thing should surprise no one. It's what people like him do. I did not vote for him in the primaries. I did vote for him against Hillary Clinton. I'd do it again given the same choice.

Would you vote for him against just about anyone else?

[nolhtairt 0]

yoink

***This doesn't surprise me at all. I was very much against Trump's nomination. I think he is a very morally challenged individual. I also think he's narcissistic and impulsive. I am also not on the bandwagon with folks who think he suddenly became a Christian after winning the election. This sort of thing should surprise no one. It's what people like him do. I did not vote for him in the primaries. I did vote for him against Hillary Clinton. I'd do it again given the same choice.

Would you vote for him against just about anyone else?

If there was a much better choice than Hillary, I could have. And no, Bernie Sanders doesn't qualify.

Hell, Hillary is the worst loser I've ever seen. Still bitching about the election. Even some Democrats are wishing she'd shut up and go away.

[billvon 2,995]

>Hell, Hillary is the worst loser I've ever seen. Still bitching about the election. Even
>some Democrats are wishing she'd shut up and go away.

I doubt it. The only people listening to Clinton any more are Republicans.

[jaybird18c 24]

I vote for a conservative platform. The Dems aren't that by a long stretch.

[billvon 2,995]

>I vote for a conservative platform.

The latest news on our new conservative family values leader:
==========================================
BuzzFeed maneuver could free Stormy Daniels to speak on Trump
By JOSH GERSTEIN 03/14/2018 07:34 PM EDT
Politico

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.
=================

[jaybird18c 24]

And how is this supposed scandal supposed to be different/worse from Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky or his other exploits? Is it supposed to make anyone feel better about Hillary Clinton as an alternative?

[DJL 235]

billvon

>Hell, Hillary is the worst loser I've ever seen. Still bitching about the election. Even
>some Democrats are wishing she'd shut up and go away.

I doubt it. The only people listening to Clinton any more are Republicans.

Now that I think about, the only time I hear about her is from my Republican friends complaining about what she's up to. I did see the tweet where she recommended Trump read her children's book if he was having trouble with some of of the others. That was pretty funny.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[billvon 2,995]

>Now that I think about, the only time I hear about her is from my Republican friends
>complaining about what she's up to.

Yep. They can't defend Trump's idiocy. But they can attack Clinton - so that's what they do.

There are an awful lot of republicans crying in their cups that they don't have a handy democrat to blame for all the ills of the country. Attacks on Clinton are as close as they can come.