Another question for wiser minds than my own...

[Ferrets are Cool]

Unless you are in Nevada, is it illegal to pay for sex? So, if PGIC paid Stormy Daniels for sex, wouldn't that be breaking the law.
Yes, I know this is a minor point, but if he broke the law by paying for sex, shouldn't he have to pay for his crime?

on edit: I am assuming that he PAID for this sex act because who in their right mind would have sex with this POS without being paid for it?

[dameatball]

1. The Daniels payment was to keep her quiet, but other "solicitations" have been alledged as well.

i know you asked for someone with a wise mind, but I was available....

[shraby]

2. That's the definition of a "john". We can now drop the donald and call him john trump.

[jberryhill]

3. No

First off, if you are going to make that argument, then you are going to run headlong into the issue of what anyone in the porn business gets paid to do.

(The answer to that question, by the way, is "acting" )

The agreement was not "paying for sex". The sex happened in 2005. The payment in 2016 was for not talking about it.

[Ferrets are Cool]

4. Just for the sake of argument...

PGIC wasn't acting. He, I assume, paid for this sex act. My question stands...is that illegal? And why would it matter when it happened?

[WillowTree]

6. You "assume" that he paid for the sex act, but there would have to be proof of same.

The $130,000 that was paid several years later was for something else.......her silence.

[Ferrets are Cool]

7. I am fully aware of what "that" payment was for.

I still can't in my little brain imagine anyone having sex with that person for free. It would be up to Ms Daniels to disclose the fee.

[WillowTree]

8. And provide proof.

[Ferrets are Cool]

10. And I don't suppose Ms Daniels would want to implicate herself as

breaking the law. So I guess we will never get that proof.

[jberryhill]

15. It's a misdemeanor

Ultimately, if you are going to expect the State of California to get concerned every time someone has sex with a rich person on the more or less implicit understanding that the rich person will be "generous" or that there might be some "gifts" along the way, then I can assure you that California is going to need to dramatically expand its AG office and court system to chase after all of those misdemeanors.

[WillowTree]

23. Exactly.

[MrsCoffee]

11. He offered her two condos (she says she turned those down) and a spot on the apprentice

which obviously never happened.

So, no he didn't pay for shit. As always.

[jberryhill]

12. Explain this line

Last edited Thu May 3, 2018, 11:19 AM - Edit history (1)

He, I assume, paid for this sex act.

Paid for it when? In 2005 in Tahoe? Are you talking about some payment other than the hush agreement?

Words have meanings. So, let's first establish what crime, as defined by what state, you are talking about.

Tahoe is in California, so I'm going to assume you are referring to California Penal Code Section 647(b):

(b) (1) An individual who solicits, or who agrees to engage in, or who engages in, any act of prostitution with the intent to receive compensation, money, or anything of value from another person. An individual agrees to engage in an act of prostitution when, with specific intent to so engage, he or she manifests an acceptance of an offer or solicitation by another person to so engage, regardless of whether the offer or solicitation was made by a person who also possessed the specific intent to engage in an act of prostitution.

...
(4) ... As used in this subdivision, “prostitution” includes any lewd act between persons for money or other consideration.


That applies both to the prostitute and the patron. In order to commit this offense in California, one has to solicit/agree/engage in an act of prostitution with the intent to receive compensation.

So, let me give you three fact patterns:

1. Barbara meets Bob in a bar in Barstow. Bob wants to have sex with Barbara. Barbara says, "Sure, if you buy me a drink." Bob buys her a drink. They have sex. What result?

2. Lilly meets Luke in a lounge in Laguna. Luke wants to have sex with Lilly. Lilly says, "Buy me a drink and maybe I'll think about it." Luke buys her a drink. They have sex. What result?

3. Pam meets Paul in a pub in Pomona. Paul wants to have sex with Pam. They have sex. Eleven years later, Paul is running for president. Pam wants to tell the press about having had sex with Paul. Paul pays Pam $130k not to talk about it. What result?

You are saying that an act of prostitution was committed - i.e. that they engaged in a lewd act with the intent to receive/pay compensation - because in 2005 the intent in engaging in the lewd act was to obtain a payment eleven years later not to talk about it.

How would you even go about proving that the act was committed for the purpose of obtaining a payment eleven years later?

[yallerdawg]

5. We should ask Melania.

I'm sure she would have a definitive opinion.

[HopeAgain]

9. There has to be an agreement in advance of the act

A bargained for exchange to be prostitution. I doubt they said: if you sleep with me, I will buy off your silence in 10 years for $130k.

However, rich old white men usd their money to get sex legally from younger women all the time.

[Takket]

13. Daniels was not paid. She did it willingly

[Freethinker65]

14. The sex was consensual. He paid to keep her quiet about it, because it would harm his campaign image

One of his problems is that he denied it ever happened. If the sex never happened he is in effect calling Stormy a liar which she says is questioning her character and it also would violate any NDA (but since the NDA was never signed, there might not even be one, and at one time I believe Trump even denied he knew about the NDA).

Another problem is that Trump said he never paid Stormy for her silence and knew nothing about any deal that Cohen made to silence her. Giuliani admitted Trump lied about this and that Trump did indeed repay Cohen.

Then the problem becomes a campaign finance/money laundering question. Giuliani is frantically trying to say Trump paid Cohen from personal funds to keep it quiet from his family to save them from the false allegations. However, the allegations were made years prior and for some reason Cohen loaned Trump the money during the campaign to make it go away (at least until after the election). That loan is considered an excess campaign donation. Add in that Giuliani admitted Trump paid it back in smaller installments so as to avoid detection, and we have something that looks like a poorly designed coverup.

What really bothers me is after all the shitty obstruction and cooperation (offering favors) with a foreign government (Russia) to affect our nation's elections, this crap about Stormy Daniels is what the media finds most important and is what most of the nation is talking about.

At least get to the bigger issue that Trump agreed to be effectively blackmailed for $130,000 for a consensual affair that happened years ago. Just think of what he is/might be giving away to others with which he has known costly financial and personal obligations.

[jberryhill]

16. Ding ding ding ding....

This:

What really bothers me is after all the shitty obstruction and cooperation (offering favors) with a foreign government (Russia) to affect our nation's elections, this crap about Stormy Daniels is what the media finds most important and is what most of the nation is talking about.

The payment was known about in January of this year. But, despite the known facts - (a) that the USAO-SDNY had received the Mueller referral on various probably financial crimes "months" before the April 9 raid, (b) that the Cohen arbitration award against Daniels was in February, and (c) her suit was filed in early March - there are people who actually believe that the grandstanding on the Daniels agreement dispute was somehow the cause, or even the main focus, of the Cohen investigation.

[Nitram]

17. Daniels made quite clear that he offered her money and she refused it. She is not a prostitute.

She was not paid for sex. She was paid to shut up about it.

[Ferrets are Cool]

18. Thank you for the clarity. nt

[jberryhill]

19. "She was paid to shut up about it"

Her current lawsuit is directed to establishing that there was no agreement.

That sort of leaves open the question of what the $130k was for.

[Nitram]

20. But it is clear it was not for sex. Daniel has published that and repeated it on air.

[jberryhill]

21. That's absolutely clear

My question was, absent a contract, what was the money for?

[Nitram]

22. I'll give you one guess.