President Trump

User avatar
Aglets
Rules Advocate
Posts: 19194
Joined: January 14th, 2004, 9:08 pm
Location: Bel Air, MD

Re: President Trump

Post by Aglets »

All of it is fairly moo to me unless it can result in somehow getting him to testify under oath. That's been my thing since the beginning. Maybe this will finally make that happen? maybe with mueller.


Image
Rian Johnson wrote: I would be worried if everybody across the board was like "Yea, that was a good movie." It's much more exciting to me when you get a group of people who are coming up to you.....really really excited about it. And then there are other people who walk out literally saying that was the worst movie I've ever seen. Having those two extremes to me is the mark of the type of movie that I want to make.

mserisman
Member
Posts: 5048
Joined: August 19th, 2005, 1:42 am
Location: Australia

Re: President Trump

Post by mserisman »

mikefrench wrote:when bill clinton cheated on his wife and lied about it, somehow that made hillary the villain in your eyes. so surely you're going to criticize melania for enabling her husband's indiscretions and lies, right?
Not exactly.

Bill was responsible for his behavior clearly. There is no question about that. I have never said otherwise.

However, Hillary also actively and publicly attacked the victims of Bill's wanderings, including a 23 year old intern named Monica. This public display of personally attacking and attempting to threaten and intimidate the victims is in itself disgraceful, all the more considering she ran on a pro-woman platform with her own history of enabling treatment detrimental to women.

So, yes, If Melania goes on a public rampage attacking the women who have raised issues against Trump, then that would ALSO be poor behavior. I highly doubt she will do that though.
"Never content to just rest on your laurels, you are always still reaching skyward, looking to achieve staggering new heights in douchebaggery." - Hunter towards someone who will not be named

mikefrench
Top Cards
Top Cards
Posts: 18121
Joined: August 1st, 2005, 8:00 pm
Location: first street haven
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by mikefrench »

Aglets wrote:All of it is fairly moo to me unless it can result in somehow getting him to testify under oath. That's been my thing since the beginning. Maybe this will finally make that happen? maybe with mueller.
i don't think he has to testify under oath to get "caught" (for lack of a better term).

one other point in regards to the clinton/trump comparison - in the clinton impeachment, the basic argument that carried the day and led to clinton winning the impeachment vote in the senate was "it's bad for the president to cheat on his wife and lie about it, even if it's lying under oath, but that's not grounds for removal from office." i don't necessarily disagree with that - i don't think we want to live in a world where a president could be removed from office by the opposing party for that. trump did all that, plus illegally paid hush money to conceal his cheating. does that cross the line? i'm sure that according to house/senate republicans, it doesn't (even though some of those exact politicians voted the other way on the clinton impeachment).
The Honky Tonk Man wrote:If you want to post trash takes, at least go the Mike French route and come off as being somewhat reasonable.

User avatar
Aglets
Rules Advocate
Posts: 19194
Joined: January 14th, 2004, 9:08 pm
Location: Bel Air, MD

Re: President Trump

Post by Aglets »

Didn't almost all Republicans vote to convict Clinton and literally all Democrats vote not to?

That should tell you how to expect a similar vote to go for Trump. I am under no illision that Trump is likely to be removed from office.....the Democrats would need 67 senate seats for that to happen because no one votes for principles anymore....only party. And that's just not mathematically possible.

But if he's impeached by the House I think that may finally be enough to torpedo him for 2020. And yes that could happen as a result of the Mueller findings......perhaps for campaign finance fraud or whatever you'd call it (I am skeptical that Trump will be hit by this tho), but I still think perjury is the most likely thing that gets him.
Image
Rian Johnson wrote: I would be worried if everybody across the board was like "Yea, that was a good movie." It's much more exciting to me when you get a group of people who are coming up to you.....really really excited about it. And then there are other people who walk out literally saying that was the worst movie I've ever seen. Having those two extremes to me is the mark of the type of movie that I want to make.

Hari Seldon
Booster Box
Booster Box
Posts: 1289
Joined: May 9th, 2010, 6:46 pm

Re: RE: Re: President Trump

Post by Hari Seldon »

mikefrench wrote:i guess i should clarify.

none of the stormy daniels stuff is remotely noteworthy in context. it's not at all surprising or shocking. trump had an affair with an adult film actress, lied about it, and paid her to be silent in the aftermath of the "grab em by the *" story, RIGHT before the presidential election. i do think it's wrong to cheat on your spouse (unless you have some sort of open marriage, which the trumps may have), but i don't think it's an impeachable offense, and i don't think it's all that newsworthy in the grand scheme of things. the newsworthy/relevant note here is, with the help of a completely unethical lawyer (cohen, who will almost certainly be AT LEAST disbarred and probably be charged with crimes) trump violated numerous laws by paying that hush money.

all of that pales in comparison to the normal, everyday criminality of the trump administration. all of that pales in comparison to trump's daily enriching of himself at the expense of the american taxpayer.

but

this is the closest we've come as yet to anything resembling a smoking gun. that's why this is a big deal (to me).
It seems like you are wishing for this to be a lot bigger a deal than the facts (so far) make it. If the payment to the porn star is determined to be an in-kind campaign contribution (there would probably need to be a legal ruling on this first), than there is one or two violations of the law, not “numerous.” If they hold with Cohen making the payment himself without Trump or the campaign having any knowledge of it, than Cohen is in violation of making an excessive contribution. They could also add an additional offense (so two violations of the law) of not reporting the contribution to the campaign, as reporting in-kind contributions and the amount to a campaign is the responsibility of the contributor. The campaign itself needs to make a good faith effort to report all such contributions, but there is no standard that I have read such that they are in violation for not reporting ones they have no knowledge of.


If Trump admits the payment was actually from him, it would not be an excessive contribution, but then the campaign itself is in violation of not reporting it as Trump is not separate from the campaign. If the money did come from Cohen first (nobody seems to be disputing this) and then repaid by Trump, and Trump had to file a financial disclosure during this period and omitted this debt, or it was over a threshold to submit an amended disclosure he could be in violation of whatever statute the financial disclosure laws fall.


In either case the campaign items would be Federal crimes under the Federal Election Campaign Act, the financial disclosure violation would also clearly be a federal statute. In the former Trump could pardon Cohen if he wished, and in the latter it’s unclear as to whether a sitting president can be indicted on federal charges, with the legal opinion as I understand it being that one cannot.  Cohen himself would have issues professionally in the former situation too. Disbarment seems likely as I suspect the New York state bar association is not made up of Trump fans.


If Trump finds himself under oath or talking to the FBI, then all bets are off as to legal trouble he gets himself in to regarding questions as to this situation or anything else he is asked. 


Not sure why we’re trying to show correlation with Bill Clinton? They both did or may have committed extramarital affairs (If I had to commit my own money I would bet Trump did bang the porn star), but Clinton’s legal issues were caused by lying under oath about the affair during a deposition for an unrelated case. I don’t know how that compares to federal election law violations on some relative scale of illegality, but it’s certainly not the same thing. 


Of course, one or two crimes, numerous crimes, or no crimes at all, the House could impeach him for any reason. I think it's clear that a large number of Democrat congresspeople would like to do so. Ever since the misguided impeachment of Clinton where the Republicans knew they didn't have the votes in the Senate to convict, I have felt that the Democrats have yearned to impeach somebody such to balance the scales. It might be a fun time for political junkies if they win the house in November.



Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk
allstarz97 wrote:...and thematically, as everyone is referencing on this thread, why are people not mentioning the part where mace windu is crying like a little *, gets his hand cut off and then gets thrown out a window?

User avatar
Gergall
Member
Posts: 20005
Joined: December 9th, 2002, 1:14 am
Location: Long Island, NY
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by Gergall »

mserisman wrote:So, yes, If Melania goes on a public rampage attacking the women who have raised issues against Trump, then that would ALSO be poor behavior. I highly doubt she will do that though.
I'll be content to agree that Bill, Hillary, and Donald are monsters, while Melania is an innocent angel. We good?
Greg Zinn

Image

Hari Seldon
Booster Box
Booster Box
Posts: 1289
Joined: May 9th, 2010, 6:46 pm

Re: RE: Re: President Trump

Post by Hari Seldon »

Gergall wrote:
mserisman wrote:So, yes, If Melania goes on a public rampage attacking the women who have raised issues against Trump, then that would ALSO be poor behavior. I highly doubt she will do that though.
I'll be content to agree that Bill, Hillary, and Donald are monsters, while Melania is an innocent angel. We good?
Melania as first lady is an interesting case. It seems reasonable that she would be considered the most beautiful woman to be in the position, by modern standards of beauty at least. Not surprising as she is also the only first lady (that I am aware of) that was a model. However, she also supposedly speaks five languages so if true it would be hard to believe she is a complete moron, and the decorating and stuff that comes out at holidays shows she has (or hires people that have) an eye for style. She has acquitted herself well during the few times she has done anything in public too of those I recall. If Trump were a Democrat the media would be falling over themselves declaring her White House the new Camelot. That’s not going to happen since they hate him, and also I presume because it seems the role of first lady has changed such that we expect them to involve themselves in policy as Hillary so often did, as did Laura Bush and Michele Obama (each to a lesser extent than Hillary). Melania has kept out of such to date as far as I know, but as first ladies go, whatever grace, elegance, etc. she is bringing to the table has gone unheralded due to the total lack of grace and complete inelegance of her husband. She hooked her wagon to the Trump train when she married him though so she cannot expect much sympathy.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk
allstarz97 wrote:...and thematically, as everyone is referencing on this thread, why are people not mentioning the part where mace windu is crying like a little *, gets his hand cut off and then gets thrown out a window?

User avatar
JarJarDrinks
Member
Posts: 26171
Joined: November 4th, 2003, 10:01 am

Re: President Trump

Post by JarJarDrinks »

If Gold-digging is a game then Melania has won.

Using ur hotness to become first lady of the US is something unlikely to ever be achieved again.
dx_37 wrote:
October 2nd, 2019, 12:12 pm
I would be all for a reset if I get to be on the reset team
"Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking."
- Bill Maher

"How you play the game is important. But for me, it's about if you win or lose."
- Derek Jeter

User avatar
vhstapes
Member
Posts: 2280
Joined: November 16th, 2009, 1:54 am
Location: Seattle, WA
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by vhstapes »

JarJarDrinks wrote:If Gold-digging is a game then Melania has won.

Using ur hotness to become first lady of the US is something unlikely to ever be achieved again.
I dunno, have you seen Idiocracy?
-Cyrus M.
\m/ Endor Region \m/

Data Tapes - 05 - The Unofficial NARP Defensive Shield Primer

fungineer
Reflections Gold
Reflections Gold
Posts: 7837
Joined: July 9th, 2012, 6:02 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI. USA
Holotable username: fungineer
GEMP Username: fungineer

Re: President Trump

Post by fungineer »

vhstapes wrote:
JarJarDrinks wrote:If Gold-digging is a game then Melania has won.

Using ur hotness to become first lady of the US is something unlikely to ever be achieved again.
I dunno, have you seen Idiocracy?
Such a fun movie to watch.
* Congrats if you read through my whole post. Have a cookie, it's in your cache.
* https://gemp.starwarsccg.org/gemp-swccg Play for free, even if you don't own good cards. Then play in real life, with real people, even if you aren't any good.
Image Image Image
Sagnet wrote:At this point, I think your posts are more unclear than the rules are.

Blarg
Reflections Gold
Reflections Gold
Posts: 3454
Joined: January 12th, 2010, 11:56 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: President Trump

Post by Blarg »

I have a question for the lawyers on the boards: How has Stormy Daniels not already violated the NDA? It seems like a standard part of an NDA should be that you can't talk about the NDA. Or maybe she has violated it but Trump would have to pursue that (publicly) in court?

User avatar
Gergall
Member
Posts: 20005
Joined: December 9th, 2002, 1:14 am
Location: Long Island, NY
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by Gergall »

Blarg wrote:I have a question for the lawyers on the boards: How has Stormy Daniels not already violated the NDA? It seems like a standard part of an NDA should be that you can't talk about the NDA. Or maybe she has violated it but Trump would have to pursue that (publicly) in court?
Yeah it's sort of a Catch-22 for Trump. She is saying that the NDA is invalid. If Trump agrees then there is no NDA, and if Trump disagrees then he can fight it, but that seems to involve admitting that the NDA exists.

If Trump fights back and wins, Stormy pays back the $130,000 which she already said she is fine with. It looks like the big networks are willing to pay her a lot more than that for this story.

So why doesn't this happen with every NDA on the planet? Because normally the money is enough to keep the person quiet - that's the whole point, after all. In this case, the value of Stormy's story skyrocketed when Trump went from candidate to president. $130k was enough back then, but not anymore.
Greg Zinn

Image

Blarg
Reflections Gold
Reflections Gold
Posts: 3454
Joined: January 12th, 2010, 11:56 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: President Trump

Post by Blarg »

Gergall wrote:
Blarg wrote:I have a question for the lawyers on the boards: How has Stormy Daniels not already violated the NDA? It seems like a standard part of an NDA should be that you can't talk about the NDA. Or maybe she has violated it but Trump would have to pursue that (publicly) in court?
Yeah it's sort of a Catch-22 for Trump. She is saying that the NDA is invalid. If Trump agrees then there is no NDA, and if Trump disagrees then he can fight it, but that seems to involve admitting that the NDA exists.

If Trump fights back and wins, Stormy pays back the $130,000 which she already said she is fine with. It looks like the big networks are willing to pay her a lot more than that for this story.

So why doesn't this happen with every NDA on the planet? Because normally the money is enough to keep the person quiet - that's the whole point, after all. In this case, the value of Stormy's story skyrocketed when Trump went from candidate to president. $130k was enough back then, but not anymore.
Yeah, I understand most of that. But:
  • If she has already violated the NDA by saying that it exists, what harm is there in violating it more by saying everything?
  • Surely there is more of a penalty than just returning the money? Lots of NDAs don't involve any money changing hands, so they must have some other kind of penalty built in.

User avatar
Gergall
Member
Posts: 20005
Joined: December 9th, 2002, 1:14 am
Location: Long Island, NY
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by Gergall »

If she has already violated the NDA by saying that it exists, what harm is there in violating it more by saying everything?
None I guess? That's why she's coming forward with the story. She's biding her time a bit, maybe fishing for the highest offer, but I think they're saying now that she is moving ahead with it.
Surely there is more of a penalty than just returning the money? Lots of NDAs don't involve any money changing hands, so they must have some other kind of penalty built in.
Oh there could be additional penalties but it appears that somebody has already done the math and determined they are willing to pay for that.
For example CNN could say "Yeah Stormy we'll pay up the $130k, the additional $100k penality, and then pay you an additional $500k, for your story."


Like I said in the previous post - this looks like a case of paying someone to keep their mouth shut, but then it turned out you didn't pay them enough.
Last edited by Gergall on March 12th, 2018, 3:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Greg Zinn

Image

User avatar
JarJarDrinks
Member
Posts: 26171
Joined: November 4th, 2003, 10:01 am

Re: President Trump

Post by JarJarDrinks »

She says that Trump never signed it.

but she took the money so I don't really understand how that works.
dx_37 wrote:
October 2nd, 2019, 12:12 pm
I would be all for a reset if I get to be on the reset team
"Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking."
- Bill Maher

"How you play the game is important. But for me, it's about if you win or lose."
- Derek Jeter

User avatar
Gergall
Member
Posts: 20005
Joined: December 9th, 2002, 1:14 am
Location: Long Island, NY
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by Gergall »

JarJarDrinks wrote:She says that Trump never signed it.

but she took the money so I don't really understand how that works.
"He didn't sign it, his lawyer did" is not a real argument and she and her lawyers know it. But it creates this Catch 22 where Trump looks just as bad for fighting it. The cash stakes just weren't high enough to hold this deal together.
Greg Zinn

Image

mikefrench
Top Cards
Top Cards
Posts: 18121
Joined: August 1st, 2005, 8:00 pm
Location: first street haven
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by mikefrench »

Gergall wrote:"He didn't sign it, his lawyer did" is not a real argument and she and her lawyers know it. But it creates this Catch 22 where Trump looks just as bad for fighting it. The cash stakes just weren't high enough to hold this deal together.
one requirement for contracts is a "meeting of the minds." if cohen concealed this contract from trump, as he's PUBLICLY SAYING HE DID, that also makes it not an enforceable contract. that's where that second attachment comes into play - the one about the aliases. if trump acknowledges that he was in fact that alias, then the contract is good, even without trump's signature.

also noteworthy, i learned today that daniels and her lawyers lost in secret arbitration about a week before they filed this lawsuit, which means they're basically saying that they disagree with the arbitration or that it was invalid.
The Honky Tonk Man wrote:If you want to post trash takes, at least go the Mike French route and come off as being somewhat reasonable.

mikefrench
Top Cards
Top Cards
Posts: 18121
Joined: August 1st, 2005, 8:00 pm
Location: first street haven
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by mikefrench »

but again, if trump acknowledges that he is that alias, the contract is valid but trump would be basically putting his lawyer (and most likely himself) into legal jeopardy.
The Honky Tonk Man wrote:If you want to post trash takes, at least go the Mike French route and come off as being somewhat reasonable.

mikefrench
Top Cards
Top Cards
Posts: 18121
Joined: August 1st, 2005, 8:00 pm
Location: first street haven
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by mikefrench »

JarJarDrinks wrote:She says that Trump never signed it.

but she took the money so I don't really understand how that works.
contracts require

valid binding agreement
consideration
acceptance

so the meeting of the minds is the first two, you have to actually have an agreement on what's being done and who gets what. acceptance of the money makes the contract valid. even if neither party had signed, if there was enough evidence of the consideration/acceptance, the contract would be valid. there are exceptions to this - all real estate has to be done via written/signed contracts, for instance.
The Honky Tonk Man wrote:If you want to post trash takes, at least go the Mike French route and come off as being somewhat reasonable.

mikefrench
Top Cards
Top Cards
Posts: 18121
Joined: August 1st, 2005, 8:00 pm
Location: first street haven
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by mikefrench »

as far as what daniels could do with whatever evidence or info she has

i believe there's a $1million penalty associated. also there's injunctive relief specified, so if the contract is ruled valid, she couldn't sell the info to a media outlet without exposing that media outlet to both monetary and injunctive risk - a court could tell that media outlet to not publish, and/or to pay trump damages. i'm not sure how exactly that would look.
The Honky Tonk Man wrote:If you want to post trash takes, at least go the Mike French route and come off as being somewhat reasonable.

Post Reply

Return to “Off Topic”