Ana Navarro strikes gold again with her tweet on Stormy vis-a-vis the Trump clan

[iluvtennis]

Ana Navarro@ananavarro

If u don’t mind Trump jacking-up prices at Mar-a-Lago & using presidency to promote properties, or Kushners trying to get loans from foreign gvts, or Ivanka using gvt platform to hawk her brand...u can’t suddenly find religion re Stormy trying to make 💰 off Trump presidency too.

Link to tweet

[jberryhill]

1. Heh

What probably burns Trump the most is that Daniels is making money off the Trump name, and Trump doesn’t get a percentage.

[ProudLib72]

2. That's why I put her in the same league as tRump

It's fun to see her fuck him over the same way he fucks over everyone else, but I'm not going to beatify her for it.

[pangaia]

12. But, doesn't she have a legitimate beef with trump,

whereas he really has no beef with those off whom he is trying to make money?

[ProudLib72]

15. Well, that may or may not be true

She says she doesn't remember what she was thinking when she had sex with him. I don't know if I buy that. Most believe she wants to make some money off this. We also know that the NDA is a valid document that she is trying to get out of (the legal experts on DU convinced me of this), and, again, the reason for doing so would be so she could make some money telling her story.

Ok, I'll give you that she isn't picking on anyone and everyone she meets (like tRump does). IMHO, it's all about the money for both of them, though.

[pangaia]

16. Thanks,, lots of folks here are much smarter than I am..

I'm much better at playing Mahler, Shostakovich and Beethoven.

[ProudLib72]

17. It's not about being smarter

It's about knowing the law. I got schooled yesterday about that NDA.

[pangaia]

18. BDA NDA NASA USPS ACA MSNSSBBMSN SCOTUS POTUS FLOTUS AMFIBEOUS

God I can't keep track....

[ProudLib72]

21. I agree! Someone ought to make a cheat sheet that includes all the relevant acronyms

Make it a sticky at the top of General Discussion. We could call it the "General Discussion Cheat Sheet" or GDCS for short.

[pangaia]

24. L9l. Winnerrrrr

[brush]

53. Question: How is it a valid document when trump didn't sign it, not even...

with his pseudonym, and the notary stamp has been reported as questionable?

[ProudLib72]

54. It depends on CA's contract law

Must both signatures be present for it to be valid? Does her acceptance of the money constitute a contract?

It's her acceptance of the money that seems to be the crux of the issue (to me anyway).

I was browsing CA contract law for any hints. Although written documents supersede anything else, a verbal contract is still binding. One can easily argue that the acceptance of money bound her to contract regardless of any signature.

[brush]

55. But then there's the questionable notary stamp.

[WinstonSmith4740]

19. I missed that thread.

How is the NDA binding if both parties didn't sign it?

[ProudLib72]

22. Here is the thread in which I read about it

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210371391#post31

Again, for us non-legal types, it seems like his not signing it would make it invalid. Evidently, that is not the case. Who knew (well, obviously there are some lawyers on DU).

[WinstonSmith4740]

23. Thanks!

That did clear things somewhat.

[jberryhill]

25. I wouldn't go too far with that

At best, the situation is not as simple as some would make it appear.

To say that "Argument A does not work" is not to say that there is not some other argument to the same conclusion that would work.

I'm critical of bad arguments for conclusions with which I agree. A bad argument is a bad argument, regardless of what the conclusion might be. In other words, I don't give points for getting to the correct answer with an incorrect argument.

The contract may or may not be valid. Some of the arguments in favor of invalidity are incorrect. But ultimately, what I am fascinated by in the whole thing is why any of us groundlings should actually care one way or the other whether the contract is valid or not.

[ProudLib72]

41. Honest opinion, it doesn't matter if the NDA is valid or not

The NDA is nothing more than a prop in an elaborate strip tease. Based on the existence and wording of the NDA, I think it is reasonable to conclude that there was an affair between Donnie and Stormy. That really ought to be enough. Add to that the fact that anyone who wants to see all of Stormy can find out with a two second google image search. The only thing that is left for Stormy to capitalize on is the details that the NDA supposedly keeps us from knowing. As long as she can keep up the pretense of not being able to disclose all those need to know intimate details, the more John Q Public wants to know those details.

Look at how many threads there are on DU speculating about what might have happened. All of them tend toward one conclusion: the sex was horrible. Now we really must know! But do we honestly want to know the sordid details? I mean, isn't enough to know that Donnie cheated on his wife with a porn star?

I await the 60 Minutes interview with baited breath, fully knowing that she will not be allowed to go into all the details... because of that NDA. And see how she is working it so that Donnie appears to be the bad guy in this scenario? That is a smart move. In doing so she has recruited people like us here on DU to her cause. She could not ask for better publicity.

[jberryhill]

45. What's even odder

Is that Navarro's tweet above takes the same view that this is a case of Grifter v. Grifter.

I guess part of it is the tendency to think that in any dispute, there is a "good side" and a "bad side".

Sometimes it just doesn't break down that way.

[ProudLib72]

56. Legally speaking, it shouldn't matter. nt

[Stonepounder]

38. Actually, there are a couple of things that would void the NDA.

1. If there were threats made before the NDA was signed, then the NDA would be null and void, since it would have been signed under duress. Mr. Cohen is well known for making threats and some of us are surprised that there have not been disciplinary actions against him.

2. If some of the terms of the contract (NDA) are obviously impossibly biased toward one party over the other party - you get $130,000 to keep your mouth shut but I get $1M for every time you mention anything and the court agrees that there is an completely unfair slant - the NDA can be voided.

Disclaimer: IANAL nor is Mrs. Stonepounder, but she worked for a number of lawyers throughout her career, from working for NATO, working for the European Command in Germany at the height of the Cold War, to working for one of the giant Japanese electronic/computer conglomerates starting as a Legal Secretary and ending up as their Contract Negotiator in the office of the Chief Counsel, so she does have some familiarity with contracts and contract law.

[ProudLib72]

43. Look at my reply #41

I really believe the NDA is a tease.

I agree with your points. Stormy has hinted at the first one, and the lawsuit for $20 million certainly captures the essence of the second one. I have this feeling that it will go to arbitration eventually and be settled, but in the meantime Stormy will make the most of not being able to tell her "need to know secrets".

[jberryhill]

44. However

#1 is not even claimed by the plaintiff in the case.

On #2, there is some relevant authority for the proposition that "punitive" liquidated damages are not enforceable. Again, that's not a claim in the Daniels lawsuit either. However, voiding the extent of the liquidated damages does not render the entire contract void. It's pretty obvious that Daniels agreed to accept $130k for something.

That's why I wanted to point out above that I have discussed various theories of invalidity that have been advanced in Daniels' suit or by comments in the media. Some of those theories are ineffective or beside the point. IMHO, the most viable ones have not been claimed in her suit.

But "his signature is not on my copy of the agreement" is not one of them.

[avebury]

46. I don't care what her reason is, if she can keep Trump

otherwise occupied and upset that a woman isn't kowtowing to him, that is good enough for me.

[SayItLoud]

49. She's risking her life for what she wants, would you?

So she wants $. She's risking her life because the deplorables will never forgive her. Now, the only conflict the deplorables have is: they idolize the F'n MORON in the Oral Office But MAN DO THEY LOVE THEIR PORN.

[jberryhill]

26. What is the beef, though, really?

Pro-tip: if you don’t want someone making threats of enforcing a $130k contract with a prohibitory liquidated damages clause, there’s a really tricky legal technicality you can use to avoid the whole argument and talk about anything you want. Can you guess what that is?

[pangaia]

27. Don't sign

[jberryhill]

28. And dont accept the money

Granted, this is a very complex legal strategy.

[MaryMagdaline]

3. Priceless

[Wounded Bear]

4. K & R...for truth...nt

[BobTheSubgenius]

5. Go, Ana!!!

Sauce for the goose, and all that.

[quartz007]

6. It's just sex

between 2 consenting adults.

[efhmc]

8. It would be if she had not been paid to keep quiet

so fake 45 could win an election. The other equally important part to me is the treatment of his wife. That was nasty and degrading, the usual treatment of that scum toward women.

[Sugarcoated]

10. AND

Daniels may have been threatened with physical violence

[groundloop]

11. And if it had been a Democrat Pres. he'd have been hauled before Congress

If even of fraction of the claims against 45* regarding the Stormy Affair were leveled against a sitting Democratic President he'd have been hauled before Congress and questioned in depth, then impeachment hearing would be scheduled. The repubs in Congress won't even consider doing that to a fellow repub President though.

[quartz007]

42. I defended Bill Clinton for the same reason

that all his alleged affairs were just sex between 2 consenting adults.

[Salviati]

13. Inviting the women that Bill Clinton slept around with to the debate make it open season on trump

as far as I'm concerned, as far as this sort of thing is concerned. Even if she hadn't been paid hush money it's fair game. Now it might just be a crime as well.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

33. THAT is a really great point. He can't have it both ways.

[JI7]

20. It's right wing hypocrisy

[quartz007]

50. So when I defended Bill Clinton for the same

thing, which was consensual sex between him and Gennifer Flowers, was that right wing talking points as well?

[Wednesdays]

35. Way to miss the entire point of the OP.

[TexasBushwhacker]

36. And one of the consenting adults had a wife with a newborn

If the GOP went ballistic over blowjobs between consenting adults, they damn well should find Trump's behaviour intolerable.

[quartz007]

51. GOP has a cow only when a democrat does it

that has been going on since 1992. I had zero problem with alleged affairs by Bill C since that did not affect his great job performance as president. The economy was great and he kept us out of a shooting war.

[radius777]

57. Melania didn't care about Trump's Access Hollywood

confession about p-grabbing and trying to get with Nancy O'dell... which was the same timeframe of the Stormy Daniels stuff.

Melania also was Trump's mistress while he was married to Marla Maples.

I don't see what standing she has to moralize against anyone else.

edit: I agree the GOP and xtian fundies are hypocrites of the highest order.

[TexasBushwhacker]

59. I doubt Melania has any complaints

She didn't marry Trump for his good looks and kind demeanor BECAUSE HE DOESN'T HAVE THOSE THINGS. She's beautiful and younger, he's rich. It was more a business transaction than romantic love.

She got together with Trump when he had been separated from Marla for months.

The hypocrisy I speak of is from Trump and his followers. Trump trotted out Bill Clinton's "women" but took no ownership of his own sordid past. His minions didn't care either.

[LanternWaste]

37. I'm not surprised you ignore the pay off, and limit your focus to "it's just sex"

I'm not surprised you ignore the pay off, and limit your focus to "it's just sex." Otherwise, your little narrative might take a king's fall.

[quartz007]

52. Sex never bothered me when it is between 2 adults

And what has sex got to do with job performance of any president? Only those holier than thou republicans have hangups about sex between adults. I voted for Bill Clinton because he kept us out of wars and I made a small fortune in stock market. Monica was not an issue with me.

[LittleGirl]

7. She's amazing every single day. eom

[Iggo]

9. That's a really good point.

Why should Stormy Daniels be the only one who's not allowed to make money off the Trump presidency?

I like it.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

14. Ana Navarro. I guess we should re-hab her rep at the same time we rehab the rest of the Bush family.

[Iggo]

30. Nah.

She can sit over there with Steve Schmidt, Michael Steele, and Jeff Flake.

Just 'cause they're not as fucked up as Trump, doesn't mean they're not fucked up.

They're members of the party that shits on women, shits on poor people, shits on minorities, shits on sick people...

[Gidney N Cloyd]

34. I'm with you. A few years ago people here trashed Navarro every time she spoke against Obama.

Now we're supposed to like her? She hasn't changed, she's a Bush Family operative. Trump screwed JEB and Billy so her current job is to snipe at Trump.

[Nitram]

29. I wish I had written that. Brilliant!

[IronLionZion]

31. After the tax cuts, there's no reason for anyone to keep pretending to support Trump

unless they really want more racism and misogyny. It's definitely not for religious reasons.

Maybe they're hoping Pence will go after LGBT people at some point.

[Katinfl]

32. what do you think she has on him?

Why is he so concerned about her talking? What does she know about him that we don’t already know? What does she have to gain? Why would anybody sign a NDA anyway?

[tclambert]

39. The porn star has the moral high ground.

Who would've thought?

[Mr. Sparkle]

40. No one hates a republican more, than another republican !

[avebury]

47. Here are some observations: OK, if Stormy has evidence of any kind that could

prove her story, why on earth didn't the lawyer insist that she actually turn over the evidence at the time that she received the money? The lawyer dropped the ball on that one.

2. A friend allegedly listened in or at least one of her phone conversations with Trump. The NDA would hardly impact that person's ability to talk about what he heard. You have to wonder who else had first hand information about the affair at the time that it took place and, if there are others, they are not covered by the NDA.

3. While I am not as knowledgeable about NDAs, from all that has been reported, it appears that it was completed in a completely sloppy manner. If the case could be heard in front of a jury, it might come down to which side spins the better and more convincing story. If I were on a jury panel for this case I would have higher expectation for an attorney then the person signing the NDA because the Attorney should know what they are doing and do it correctly.

4. The fact that Trump has agreed to sue for $20 million in damages for violation of the NDA would appear to validate Stormy's story without her actually having to say anything. I think that a lot of people (yeah we not the Trump base) would find the $20 million dollar figure absurd.

5. If, in fact, Storm has been physically threatened, that moves the story from the salacious to a potential criminal case (depending upon who threatened her). It doesn't matter what you think of Stormy and her story, a threat of physical violence is not acceptable. If the threat was made after Trump became President and/or the person leveling the threat is tied to Trump, it could come back to bite Trump.
.
I hope that Stormy wins just because Trump and his lawyer are nothing but a bunch of Keystone Cops - acting like total idiots.

[HenryWallace]

48. Great, another conservative tweet!

She may hate Trump, but she hates Government more!

Her overriding personal conviction is that all Government is hopelessly corrupt; that regardless of motives, people cannot come together in order to make their lives better; that the Government that governs best, governs least!

Right now the shining example of this is Trump; two years ago it was Obama.

Well done..... Here is an idea, how about if you turn CNN off and stop following conservatives on twitter.

[radius777]

58. Stormy is an honest businesswoman

who sells her talents/skills for fair market value - something the conman Trump has never done.

She also easily could've shaken down Trump (an alleged billionaire) for $1 million or more before the election - $130k is nothing.

The fact that she's a sexy pornstar brings out the 'hottie hating' moralists, not just on the right but on the left as well.