Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

09-02-10: Stormy Daniels

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    What's the end game here for Stormy? What does she want the publicity for? Book deal?
    "I guess I just hate the fact there is public property at all." - Mr. Raceboy.

    Comment


    • #17
      Seriously, who has a relationship with a pornstar? Playmates I get, but a pornstar? I'd make them take a Clorox bath before I'd even let them my bedroom. You gotta have a screw loose.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by skooly View Post
        What's your argument? Unilateral contract doesn't require a signature?
        It's not unilateral. Both parties signed. She's hanging her hat on the notion that one of the parties didn't sign both lines.

        Pete (also notes that she took the money per the contract, so she's out of her mind if she thinks it's voided and that's a gift)

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Kutnupe14 View Post
          Seriously, who has a relationship with a pornstar? Playmates I get, but a pornstar? I'd make them take a Clorox bath before I'd even let them my bedroom. You gotta have a screw loose.
          I know absolutely nothing in this matter, but I think it's crazy to believe her story in its entirety. Something happened between her and Trump, but she's clearly playing this for her own advantage and notoriety, so there's no reason to believe that she's telling you anything but an aggrandized version of the truth.

          Pete (also notes that as a blackmailer, her credibility is near zero)

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Plezercruz View Post
            I know absolutely nothing in this matter, but I think it's crazy to believe her story in its entirety. Something happened between her and Trump, but she's clearly playing this for her own advantage and notoriety, so there's no reason to believe that she's telling you anything but an aggrandized version of the truth.

            Pete (also notes that as a blackmailer, her credibility is near zero)
            I don't how much further it goes beyond her saying "I had sex with Trump, while he was married, and I got paid $130K to not say anything about it just prior to the election," but that seem bad enough. Are you contesting those particular claims?

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Kutnupe14 View Post
              I don't how much further it goes beyond her saying "I had sex with Trump, while he was married, and I got paid $130K to not say anything about it just prior to the election," but that seem bad enough. Are you contesting those particular claims?
              As I understand it she's claiming a prolonged relationship, but as I am a person who watches virtually no TV I might not know as much as others.

              Pete (thinks those particular claims are the limits of what we probably know)

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Plezercruz View Post
                I know absolutely nothing in this matter, but I think it's crazy to believe her story in its entirety. Something happened between her and Trump, but she's clearly playing this for her own advantage and notoriety, so there's no reason to believe that she's telling you anything but an aggrandized version of the truth.

                Pete (also notes that as a blackmailer, her credibility is near zero)
                If she makes this claim, it nulls the contract. Then she has to give the $130k back. So she has to make worth her while to do so:

                Nullifying the agreement would presumably require Daniels to repay the $130,000 she received for signing it. But her story could be worth much more than that if she is free to sell it.

                A copy of the agreement attached to the lawsuit states that Daniels has “confidential information” related to Trump, which includes “information, certain still images and/or text messages.”

                Comment


                • #23
                  Right, so in addition to her total lack of credibility because she's a blackmailer, she's also just plain goldgrubbing.

                  Pete (thinks if the Donald had any credibility whatsover he might believe that Daniels is totally lying)

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Plezercruz View Post
                    Right, so in addition to her total lack of credibility because she's a blackmailer, she's also just plain goldgrubbing.

                    Pete (thinks if the Donald had any credibility whatsover he might believe that Daniels is totally lying)
                    Lying about what? The relationship? Then why the $130k payment right before the election?

                    I don't doubt what she's doing but that's not the point to me. Trump had an affair and tried to hide it. His lawyer lied about the payment not being known to Trump and lied about not being reimbursed.

                    If the GOP tired to impeach Clinton for his affair, then the Democrats will probably do the same.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Plezercruz View Post
                      Right, so in addition to her total lack of credibility because she's a blackmailer, she's also just plain goldgrubbing.

                      Pete (thinks if the Donald had any credibility whatsover he might believe that Daniels is totally lying)
                      Isn't the whole idea behind most cases of blackmail, is that the information is correct, and thus damaging?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        According to the contract, she wasn't just saying stuff, but she had a bunch of emails and communications with D that they were buying from her. There's certainly something there.

                        Also, there's a liquidated damages provision. In addition to being subject to return her payout and possibly pay "actual damages" for harming D's reputation, the contract says she is liable for $1 Million per act in violation of the contract. Filing this suit and attaching the contract is at least one act in violation of the contract, possibly more.

                        dusty (feels the liquidated damages provision, at least, might not be valid)
                        For every ailment under the sun - There is a remedy, or there is none;
                        If there be one, try to find it; If there be none, never mind it. -- Mother Goose

                        "We’ve always assumed that you can’t bring back the dead. But it’s a matter of when you pickle the cells." -- Peter Rhee

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Kutnupe14 View Post
                          Isn't the whole idea behind most cases of blackmail, is that the information is correct, and thus damaging?
                          No, not really. Blackmail (where it is a separate offense from extortion) only requires a threat of making an allegation. Many (if not most) blackmailers are full of crap.

                          Consider that for most politicians, the mere allegation that they slept with Stormy Daniels would derail their campaigns. Trump is special because everyone knows he's slime.

                          Pete (wonders if Stormy Daniels might be prosecuted for blackmail/extortion when this thing is done)

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by dusty View Post
                            According to the contract, she wasn't just saying stuff, but she had a bunch of emails and communications with D that they were buying from her. There's certainly something there.

                            Also, there's a liquidated damages provision. In addition to being subject to return her payout and possibly pay "actual damages" for harming D's reputation, the contract says she is liable for $1 Million per act in violation of the contract. Filing this suit and attaching the contract is at least one act in violation of the contract, possibly more.

                            dusty (feels the liquidated damages provision, at least, might not be valid)
                            There's no doubt in my mind that he slept with her. Probably with a lot of other people too. That's specific to him though, not her. Defamation blackmail is likely more common than actual truthful blackmail.

                            Odds that she has $1M to lose? Minimal.

                            Odds that she'll have $1M if she publishes a book. Virtually guaranteed.

                            Pete (suspects we'll see that lawsuit at some point)
                            Last edited by Plezercruz; 03-07-2018, 02:52 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Plezercruz View Post
                              No, not really. Blackmail (where it is a separate offense from extortion) only requires a threat of making an allegation. Many (if not most) blackmailers are full of crap.

                              Consider that for most politicians, the mere allegation that they slept with Stormy Daniels would derail their campaigns. Trump is special because everyone knows he's slime.

                              Pete (wonders if Stormy Daniels might be prosecuted for blackmail/extortion when this thing is done)
                              I'd argue, that neither neither blackmail nor extortion applies. Both imply someone seeking compensation illegally. What compensation did Daniels demand? And I still hold that blackmail involves information that is for the most part true.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                President Trump's lawyer secured a restraining order against porn star Stormy Daniels

                                https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...els/404475002/
                                01000010 01100001 01100001 00100000 01110111 01100101 01100101 01110000 00100000 01100111 01110010 01100001 01101000 01101110 01100001 00100000 01110111 01100101 01100101 01110000 00100000 01101110 01101001 01101110 01101110 01111001 00100000 01100010 01101111 01101110 01100111

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X