AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Mar 12, 2018 19:26:49 GMT
Honestly, I haven't read anything except headlines about this woman or this brouhaha. Okay, headlines usually accompanied by photos of ample breasts. Heh. I have scant interest in learning sexual details about Donald Trump. And I had scant interest in reading about inter-vaginal cigars and semen stains with Bill Clinton, but you couldn't read the special prosecutor's report without those tidbits. BUT I think what's really interesting (and this thread is not the first time I've noticed it) is how the narrative changed to "Clinton was impeached for having extramarital sex." No, even the puritanical US of A doesn't do that. He was impeached because he denied the sexual activity in a deposition. Perjury was a fallback charge. btw, I didn't realize that people believe the location (White House) of the sex was the impeachable offense. I suppose that could have some legs if you got into work guidelines and fraternization, but still... But back to today's news: I'm admittedly ill-informed. I DID read that an evangelical minister said there is nothing the president could do that would make him lose the minister's support. I'm more disturbed by that kind of carte blanche thinking than by any reports of extramarital sex. (Consensual, that is.) ETA: answered a phone call while writing. pudgygroundhog said it better and pithier.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Mar 12, 2018 19:28:38 GMT
It's not the affair, it's the payoff. The question is why? Why did he pay her off? Which I believe was in 2016? In your prior post, you already answered the question – she has photos and text messages (likely more than that). It says so right in their settlement agreement. She can supposedly prove the affair because she has tangible proof whereas the other accusers do not. So, she gets paid off.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Mar 12, 2018 19:28:45 GMT
I don't believe in impeaching presidents of either party over consensual sex, in or out of the Oval Office. More to the point, taking advantage of consensual sex to impeach a president you hate anyway. But I sure hope Stormy Daniels has something so shameful on him that he's forced to resign on his own. I'll take the medieval-minded Mike Pence over this incompetent narcissist any day. Better a few draconian laws that can be thrown out later than WWIII because someone's having a temper tantrum. This is generally my thoughts too. I don't get ruffled feathers over consensual sex between adults, even if I find their behavior abhorrent (i.e. cheating). But I also don't go around positing myself as the party of family values and morals. It's the hypocrisy that kills me. How many mulligans will Trump need from the evangelicals when all of this is said and done? They've already said they don't care, as long as they keep getting the laws they want passed. Trump at least has never claimed to be a saint. The real hypocrites are the people who (for example) can't bring themselves to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, but have no problem voting for disgusting, family-values-violating Trump.
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Mar 12, 2018 19:30:20 GMT
The news headlines are now saying Stormy's attorney has offered to return the $130,000 to Trump wait, so now her attorney is admitting the $$ came from Trump, and not his lawyer (without his knowledge, without his consent, $$ wasn't paid back, yadda, yadda, yadda)?!? when did this happen?? (eta: because then, there might be some campaign $$ finance issues, depending on where the money came from, wouldn't there? not that they could prove that, but...)
|
|
|
Post by pierkiss on Mar 12, 2018 19:49:19 GMT
For 130k, it wasn't an affair, it was a financial transaction for sexual favors. She just likely has proof which makes this more of a threat than all the other women he's taken advantage of. So then it is prostitution? That’s illegal right? On both their parts?
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Mar 12, 2018 19:49:59 GMT
The news headlines are now saying Stormy's attorney has offered to return the $130,000 to Trump wait, so now her attorney is admitting the $$ came from Trump, and not his lawyer (without his knowledge, without his consent, $$ wasn't paid back, yadda, yadda, yadda)?!? when did this happen?? (eta: because then, there might be some campaign $$ finance issues, depending on where the money came from, wouldn't there? not that they could prove that, but...) Stormy’s atty never denied the money came from Trump. In fact, his assertion is that the money DID come from Trump.
|
|
|
Post by jamiebohbamie on Mar 12, 2018 19:52:42 GMT
wait, so now her attorney is admitting the $$ came from Trump, and not his lawyer (without his knowledge, without his consent, $$ wasn't paid back, yadda, yadda, yadda)?!? when did this happen?? (eta: because then, there might be some campaign $$ finance issues, depending on where the money came from, wouldn't there? not that they could prove that, but...) Stormy’s atty never denied the money came from Trump. In fact, his assertion is that the money DID come from Trump. The news said that the money she received from Trump's attorney would be returned to an account designated by Trump if he were to accept the offer.
|
|
AmandaA
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,502
Aug 28, 2015 22:31:17 GMT
|
Post by AmandaA on Mar 12, 2018 19:53:14 GMT
The news headlines are now saying Stormy's attorney has offered to return the $130,000 to Trump wait, so now her attorney is admitting the $$ came from Trump, and not his lawyer (without his knowledge, without his consent, $$ wasn't paid back, yadda, yadda, yadda)?!? when did this happen?? (eta: because then, there might be some campaign $$ finance issues, depending on where the money came from, wouldn't there? not that they could prove that, but...) This article from NPR (hope that is non-biased enough since the BBC has more important things to report on) has statements from her attorney that directly put him into the terms this proposed settlement, but does state that he has never acknowledged knowing about the payment. Also interesting in the article are the terms of the agreement that would include her being able to "use and publish any text messages, photos and/or videos relating to the President that she may have in her possession, all without fear of retribution and/or legal liability for damages." So I am going to assume that she does have something material on him because why would they specifically list that and hope for an agreement if she was bluffing. As someone who loathes the man, I do love how much they are putting out there without actually saying it during this whole ordeal. ETA- if the penalty for violating it is only $1million for the 60 minutes interview... I am guessing there would be more than 1 million people willing to donate $1 each to hear what she has to say.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Mar 12, 2018 20:02:32 GMT
Stormy’s atty never denied the money came from Trump. In fact, his assertion is that the money DID come from Trump. The news said that the money she received from Trump's attorney would be returned to an account designated by Trump if he were to accept the offer. I don’t doubt that. I was replying to crimsoncat’s: “ wait, so now her attorney is admitting the $$ came from Trump…” Stormy’s atty never denied the money came from Trump. It was COHEN, Trump’s atty, who denied the money came from Trump.
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Mar 12, 2018 20:15:00 GMT
so why would Daniels' attorney say the money would be returned to TRUMP, and not to COHEN? I'm so confused... lol. Honestly, I think someone (singular or plural) should just come forward with the $1 million penalty, too, so we could get past all this nonsense, and just hear what she has to say.
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Mar 12, 2018 20:16:43 GMT
I'm no defender of Trump but I think most people can see a big difference between "cigars" actually inside the Oval Office and an affair that predates a presidency by 12 years. It's not the affair, it's the payoff. The question is why? Why did he pay her off? Which I believe was in 2016? That's a problem, I agree. I was speaking specifically to annabella's comparing one affair with another.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Mar 12, 2018 20:25:22 GMT
so why would Daniels' attorney say the money would be returned to TRUMP, and not to COHEN? I'm so confused... lol. Honestly, I think someone (singular or plural) should just come forward with the $1 million penalty, too, so we could get past all this nonsense, and just hear what she has to say. LOL! Of course, Stormy’s atty would say that money w/b returned to Trump because both Stormy and her atty believe the money originated from Trump to begin with! I think you are confusing the 2 attorneys. It is Trump’s atty – Michael Cohen – who had repeatedly denied the funds came from Trump. He said he used his home equity line of credit to give Stormy the money and that Trump knew nothing about it.
|
|
used2scrap
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,036
Jan 29, 2016 3:02:55 GMT
|
Post by used2scrap on Mar 12, 2018 20:27:23 GMT
It's not the affair, it's the payoff. The question is why? Why did he pay her off? Which I believe was in 2016? That's a problem, I agree. I was speaking specifically to annabella's comparing one affair with another. It's quite interesting to me that Trump paraded Clinton accusers at the debates and used them against Hillary in the election, but gets a pass for the same behaviors.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Mar 12, 2018 20:28:36 GMT
If he admits it, it might invalidate any pre-nuptials he had.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Mar 12, 2018 20:30:41 GMT
That's a problem, I agree. I was speaking specifically to annabella's comparing one affair with another. It's quite interesting to me that Trump paraded Clinton accusers at the debates and used them against Hillary in the election, but gets a pass for the same behaviors. It’s unbelievable, isn’t it! He hammered BC affairs on HRC as a reason not to vote for her, yet it is perfectly a-okay for him. IOKIYR!!
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Mar 12, 2018 20:34:26 GMT
I'm not really confused, lol- I was being facetious. it's just annoying, their need to hide this proof of a consensual affair, which leads us all to believe something even worse must be / may be hidden.
|
|
rodeomom
Pearl Clutcher
Refupee # 380 "I don't have to run fast, I just have to run faster than you."
Posts: 3,663
Location: Chickasaw Nation, Oklahoma
Jun 25, 2014 23:34:38 GMT
|
Post by rodeomom on Mar 12, 2018 20:35:25 GMT
For 130k, it wasn't an affair, it was a financial transaction for sexual favors. She just likely has proof which makes this more of a threat than all the other women he's taken advantage of. So then it is prostitution? That’s illegal right? On both their parts? That's an interesting thought! But I think the money was paid as "hush money" not for the sex. Unless she has proof that she was paid for the sex......
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Mar 12, 2018 20:36:13 GMT
I don’t care if he did. I’m not going to waste my time or brain space on wether he did or not. Don’t care.
Although I may want to thank her if his lying or payng her off gets him impeached.
I didn’t vote for him because he is an awful human being and I knew that from my own experience. Wether he had an affair or not had no bearing my vote.
|
|
|
Post by 950nancy on Mar 12, 2018 20:50:43 GMT
If he admits it, it might invalidate any pre-nuptials he had. This is where I sit. I think he is afraid of losing Baron and Melania. It wouldn't look good. I think the other legal issues are also important, but Melania has shown in several cases how she feels about her husband's "shenanigans" on several occasions.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Mar 12, 2018 20:54:18 GMT
This is generally my thoughts too. I don't get ruffled feathers over consensual sex between adults, even if I find their behavior abhorrent (i.e. cheating). But I also don't go around positing myself as the party of family values and morals. It's the hypocrisy that kills me. How many mulligans will Trump need from the evangelicals when all of this is said and done? He and his party are too busy telling me, you, us how we should behave, what we can do with our bodies and who we can love and I'll add in which bathroom we must use. WE have to pay for their foolishness and excessive, possibly illegal. spending of our monies. The issue with Stormy is the $$$$$ and where they came from and wo paid it.
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Mar 12, 2018 20:59:45 GMT
...how she feels about her husband's "shenanigans" on several occasions. Note to self: Use the word "shenanigans" more. Also "tomfoolery."
|
|
pudgygroundhog
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,643
Location: The Grand Canyon
Jun 25, 2014 20:18:39 GMT
|
Post by pudgygroundhog on Mar 12, 2018 21:00:13 GMT
If he admits it, it might invalidate any pre-nuptials he had. This is where I sit. I think he is afraid of losing Baron and Melania. It wouldn't look good. I think the other legal issues are also important, but Melania has shown in several cases how she feels about her husband's "shenanigans" on several occasions. I'm not sure what to think about Melania. When I read about Karen McDougal (the Playboy bunny he had an affair with and was silenced by one of Trump's media mogul friend who bought her story and buried it), there was a line where she alleges that Trump took her to one of his properties and pointed out a closed door and said that was where Melania went to read and be alone (or something similar to that). And I thought that maybe Melania was okay with his shenanigans if it meant she didn't have to touch him and could just do her thing (I mean, who wouldn't want to read all day), as long as he was discreet and it wasn't public news. I don't think she likes all of this private affairs public, but I wonder if before she was okay with the arrangement. But I'm probably also projecting because I can't imagine having to even be in the same room as that guy.
|
|
pudgygroundhog
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,643
Location: The Grand Canyon
Jun 25, 2014 20:18:39 GMT
|
Post by pudgygroundhog on Mar 12, 2018 21:03:54 GMT
I don’t care if he did. I’m not going to waste my time or brain space on wether he did or not. Don’t care. Although I may want to thank her if his lying or payng her off gets him impeached. I didn’t vote for him because he is an awful human being and I knew that from my own experience. Wether he had an affair or not had no bearing my vote. I tell my daughter all the time - doing something wrong is one thing, but the lying about it will be worse. And that's usually true with all these cases - the lying, cover up, and financial shadiness are usually what get people in trouble.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Mar 12, 2018 21:04:18 GMT
I love the irony that people who thought Clinton should have been impeached for his affair feel differently for Trump. I'm no defender of Trump but I think most people can see a big difference between "cigars" actually inside the Oval Office and an affair that predates a presidency by 12 years. While we are being sticklers, it actually started 10 years before the presidency when Barron was 4 months old. I actually don’t care about consensual sex, but care about the hypocrisy of Trump crucifying the Clintons over Bill’s affair, and also what may be illegal financial activities between his campaign lawyer and Ms. Daniels.
|
|
|
Post by 950nancy on Mar 12, 2018 21:04:19 GMT
...how she feels about her husband's "shenanigans" on several occasions. Note to self: Use the word "shenanigans" more. Also "tomfoolery." I like to bring a word into the office once a week. We try to use it in our weekly meetings. There are just three of us and I think we are better people for it!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 3, 2024 6:55:46 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2018 21:07:47 GMT
I'm not really confused, lol- I was being facetious. it's just annoying, their need to hide this proof of a consensual affair, which leads us all to believe something even worse must be / may be hidden. Maybe he enjoyed " showers" with her!
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Mar 12, 2018 21:07:59 GMT
I don’t care if he did. I’m not going to waste my time or brain space on wether he did or not. Don’t care. Although I may want to thank her if his lying or payng her off gets him impeached. I didn’t vote for him because he is an awful human being and I knew that from my own experience. Wether he had an affair or not had no bearing my vote. I tell my daughter all the time - doing something wrong is one thing, but the lying about it will be worse. And that's usually true with all these cases - the lying, cover up, and financial shadiness are usually what get people in trouble. It’s always the lying that brings politicians down - never the actual issue. Amazing isn’t it.
|
|
|
Post by crazy4scraps on Mar 12, 2018 21:11:21 GMT
This article from NPR (hope that is non-biased enough since the BBC has more important things to report on) has statements from her attorney that directly put him into the terms this proposed settlement, but does state that he has never acknowledged knowing about the payment. Also interesting in the article are the terms of the agreement that would include her being able to "use and publish any text messages, photos and/or videos relating to the President that she may have in her possession, all without fear of retribution and/or legal liability for damages." So I am going to assume that she does have something material on him because why would they specifically list that and hope for an agreement if she was bluffing. As someone who loathes the man, I do love how much they are putting out there without actually saying it during this whole ordeal. ETA- if the penalty for violating it is only $1million for the 60 minutes interview... I am guessing there would be more than 1 million people willing to donate $1 each to hear what she has to say. LORDY there might be TAPES...! Ewww, wouldn’t want to be subjected to seeing that in court!
|
|
katybee
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,378
Jun 25, 2014 23:25:39 GMT
|
Post by katybee on Mar 12, 2018 21:11:24 GMT
If he admits it, it might invalidate any pre-nuptials he had. Ahhhh.....now I get it. I couldn’t figure out why he cared that people knew that he had a consensual affair. It clearly does NOT matter to his supporters. But what does Trump care about? MONEY! He will probably lose a “yuge” chunk of change if Melania decides to leave him and the pre-nup is null and void.
|
|
|
Post by 950nancy on Mar 12, 2018 21:14:43 GMT
This article from NPR (hope that is non-biased enough since the BBC has more important things to report on) has statements from her attorney that directly put him into the terms this proposed settlement, but does state that he has never acknowledged knowing about the payment. Also interesting in the article are the terms of the agreement that would include her being able to "use and publish any text messages, photos and/or videos relating to the President that she may have in her possession, all without fear of retribution and/or legal liability for damages." So I am going to assume that she does have something material on him because why would they specifically list that and hope for an agreement if she was bluffing. As someone who loathes the man, I do love how much they are putting out there without actually saying it during this whole ordeal. ETA- if the penalty for violating it is only $1million for the 60 minutes interview... I am guessing there would be more than 1 million people willing to donate $1 each to hear what she has to say. LORDY there might be TAPES...! Ewww, wouldn’t want to be subjected to seeing that in court! Look, if it means he's out any earlier, I will take one for the team.
|
|