Sixty Minute Man for ya.
During the height of the Lewinski flap, I wouldn’t have told a pollster that I consider Clinton to be a moral leader, though I understood that it took a great deal of moral and political leadership to pass an unpopular tax increase years earlier, a policy that laid the groundwork for the 1990s economic juggernaut.
ETA: News from Mika: “BREAKING: Stormy Daniels’ attorney told me that his client was threatened with physical harm if she did not keep quiet about her sexual relationship with Donald Trump.” x.com ETA2: Ooops ninjad by Bijou. ETA3: That’s the problem with associating with mob-style fixers like Cohen: sometimes they overplay their hand.
This was sure a good business move for an almost 40-year-old-washed-up-porn-star no matter how you look at it.
If you think this is the first time she has blackmailed a client before, I have a bridge to sell you. 
Would be more likely that Stormy has a history of this as a means to supplement her income. “I need $5,000 for my Vegas trip this weekend… I sure wouldn’t want to have to ask Karen for it”, threats like that. She likely didn’t do more or less with Trump than she did with her other wealthy/influential clients.
Is there any evidence that she’s blackmailing someone in this case?
Huh. Since I made my post 538 put up this, making a not too dissimilar point.
Clinton maintained his bases’s support who found ways to excuse or dismiss what he did, including his stating mistruths including under oath, as of no matter to his ability and qualiication to lead us. Trump’s base will do the same for his affairs and his lies about it. It’s the way our tribalistic brains work.
Meanwhile lies and obstruction in service of covering up stuff, including these sorts of things, are what might get you. Clinton escaped conviction on his impeachment only because four Republicans (Chafee, Collins, Specter and Snowe) broke ranks to vote not guilty on what was otherwise a completely partisan vote.
You’re joking, right? That’s what this entire thing is, a shakedown.
Shakedown, take down… you’re busted.
(Apologies to Bob Seger.)
Watching the clip, I get the impression that Avenatti is probably referring to what he calls “the coverup”. I think he means that Daniels’s allegations include things Trump or his toadies did, after he became President, to continue to keep Daniels from talking. Earlier in the day, Avenatti had claimed that Daniels had been physically threatened to stay silent, but he didn’t say by whom. My WAG would be that Michael Cohen threatened her, because that’s pretty much what he does. Acting entirely on his own, without The Don’s knowledge, of course. I hope Daniels has been recording her calls
This is incorrect. He could shoot someone and they would stick by him. If fucked the porn star, got a BJ on the Oval Office, or a handy in the Mural Room, he gets a pass.
If she has pictures of …less vanilla acts…than he is done. Water sports, nope. She touches his ass, he’s dead to them. Bestiality is* right* out.
Avenatti is my new hero. Not only is he keeping the story in the news, he’s out-Trumping Trump because he can. It’s about time Orange Jesus got his own medicine.
You’re joking, right? Trying to break an NDA is not blackmail. Signing an NDA is not a shakedown.
It’s an interesting question, because while she received a payment of $130,000 it was not ostensibly in exchange for the NDA she signed, and did not come from Donald Trump. Proving that she has blackmailed Trump is going to be very difficult without Trump conceding to entering into a conspiracy to suppress evidence linked to his campaign, thus bringing in the spectre of campaign finance violations (e.g. the money being an undeclared ‘donation’ to his campaign effort).
At any rate, this won’t result in impeachment because McConnell and Ryan won’t let it get to that point, at least certainly not before the 2018 elections, regardless of what is uncovered. So this is nothing more than an entertaining shitshow while Europe continues to slide toward nationalism, China is solidifying its position as the autocratic regional superpower in the Eastern Pacific sphere, and the American opiate crisis worsens. I’m glad we all have our priorities straight.
Stranger
I believe the odds that she would, at this point, voluntarily accept an offer that involved her following the NDA to be quite low.
I think it’s a bit more likely that she approached him for the NDA in the first place. But I believe the likelier scenario is that he caught wind that she was talking to the media and approached her with the NDA.
The first hearing in the case isn’t until July, and Trump’s lawyers have no incentive to speed anything. Besides, it won’t be difficult for, say, the House Judiciary Committee to open up an investigation of events that happened 6 months in the past.
:rolleyes:
The NDA itself was a shakedown, this is a continuance of it. Seriously, you think the President-elect’s lawyer paid $130k for… what, exactly? You think they said to DJT in October 2016 “better pay off all your hookers” or do you think one of DJT’s hookers said to DJT “I have all this evidence, pay up”?
The entire thing stinks of a shakedown. How is banging some hooker in 2006, then $130k being hurredly paid in 2016 to the same hooker in exchange for an NDA not indicative of a shakedown?
And now she wants to break it, I’m sure as measured, principled attack on the Constitutionality of an NDA when applied to a public figure and not as a means to get as much money from their tryst as possible.
All you’re saying is that rather than only Trump being a bad person, is that both Trump and Stormy are bad people. Whether you’re correct or not, it doesn’t absolve Trump of anything. At best, it simply appends to the list of criminal personalities that he has chosen to surround himself with over his lifetime.
If your defense was meant as a defense, I think you need to go back to the drawing board.
[ol]
[li]Unless the payment of $130,000 is directly referenced in the non-disclosure agreement it can only be inferred to be a payment in accordance for not publicly speaking about the ‘incident’.[/li][li]Regardless of whether a payment for silence was solicited by Clifford, the ability to be pressured by influence or blackmail is something we generally tend to select against in positions of authority and power, and particularly those involving access to classified government data and material.[/li][li]As you may be surprised to learn, the Constitution says nothing on the topic of non-disclosure agreements, and except for the protection of trade secrets and commercial or government controlled information may be difficult to enforce as a matter of public policy, particularly if they restrict someone from bearing witness to a criminal activity or conspiracy.[/li][li]President “We’re going to open up those libel laws and sue them for a lot of money” Trump is about the last person to credibly take any kind of moral stance against honest disclosure, and that he or his legal counsel is willing to pay someone a six-figure sum for their silence is just a small measure of the hypocrisy in action.[/li][li]Also, here’s to hoping that ‘Stormy Daniels’ next career move is to recreate the alleged encounter with a diminutive (in every way) individual playing ‘Trailer Park Tycoon and future President of the United Slats of Northern Walleria Ronald Stump’.[/li][/ol]
Stranger
I think the idea is to continually (continuously?) refer to Stormy as “some hooker” in order to devalue her testimony.
In reality, paying “some hooker” to not disclose that you had sex with her is functionally because you are running for president is functionally no different from paying a porn star to not disclose that you had sex with her because you are running for president.
That’s it. She’s not in this to save America, she’s in this to make money. She passed on her chance to save American when she first signed the agreement. As long as it’s trump money she’s taking, I’m totally on her side. Let her shake him down.