Fri Mar 16, 2018, 07:13 AM
cbreezen (694 posts)
I pretty much figured that Mika and Joe's 3rd hour was a repeat...
But, there is too much Stormy Daniels crap in my opinion.
Unless she wants to tell us that she's Barron's mom, or she is raising his child, I'm not interested. This will not be anything other than a salacious story. It's titillating for sure, but that's about it.
|
55 replies, 2617 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
cbreezen | Mar 2018 | OP |
Blue_Adept | Mar 2018 | #1 | |
Post removed | Mar 2018 | #2 | |
cbreezen | Mar 2018 | #6 | |
malaise | Mar 2018 | #10 | |
cbreezen | Mar 2018 | #16 | |
Post removed | Mar 2018 | #3 | |
cbreezen | Mar 2018 | #7 | |
njhoneybadger | Mar 2018 | #14 | |
SixString | Mar 2018 | #35 | |
Dr Hobbitstein | Mar 2018 | #22 | |
FarPoint | Mar 2018 | #25 | |
patricia92243 | Mar 2018 | #4 | |
cbreezen | Mar 2018 | #8 | |
dem4decades | Mar 2018 | #5 | |
cbreezen | Mar 2018 | #11 | |
Kirk Lover | Mar 2018 | #17 | |
LanternWaste | Mar 2018 | #52 | |
poboy2 | Mar 2018 | #13 | |
USALiberal | Mar 2018 | #9 | |
cbreezen | Mar 2018 | #12 | |
malaise | Mar 2018 | #15 | |
Kirk Lover | Mar 2018 | #18 | |
cbreezen | Mar 2018 | #20 | |
Blue_Adept | Mar 2018 | #28 | |
cbreezen | Mar 2018 | #31 | |
EffieBlack | Mar 2018 | #26 | |
malaise | Mar 2018 | #30 | |
LexVegas | Mar 2018 | #19 | |
spanone | Mar 2018 | #21 | |
cbreezen | Mar 2018 | #23 | |
spanone | Mar 2018 | #24 | |
EffieBlack | Mar 2018 | #27 | |
cbreezen | Mar 2018 | #33 | |
jberryhill | Mar 2018 | #38 | |
EffieBlack | Mar 2018 | #40 | |
jberryhill | Mar 2018 | #46 | |
EffieBlack | Mar 2018 | #48 | |
jberryhill | Mar 2018 | #49 | |
EffieBlack | Mar 2018 | #54 | |
brush | Mar 2018 | #39 | |
jberryhill | Mar 2018 | #45 | |
PJMcK | Mar 2018 | #51 | |
LanternWaste | Mar 2018 | #53 | |
Squinch | Mar 2018 | #44 | |
Ilsa | Mar 2018 | #29 | |
cbreezen | Mar 2018 | #32 | |
LexVegas | Mar 2018 | #34 | |
Ilsa | Mar 2018 | #55 | |
Squinch | Mar 2018 | #43 | |
H2O Man | Mar 2018 | #36 | |
spanone | Mar 2018 | #37 | |
Nitram | Mar 2018 | #41 | |
Squinch | Mar 2018 | #42 | |
Bernardo de La Paz | Mar 2018 | #47 | |
HipChick | Mar 2018 | #50 |
Response to cbreezen (Original post)
Fri Mar 16, 2018, 07:15 AM
Blue_Adept (6,139 posts)
1. Except for the FEC violations
Or the potential for blackmail.
Add in that the lawyer is now saying that she was physically threatened. Or a host of other legal issues. But, you know, that's just titillating stuff I guess. |
Response to cbreezen (Original post)
Post removed
Response to Post removed (Reply #2)
Fri Mar 16, 2018, 07:20 AM
cbreezen (694 posts)
6. Trolls don't identify themselves. Look at my profile. nt
Response to cbreezen (Reply #6)
Fri Mar 16, 2018, 07:22 AM
malaise (223,755 posts)
10. And they rarely pay subscriptions
![]() |
Response to cbreezen (Original post)
Post removed
Response to Post removed (Reply #3)
Fri Mar 16, 2018, 07:21 AM
cbreezen (694 posts)
7. See reply to post 2. nt
Response to cbreezen (Reply #7)
njhoneybadger This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to Post removed (Reply #3)
Fri Mar 16, 2018, 07:37 AM
Dr Hobbitstein (6,568 posts)
22. Are you? Nt
Response to Post removed (Reply #3)
Fri Mar 16, 2018, 07:50 AM
FarPoint (9,635 posts)
25. Stop it now.
If you have a concern...we have an alert option ..
|
Response to cbreezen (Original post)
Fri Mar 16, 2018, 07:16 AM
patricia92243 (11,575 posts)
4. Agreed. n/t
Response to patricia92243 (Reply #4)
Fri Mar 16, 2018, 07:22 AM
cbreezen (694 posts)
8. See reply to post 2. nt
Response to cbreezen (Original post)
Fri Mar 16, 2018, 07:20 AM
dem4decades (7,167 posts)
5. You say Stormy Daniels crap like it's a bad thing.
Nope the more the merrier. And let the other's come forward too.
|
Response to dem4decades (Reply #5)
Fri Mar 16, 2018, 07:22 AM
cbreezen (694 posts)
11. I think the story is a distraction.
You are entitled to your opinion.
|
Response to cbreezen (Reply #11)
Fri Mar 16, 2018, 07:26 AM
Kirk Lover (3,608 posts)
17. Boy if I had a dime for every time I've heard this "distraction" crap. n/t
Response to cbreezen (Reply #11)
Fri Mar 16, 2018, 09:56 AM
LanternWaste (36,780 posts)
52. How many stories does it takes to distract you? Two? Three?
How many stories does it takes to distract you? Two? Three?
What is it distracting you from, and what specifically leads you to believe it's a distraction? |
Response to dem4decades (Reply #5)
Fri Mar 16, 2018, 07:24 AM
poboy2 (2,078 posts)
13. Whether picador or bullfighter himself, let justice, truth take down the treasonous bullshitter. -nt
Response to cbreezen (Original post)
Fri Mar 16, 2018, 07:22 AM
USALiberal (7,014 posts)
9. Enjoy your short stay! Nt
Response to USALiberal (Reply #9)
Fri Mar 16, 2018, 07:24 AM
cbreezen (694 posts)
12. I've been here all evening posting about my own personal life. nt
Response to cbreezen (Original post)
Fri Mar 16, 2018, 07:25 AM
malaise (223,755 posts)
15. I think it's a huge story
Like you I thought it was a distraction, but it's much more important than I first thought.
That said I don't think you're a troll. |
Response to malaise (Reply #15)
Fri Mar 16, 2018, 07:29 AM
Kirk Lover (3,608 posts)
18. Totally agree. As I predicted when this first came out there is more to this
story then met the eye and it's not going anywhere. Someone posted that trashbag fired Tillerson to 'distract' from the Stormy story and I said he can try to do that if trashbag wishes but this story ain't going nowhere...and here we are.
|
Response to malaise (Reply #15)
Fri Mar 16, 2018, 07:31 AM
cbreezen (694 posts)
20. All I'm trying to say is that in the end...
this will be part of the story, not THE story.
|
Response to cbreezen (Reply #20)
Fri Mar 16, 2018, 07:53 AM
Blue_Adept (6,139 posts)
28. That's not what you said at all
"This will not be anything other than a salacious story. It's titillating for sure, but that's about it. " <- that's what you said.
|
Response to Blue_Adept (Reply #28)
Fri Mar 16, 2018, 08:01 AM
cbreezen (694 posts)
31. Well, I think you get what I'm saying...
pick my words to pieces if you wish. It is a blip on the radar compared to everything else.
You are free to disagree. |
Response to malaise (Reply #15)
Fri Mar 16, 2018, 07:51 AM
EffieBlack (14,210 posts)
26. I was puzzled why the press spent so much time on this when they usually lost
interest pretty quickly in similar-seeming stories previously. But then I realized they probably either had information they couldn’t pin down or reveal - or maybe just a spidey-sense - that this was about much more than sex.
That looks to be the case. The press knew something was up but just couldn’t say. Now it’s going to start to unravel. |
Response to cbreezen (Original post)
Fri Mar 16, 2018, 07:30 AM
LexVegas (5,129 posts)
19. Thanks for letting us know. nt
Response to cbreezen (Original post)
Fri Mar 16, 2018, 07:33 AM
spanone (125,131 posts)
21. Her lawyer disclosed that she was threatened with physical violence
not titillating ...criminal
|
Response to spanone (Reply #21)
Fri Mar 16, 2018, 07:45 AM
cbreezen (694 posts)
23. I've worked in the legal system...
I have a built-in cynicism. For me, I don't take every word a lawyer says as gospel.
I am also a survivor of abuse. So, I do take the accusations of a victim seriously. I'll wait until I hear it from her. |
Response to cbreezen (Reply #23)
Fri Mar 16, 2018, 07:49 AM
spanone (125,131 posts)
24. your prerogative.
Response to cbreezen (Reply #23)
Fri Mar 16, 2018, 07:53 AM
EffieBlack (14,210 posts)
27. Jonathan Turley was just on vouching for him
Turley is usually very skeptical, but he sang her lawyer’s praises - he was Turley’s former student and research assistant, so he knows him well. Said he is an excellent lawyer, not a grandstander, and as solid as they come. That says a lot.
|
Response to EffieBlack (Reply #27)
Fri Mar 16, 2018, 08:06 AM
cbreezen (694 posts)
33. I reserve judgment until I hear from Stephanie Clifford. nt
Response to EffieBlack (Reply #27)
Fri Mar 16, 2018, 08:28 AM
jberryhill (62,444 posts)
38. That doesn't mean Turley can vouch for the facts
In your practice, if a crime is committed against one of your clients, what do you normally do in addition to including it as a count in a civil suit? |
Response to jberryhill (Reply #38)
Fri Mar 16, 2018, 08:31 AM
EffieBlack (14,210 posts)
40. I didnt say he was vouching for the facts
And I’m not interested in jumping through your hypo hoops. Please find someone else to play with.
|
Response to EffieBlack (Reply #40)
Fri Mar 16, 2018, 09:24 AM
jberryhill (62,444 posts)
46. DU has an ignore button
If my posts bother you, you can use it. I do not understand why you need to personalize legal discussions.
Be that as it may, if a client of mine had been threatened with physical force in a breach of contract dispute, I'd be filing a lot more than a complaint for what amounts to recission of the contract. Any competent attorney would. |
Response to jberryhill (Reply #46)
Fri Mar 16, 2018, 09:38 AM
EffieBlack (14,210 posts)
48. He didnt say the threat came during the breach of contract dispute
Since he said this during a discussion about the circumstances of her entering into the agreement, the implication is that the threat was used to induce her to sign the contract in 2016. But we don’t really know at this point.
And, any competent lawyer knows that he can’t take any action on behalf of his client without her consent, so unless we know that she’s authorized him to act on the threat that she says was made before she engaged his representation or are privy to what he may be doing behind the scenes that hasn’ yet been made public, none of us is in any position to armchair quarterback him. |
Response to EffieBlack (Reply #48)
Fri Mar 16, 2018, 09:46 AM
jberryhill (62,444 posts)
49. Um...
"so unless we know that she’s authorized him to act on the threat..."
As opposed to talk about it on TV? If the original contract was made under the threat of physical force, then Avenatti apparently missed that issue entirely in the civil suit. That alone would be an independent ground for voiding the contract. But the civil suit makes no such claim. |
Response to jberryhill (Reply #49)
Fri Mar 16, 2018, 10:03 AM
EffieBlack (14,210 posts)
54. As I said, as much as you seem to enjoy second-guessing other lawyers decisions,
and pronouncing what you would do differently and better, unless you know all of the facts and circumstances that he knows, you’re not equipped to criticize what he is and isn’t doing. And you certainly don’t know what you would do in his situation since you haven’t a clue what the situation is.
|
Response to cbreezen (Reply #23)
Fri Mar 16, 2018, 08:29 AM
brush (33,402 posts)
39. He paid her 130k just before the election to keep quiet. That's not a huge story to you?
Response to brush (Reply #39)
Fri Mar 16, 2018, 09:22 AM
jberryhill (62,444 posts)
45. The fact of the payment has broader implications
What sort of sex they had, how long they had it, etc., is not of any particular consequence. The payment? Sure, that may be an illegal campaign violation. How the payment was arranged may involve other sorts of issues like money laundering. But the fact of the payment is not a disputed issue in the Daniels suit. People are acting as if Daniels is some kind of hero in all of this. Here's a simple life lesson - if you want to speak publicly about something, then don't take $130k not to speak publicly about something. It's a simple principle to follow. |
Response to jberryhill (Reply #45)
Fri Mar 16, 2018, 09:56 AM
PJMcK (14,617 posts)
51. A question
Your points are clear and focused, as usual. Here's my question for you. If Ms. Daniels faced a choice of either accepting the $130K and signing the NDA or being threatened with physical violence what would her legal options be now given the facts that she signed the NDA and accepted the money?
|
Response to jberryhill (Reply #45)
Fri Mar 16, 2018, 09:59 AM
LanternWaste (36,780 posts)
53. I've little doubt that's how you need to interpret the reactions.
"People are acting as if Daniels is some kind of hero in all of this..."
I've little doubt that's how you need to interpret the reactions in your desire to minimize and trivialize the story. |
Response to cbreezen (Reply #23)
Fri Mar 16, 2018, 09:00 AM
Squinch (35,118 posts)
44. So your post discounting the importance of her story, that's you waiting til you hear it from her?
Response to cbreezen (Original post)
Fri Mar 16, 2018, 07:54 AM
Ilsa (57,329 posts)
29. Trump has been trying to distract from the Stormy Daniels story,
not the other way around.
|
Response to Ilsa (Reply #29)
Fri Mar 16, 2018, 08:04 AM
cbreezen (694 posts)
32. It's a distraction for US. Look at how many responses this post garnered.
It proves my point.
|
Response to cbreezen (Reply #32)
Fri Mar 16, 2018, 02:15 PM
Ilsa (57,329 posts)
55. I think I can handle more than one headline at a time,
and I am not going to forget the collusion, money laundering, threats to national security, civil rights, etc.
|
Response to Ilsa (Reply #29)
Fri Mar 16, 2018, 08:59 AM
Squinch (35,118 posts)
43. Seems he's not the only one. Nothing to see here, doncha know?
Response to cbreezen (Original post)
Fri Mar 16, 2018, 08:54 AM
Nitram (15,989 posts)
41. It's not just titillating. There are quite likely criminal actions involved in paying hush money out
of campaign funds, and perhaps threats of physical violence.
|
Response to cbreezen (Original post)
Fri Mar 16, 2018, 08:58 AM
Squinch (35,118 posts)
42. Thanks for this. It was making me anxious, not knowing your feelings about this and all.
![]() |
Response to cbreezen (Original post)
Fri Mar 16, 2018, 09:27 AM
Bernardo de La Paz (36,886 posts)
47. Beyond salacious: criminal threats, lying, lack of transparency, coverup, hypocrisy exposed. . . .nt
|
Response to cbreezen (Original post)
Fri Mar 16, 2018, 09:48 AM
HipChick (24,852 posts)
50. It's not the sex, but the cover-up
and what the traitor knows about it? He's a control freak, and I doubt there is little he did not know...
|