Is there a chance that our imaginations are wilder than what actually happened with Stormy?

[Siwsan]

The harder trump* fights this case, the more it leads me to ratchet up the behaviors that may have happened between them.

And would he now start suing people who might just surmise what they think occurred, prefacing it with ' I have no proof but people are saying......"

[Kirk Lover]

1. I'm thinking it's someone on "tape" threatening to fuck Stormy up if she

opens her mouth up about trashbag. So....that's not good.

They pretty much said that's what it is.....and who knows if there's more, but it ain't good and it's not he's bad in bed type of shit.

[rzemanfl]

2. Hey Lawn Gilander, are you suggesting Drumpf is good in bed?

If so, then why does he pay them not to talk about it?

[Kirk Lover]

3. Trashbag has class, he pays them to protect whoever his wife is at the time.

He does it out of love!

[rzemanfl]

7. My skinny septuagenarian ass he does. n/t

[enid602]

56. Pay

Why does he have to pay them for the sex in the first place?

[Siwsan]

5. I see it as a massive case of 'Me thinks though dost protest too much.'

trump* and his people are the ones responsible for blowing this whole situation up into the gargantuan proportions it has become.

And I don't understand how he can legally demand that massive of a penalty. I've heard some arguments that, even if she would lose, no judge would enforce that onerous of a payment.

And if she has been threatened, wouldn't that automatically invalidate the whole thing?

GHAAAAAAA!!!!!!!! This is too much mind spin for a Saturday morning!

[Kirk Lover]

9. Now we can add this to the list of fronts that this piece of trash is fucked on.

His lies will catch up with him. He is such a fool, he should of just stayed in his lane and he would of lived out a nice corrupt life and only torturing those around him. Instead he chose this and he thought he would get away with his ahem ahem....indiscretions, personal and financial in the white hot spotlight? Fuck up on outta here with that bullshit Don...you going down and your taking your dirtbag spawn with you.

[Arkansas Granny]

4. This may be a case of the cover up being worse than the crime.

Last edited Sat Mar 17, 2018, 11:59 AM - Edit history (1)

It doesn't matter, since either/both adds credence to the claim that Trump is not fit to hold office.

[NCTraveler]

10. This is my current belief.

There are things that happened during the cover up phase that are highly questionable/illegal and they are desperate to make sure all of the dots are not connected. Stormy might not even be aware of all with respect to that.

The only other thing I can think of is that a photo is involved. It wouldn't even have to necessarily be that salacious of a photo for them to fight like this.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. My imagination refuses to speculate about what Trump might have done in the sack

because the mental picture of that blubbery orange sack of lard, sweating and jiggling and grunting on top of ... anybody... is disturbing enough by itself. Throw in a little kink and I have to start looking for a bottle of Tums. Ick.

[Siwsan]

8. But it goes beyond that to threats and intimidation.

But I agree - there's not enough filthy lucre on the planet to entice me into even standing next to that guy.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

11. I've been wondering how the NDA came about in the first place,

since Daniels had already spilled the beans to some extent years ago. It sounds like she was approached by Cohen right after the Access Hollywood tape came out because Trump didn't want to add any more fuel to that fire right before the election. He never tried to stop her from talking about their liaison years ago, because at that time he enjoyed his reputation as a louche playboy. But now he's running for president. So, did Cohen coerce her into signing the agreement? "I got $130K for you to shut up. You don't take the deal? We know where you live."

[jberryhill]

13. Keith Davidson brokers this kind of stuff

Daniels new lawyer has been going on about this at length. Is there anything about the genesis of the agreement he has not discussed?

[Siwsan]

14. That's the vibe I get, from the whole situation

$130,000 is pretty chintzy hush money. There has to have been something else thrown into the "agreement".

Something certainly makes this situation far more flammable than all of the other NDS he has floating around, out there. I wish more would leak out how much they received to keep quiet.

[jberryhill]

49. Time was running out

It was days before the election. Trump was assumed to be headed for a loss. How much money would it be worth the day after.

There as an assumed "sell by" date on whatever Daniels had to say. The assumption was wrong, so now she wants out of the agreement.

[Siwsan]

52. I wonder what they would have done, had she turned down the $$

And on a side note, my brother actually met Stormy at a Starbucks in LA. He worked at 20th Century Fox in the research library - not sure if he was on a film, at the time. Anyway, they struck up a conversation and he said she was really nice, and came across as VERY smart. She was very up front about the genre of show business she was in. He was pretty gob-smacked when this whole story broke.

[jberryhill]

59. The picture of the two of them was floating around at the time anyway

Maybe its because I remember a lot of odd details about things, but that picture of the two of them was already circulating back in October 2016. Her story wasn't attracting a lot of attention at the time, beneath the wave of all of the other horrid stuff about this despicable man.

But as far as "had she turned down the $$" the implicit assumption there is that the Trump camp approached her to start negotiations, and not the other way around. Her lawyer identified in the contract - Davidson - is in the business of shaking down people for money to withhold embarrassing disclosures. I'd guess it wasn't a matter of her turning down the Trump camp's offer, as much as it was the Trump camp turning down Davidson's offers. 130k is where they ended up.

And that's the other thing about Avenatti, and his excellent way of saying a lot on TV without actually saying much at all. "Who got the ball rolling on this" is, I guess, as interesting an aspect of the story as anything else. The fact that you don't hear anything about that subject, IMHO, speaks volumes about who was making the offering, and who was doing the turning down.

130k was probably the most Daniels could get, given the timing by that point. Continuing to negotiate worked in Trump's favor, since obviously it kept a lid on during the time leading up to the agreement. Time wasn't on Daniels side in the negotiation, and the cumulative effect of "some porn star says she slept with Trump" which, again, was already floating as a story, didn't have all that much value by October 30.

That would be my bet. But as far as "who turned down what along the way", the assumption that she was bidding them up, as opposed to them bidding her down, is part of the implicit narrative that gets swallowed by the magic of presenting well on television without actually discussing facts.

The notion of Daniels, and her shill Davidson, being the ones shaking down Trump for as much money as they could get, however, doesn't fit the "big mean bully" narrative. So that part gets discarded.

It is, however, obvious, since Daniels didn't just wander into Davidson's office on her own. That's the business Davidson is IN.

[Skittles]

44. like that tweet said

something to the effect of, I don't have enough Scotch to contemplate this, not at ALL

[jberryhill]

12. So why don't we know?

If the NDA is as invalid as is being advertised, why not spill the beans?

I have a few guesses about that, but curious to know why others think she doesn't just disclose everything now.

[Siwsan]

15. She might not have realized there would be such a delay between taping and airing?

And there may likely be an agreement to keep quiet and let the show do the talking? I thought, at one time, the show was supposed to air tomorrow. 60 Minutes might be getting their legal ducks in a row.

[jberryhill]

16. It's up to CBS to decide what she or her attorney says?

I don't see the problem in Daniels disclosing everything she has and everything she knows.

What's the holdup?

[Siwsan]

17. Hate to say it but maybe CBS had her sign something about keeping quiet until it airs

If she talks, ahead of the show, what's the point in airing it? After all of this build up publicity - once she talks, why watch the interview?

Just a theory......

[jberryhill]

19. Bwhahahahahahahha

maybe CBS had her sign something about keeping quiet

Okay. That's funny.

Subtle, but hilarious.

Are you suggesting that 60 Minutes pays their interview subjects, and has them sign exclusives on the story?

Do you think it was more than $130k?

[Siwsan]

22. I have a feeling there is some sort of ongoing work going on at CBS

Maybe they are still gathering evidence on continuing intimidation and will have an 'update' segment, after the interview airs.

I'd be busy getting my business and family affairs in order, and then setting up an alternative identity.

[jberryhill]

23. But if all the information is disclosed, now, then there is no need for that

I'd be busy getting my business and family affairs in order, and then setting up an alternative identity.

The safest thing to do is simply dump all the information.

Once that is done, threatened retaliation or intimidation have no power.

[Siwsan]

26. I have a one word answer - Ratings

This show will likely blow the roof off of all previous ratings for 60 Minutes

[jberryhill]

28. What does Daniels care about 60 Minutes ratings?

Again, are you seriously suggesting that 60 Minutes paid for the interview and required an NDA? Do you actually believe 60 Minutes does checkbook journalism?

Wait, wait, don't tell me.... 60 Minutes cut a deal with Daniels where her pay is based on a ratings figure?

The 60 Minutes interview is primarily a promotional piece for the next phase of monetization of this thing.

Get out your decoder ring, because you are going to need to know that you should drink your Ovaltine.

So, let me summarize what I understand you to be saying here. Daniels is in mortal danger because she possesses information that Team Trump will kill her over, in order to keep her quiet. While the obvious way out of that is simply to disclose the information, and thus killing her would do no good, she is continuing to remain in mortal peril for the sake of CBS' ratings.

Do I follow you correctly?

[mr_lebowski]

34. I would calculate she'd be doing it because she thinks a blockbuster 60 Minutes episode ...

Is going to be better at catapulting the upcoming book sales for which she WILL get paid ... than dribbling out news via like interviews on Sunday Morning shows or with the Daily Beast or whatnot. 60 Minutes is creme-de-la-creme, people.

She's not in danger right now, anything happens to her the whole world will be looking at Trump. He's not THAT friggin' dumb.

I wouldn't get your hopes up too much about what she's going to SAY on 60 mins though, I promise you the best/most salacious details will be in the Book which she'll likely mention numerous times.

[jberryhill]

39. I'll bet you thought Susan B. Anthony was in it for the money too

I believe that children in the next generation will grow up in a world where they'll be stuffing garter belts with five dollar bills adorned with Daniels picture on them.

[mr_lebowski]

40. You're joking right? Seems to me from your other posts you know damn well it's about $$$

[jberryhill]

46. Of course it is

But mine is a minority opinion here, so I'm trying to get into the spirit of "Stormy Daniels - Freedom Fighter for the Oppressed Masses".

[mr_lebowski]

51. S'what I thought ... just makin' sure ;)

[Siwsan]

41. Take a step back, please!!!

I really don't know what her agreement is, or if there even is one, with 60 Minutes! I just think there is a reason she's waiting and apparently she thinks it is a good one.

I don't know why you are being so aggressive and insultingly condescending in what is just a casual discussion post. I, generally, really enjoy reading your posts and I'm shocked and actually hurt that you are turning on and attempting to humiliate me.

It's just a casual conversation and there's no need to be offensive.

[jberryhill]

42. What did I say that was offensive?

I'm just trying to understand the rationale for Daniels not going public with everything she has or knows.

It can't be the contract since, gee, every lawyer on TV says it is unenforceable. So scratch that.

If it is threats, then the best way to deal with that is - release the information.

But if it is an NDA with 60 Minutes, then that's actually something of a serious accusation against the journalistic ethics of 60 Minutes. I didn't make that accusation.

I'm not trying to humiliate anyone. I'm genuinely curious about why I seem to have such an incorrect understanding of the dynamics of this thing.

If I wasn't genuinely interested in trying to understand your point of view, I wouldn't be having the discussion.

The only thing I've seen leak out thus far is this video of the negotiating session where Cohen was trying to get Daniels to fire Avenatti:

[Siwsan]

43. It's obvious that we have very different ways of communicating

I've completely lost the thread, now. All I am saying is there has to be a reason, maybe a written agreement with CBS, that she won't speak out ahead of time. I've never been on 60 Minutes. I don't know what goes on when they have a big story like this but I would think, from a business standpoint, that they wouldn't want it leaking out before the show airs. I would suspect that they have invested a lot of money in producing this segment.

I really thought this was going to be aired much sooner than it is slated for, now. There must be a reason they are waiting.

And if she has been threatened, as her lawyer said, she probably does have a lot to worry about. I didn't make the threat part up. And not necessarily from trump* or his minions - there are a lot of loosely wrapped followers out there. Perhaps you should offer them the decoder ring.

Now, I hope I have explained myself in a way that doesn't make me sound like an idiot.

[jberryhill]

45. Ah, okay

I do not think you are an idiot, and did not intend to make you out to be one.

IMHO, the whole thing is show biz. Aside from the implications of the 130k as a campaign contribution - which has been on the table for months now, I'm surprised by the investment of many here in the Daniels/Trump contract dispute as if it were some sort of political cause in which the outcome matters one way or the other, and I've been trying to figure out what I'm missing.

Yeah, it's ratings gold for 60 Minutes. But also would be dumb of Daniels to reveal anything of significance in the interview, other than to continue to tease the audience along for the purpose of maintaining interest in having had sex with Trump 12 years ago so that she can pursue further commercial opportunities once the contract dispute is squared away.

Cohen's best move is also to keep the tease going as well (which he has done also), since the case may ultimately settle on the proposition of a royalty share for him, unless anyone thinks he or his client are motivated by anything other than ratings, fame and money. It's not like there's any "principle" at stake on that side either.

[Siwsan]

48. I suspect it is going to be an interesting week.

Who know what or who else will be showing up in breaking news. I'm getting whip last, that's for sure.

[jberryhill]

50. Well, as long as the news networks can legitimately show pictures of a porn star over and over

...then whatever is going on at the DoJ, State Department, Congress, CIA, etc., can all take a back seat.

[Siwsan]

55. I've noticed some of the anchors going out of their way to make that point

and reminding people of what ELSE is going on so that they don't get too focused on the, well, on the latest is the best way to describe it.

They now need to distract from the distractions that were meant to be distractions, in the first place. What a freaking nightmare!

[sarcasmo]

18. Stormy has pictures and Donnie knows it.

[jberryhill]

20. Why not release them?

[Squinch]

21. BUT we'll never see them. I hesitate to see her as a fighter for Democracy. I think it is

a lot more likely that she is angling for more money. Remember, she slept with trump for money. So, and this is based on her past actions and not her profession, doing something mildly distasteful - like blackmail - for money is magnitudes less scuzzy than sleeping with the snorting brainless bloviator.

My prediction: either she settles a new, more lucrative deal with the republican president that we don't hear about and just fades away, or she has an unfortunate accident. Possibly at the hand of a guy named Vladimir.

I hope I am wrong on both of those. But I bet I'm not.

[jberryhill]

24. There are obvious elephants in the room which no one apparently can see

Last edited Sat Mar 17, 2018, 01:54 PM - Edit history (1)

The only reason for withholding any information at this point is that it has bargaining power or commercial value.

Everyone insists the October 2016 agreement is invalid. Why, every lawyer on TV says so. So there is no downside to releasing everything right now.

The only downside would be the loss of the commercial value of the information or the loss of ability to negotiate a better deal.

[Squinch]

25. Do you know - and I ask because I don't - if the problems with the notarization would actually

nullify the agreement?

[jberryhill]

27. No

They wouldn't. The notarization is irrelevant, even though defective, as Daniels is not denying that is her signature.

A lot of the "as seen on TV legal analysis" is comical.

You have a document which, on its face, says it can be signed in separate counterpart copies. That's an extremely bog standard thing to do. The fact that one party has produced a copy that doesn't have all the signatures on it, and then claims "it wasn't signed by everyone" is itself kind of funny. But people just eat up whatever they see on TV.

[Squinch]

29. Thank you for this! So the original agreement is, then, in fact legally binding?

And what do you think would be the likelihood that Trump would actually fight it, given the information that could come out in a suit?

[jberryhill]

31. It may be

Legally binding on who?

You only need someone's signature on a contract if you are going to claim they breached it. Did she get paid the 130k? Yep. If they are performing the contract, their signature is irrelevant. Daniels is not suing for breach of contract. She's suing for recission of the contract.

The issue in the lawsuit is "is the contract valid". That doesn't require anything about the substance of the contract - i.e. whether there are or are not pictures, what kind of sex they had, how often, etc. - to decide.

If the court decides the contract was binding on her, that's the end of it. Any issues of breach, liquidated damages, etc., go to arbitration.

Issues of breach under the contract are committed to private arbitration. There is, in fact, a federal law which requires courts to defer to arbitration of contract issues because (a) the right to contract is a Constitutionally protected right, and (b) people are entitled to agree to waive all sorts of other rights under a contract.

It is unlikely that any information would come out of the suit. Once this suit is joined in earnest by the other side - and they have filed a notice of removal to federal court and have thus waived service of process, the next move will be a motion to seal. That motion should be granted, since the subject matter of the suit itself is a non-disclosure agreement.

There are suits over NDA's, theft of trade secrets, etc., all of the time. They aren't remarkable lawsuits usually. If an engineer who worked for company X and then started his own company is sued for theft of trade secrets, it's not as if those trade secrets get disclosed in the course of litigation over it.

I mean, heck, how do you think people get prosecuted for things like breaches of national security? If someone in the CIA is caught selling secrets to a foreign power, those things don't get disclosed during the trial.

It's just amusing that "everyone knows the contract is invalid", and yet has no rational explanation for why all of Daniels information is not public by now. What's stopping her?

And if the answer to "what's stopping her?" is "threats of violence", then the obvious course of action is to disclose the information asap, since after that the threats, or actual violence, has no effect. Winning the lawsuit wouldn't stop the threats of violence either, so the lawsuit is more or less beside the point if that's your answer. Maybe someday she'll have a lawyer who will assist her in reporting these threats to law enforcement.

[Squinch]

32. Thank you again! You are convincing me I am right that this is all about getting her more money.

[jberryhill]

33. Well, opinions can differ

Given Daniels' lifelong commitment to progressive politics and the public interest, it might be a stretch to say that it's about money.

I mean, clearly, she fell head over heels in love with Trump, which was the reason for the relationship in the first place. Then, she was jilted, and accepted a mere $130k to agree not to talk about it.

Used, heartbroken, and underpaid... all in the course of promoting good government and civic interest. That's gotta be tough.

I can't imagine why anyone would think it is about money.

[Squinch]

35. It is true those two crazy kids did have a very romantic love story.

But you know, when he wouldn't commit because of that new baby and the third wife, it probably broke her little stormy heart. That's probably what's driving this.

[jberryhill]

37. Tragic really

Searching the entire world for naught, and finding true love after three marriages, but having strong commitment to family must have been wrenching for the both of them.

[Squinch]

38. It was when he looked into the little face of that fifth child, though, and when that little fist

grabbed his tie so tightly. Donald finally understood what was important in life. It changed him.

[jberryhill]

47. Yep - and then the Good Lord Jeebus washed away his sins

Trump always wears that big red tie to remind us of the stripes Christ bore for his sins.

[Squinch]

57. It's like a crucifix, only phallic. And then Jebus washed away his sins again, and then another

time, and then gave him a mulligan, and then kept washing until poor Jebus died of exhaustion.

This is such a sad story...

[Skittles]

53. she is a grifter

no better than the men she fucks and shakes down for money

[njhoneybadger]

54. We are not going to see it

She will probably settle for something like 2 Million.

[ananda]

30. Just the opposite I think.

nt

[Siwsan]

36. Ah, then it IS the stuff from which nightmares are made!

[Caliman73]

58. It is not about what two consenting adults did sexually...

however repugnant people (myself included) find infidelity and Trumps behavior in general with regards to women and relationships, that is not the issue. The reason this is a bigger story is that Trump attempted to buy the silence of a person to secure his election, had allies in media (if you can call the Enquirer media) bury the story, and did it in such a shotty way that it has come back to haunt him. Trump was a moderate sized fish in the much smaller pond of New York real estate and business. He thought that he could take his way of being and put it under the microscope of national and global politics. He will find out that Public Servants do not have the privacy and protections that private citizens do. I am thinking, and hoping, that he will regret in a major way, the day he decided to actually pull the trigger on running for office.

I personally, do not care about any of the details of the affair. I already know that Trump is worth less than excrement. What I care about is Trump trying to twist the law and using bullying tactics to get out of paying his just dues.

[Siwsan]

60. It wasn't the behavior. It's why the effort to cover it up, almost a decade later

I don't care what they got up to - she's already talked about that, anyway. And, frankly, historically speaking it's not all that unusual of a behavior pattern for 'powerful' men. It's why did they feel it so necessary to do the whole NDA and rather paltry payoff, so many years after the event. Did they go to her, or did she go to them? I don't think I've ever heard which way that went. And, it makes me wonder how many other signings and payouts happened in 2016.

trump* has always bought his way out of trouble, and it looks like this will be the first time it's going to backfire, big time.

[Lint Head]

61. I'm sure she went back to his room and they read the Bible together.

Trump was just trying to save a prostitute from Eternal damnation. 8

[Still In Wisconsin]

62. My theory: Trump had his chance but couldnt rise to the occasion

You know he wouldn’t want that coming out!

[HipChick]

63. One of the side effects of finasteride is can't get it or keep it up...