Stormy Daniels legal fundraiser

[Equinox Moon]

I wonder if people are pitching in to help Stormy Daniels win against this SOB?

[Demovictory9]

1. 200k donated so far..

[TheCowsCameHome]

2. Thanks!

I wish I had your kind of disposable income.

[Demovictory9]

4. lol..that is total from public

[lame54]

14. In $1 bills?

[Turbineguy]

3. If it ends up in Federal Court

Trump may be paying the legal bills. Trump of course thinks he can get away with this.

[jberryhill]

5. Win what?

Was she abducted and forced to have sex with him?

Did someone make her accept 130k not to talk about it?

Did someone compel her to file this lawsuit?

[SunSeeker]

6. Try to keep up. Trump is seeking $20M against her for violating the hush money agreement.

Trump's filing actually admits that Trump is the Dennyson in that agreement. Trump hired that scumbag Harder as his lawyer on that lawsuit, the same guy who sued Gawker out of existence.

Why are you so hostile to Stormy Daniels winning in court in her litigation with Trump?

[jberryhill]

7. Ill take the last question first

I’m not “hostile” to either side in a contract dispute that doesn’t include me. What do I care which side wins?

And, no, you don’t understand the recent filing. It was a notice of removal to federal court. In order to remove to federal court, there are three conditions that need to be satisfied - complete diversity, consent of all defendants, and at least $75k at stake.

Trump is named as a defendant in Daniels suit (people act like he’s suing her for some odd reason) and is a proper party to the notice of removal.

But, yeah, maybe it was some sort of mystery to you who “David Dennison” was, but I think most sane people had that figured out already.

Which brings me back to, so? Trump had sex with a porn star in 2005/6. She accepted 130k not to talk about it. She changed her mind after he was elected. Now she wants out from under an arbitration award and wants a court to void the contract. On the other side Cohen and Trump want what amounts to a permanent lien on every dime she makes by talking about it.

I know what’s in it for Daniels. I know what’s in it for Cohen and Trunp. What’s in it for me, you, or anyone else whether or not the contract is valid?

Golly gee, if she gets out of the contract, she gets a lot of money for telling her story about having sex with Trump! Like that’s something I’m just thrilled at the prospect of hearing.

Why give a shit which of these atrocious people wins their argument? Do you admire everyone who has had sex with Trunp? Is it your dream or something to know the details of it? Does it result in him leaving office and getting out of our White House?

I think I can put it more simply:

When did Daniels become some sort of hero?

When she slept with Trump? When she decided it was worth 130k to not talk about it? Or when she decided she could make more money by talking about it?

[SunSeeker]

8. No need to mansplain, I understand the filing perfectly. Your comments are very hostile.

As you acknowledge, to remove it to Federal Court, Trump must show the controversy involves over $75k. She is only seeking injunctive relief. So Trump's attorney came up with the claim that Trump will seek at least $20M in damages against her based on their hush money agreement.

Why give a shit who wins this litigation?

How about the First Amendment implications of a SITTING FUCKING PRESIDENT being able to SILENCE a private U..S. citizen from discussing a matter of public interest involving said sitting president.

I agree with Daniels' attorney:

“The fact that a sitting president is pursuing over $20 million in bogus ‘damages’ against a private citizen, who is only trying to tell the public what really happened, is truly remarkable,” Michael Avenatti, Daniels’s lawyer, said in an emailed statement. 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-16/trump-moves-stormy-daniels-lawsuit-to-federal-court

Your suggestion that I might want her to win because I "admire everyone who has had sex with Trump" or my "dream or something to know the details of it" is sick, sexist and vile. You should be ashamed of yourself.

It is not the details of their sex that makes her story important (although those details may corroborate certain aspects of the Steele Dossier); it is her documentation of Trump secretly paying people off and/or intimidating people from saying anything disparaging about him while he was running for PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

I hope the outcome from this litigation is that these sort of hush money agreements are declared unenforceable by public officials as a matter of law, as violative of the First Amendment and against public policy.

[jberryhill]

13. So its mainly just personal insults

How about the First Amendment?

So, in your opinion, an NDA is a First Amendment violation?

While the payment itself is interesting as a campaign contribution, what did she accept the $130k for?

Also, why doesn’t she just go ahead and disclose what she knows, if she wants to? Obviously the contract isn’t valid, so what’s stopping her?

Or is asking you to explain things also against your rules of conversation?

[SunSeeker]

16. An NDA should be a violation of the 1st A under these circumstances.

There's no case law directly on point since we have never had a president as craven as Trump entering into such a hush money agreement then try to enforce it while in office.

She needs a declaration that the hush money agreement is unenforceable so she talk freely and so folks who may want to publish her story aren't scared off by potential litigation by Trump.

You are welcome to ask me to explain things. It is the hostility and sick personal insults that have no place on this board. And those aren't "my rules of conversation," that's the TOS and basic human decency. Yet you continue with the hostility...

[jberryhill]

18. Why agree to take the 130k in the first place?

I’m sorry that you find opinions which differ from yours to be “hostile”. I asked three questions in the thread, and you started in with the “try to keep up” condescension.

It’s quite simple. If you want to speak freely about something with no issues, you don’t agree to accept six figures not to, and then change your mind more than a year later.

Not even Daniels claims she was pressured into the agreeemnt, and she was represented by counsel who specializes in things like burying sex tapes for cash.

All that has happened is she has changed her mind on the proposition that she can make more money.

This is a case of Grifter v. Grifter, which the skillful media theatrics have managed to obscure from people who should know better.

Maybe the difference in perspective comes from having actually represented someone in a first amendment claim against Trump, as the linked article in my other reply shows. I can assure you that neither I nor my client who was threatened by Trump’s goons thought, “Hey, maybe we can cash in on this.”

I can remember when Snowden and Assange were received at DU in wide-eyed wonder at our new heroes. They had agendas of their own, but the notion that something wasn't quite right about them received the same sort of conversational bullying tactics you are using here. It is not a TOS violation to disagree with you, nor is it one to be of the opinion that Daniels and Trump deserve each other in the grifting championships.

Incidentally, the "public policy" argument is a somewhat viable ground to attempt to void the contract. Perhaps when Avenatti amends the complaint in the lawsuit, he'll add that. I agree it is a glaring omission.

[SunSeeker]

21. She has a right to change her mind. That agreement should be unenforceable.

I was not offended by people disagreeing with me. As far as I could tell, you were not disagreeing with my opinion that she should win, you seemed to disagree with my statement of the facts, namely that Trump is seeking $20M in damages from her. But I was not offended by that either. I was offended by you suggesting snidely that I might want her to win because I "admire everyone who has had sex with Trump" or my "dream or something to know the details of it." That was sick, sexist and vile. As I said, you should be ashamed of yourself.

[jberryhill]

15. Oh, and speaking of Trump and first amendment claims...

You might find this interesting:

http://metro.co.uk/2016/11/04/we-really-think-you-should-visit-trump-org-6234798/

Oddly, my client didn’t take 130k to agree to shut up.

[SunSeeker]

17. Your client does not appear to have been offered $130k to agree to shut up.

So him not taking $0 was pretty easy.

[jberryhill]

19. You know something nobody else does?

Perhaps you can point me to the article or interview by which you believe that the negotiations were initiated by Trump.

Daniels lawyer in that negotiation has made a career out of representing clients who have embarrassing secrets about people. He was the guy trying to get money for the Hilk Hogan sex tape.

Since you know more about this stuff than I do, could you let me know where you learned about who offered the 130k? I haven’t seen that in any of the reports or in Avenatti’s prodigious media discussions.

One good way to avoid such a circumstance is not to accept the 130k offer, if that’s how you believe the deal was made. If you believe you have something important to say, then how does someone offering you money not to talk change the situation in any significant way. You simply say "No, I'd rather talk."

[SunSeeker]

20. However the deal was made, it should be unenforceable under the circumstances. nt

[EllieBC]

22. Good job on that!

Your client should be happy he had you as his attorney!

[Pachamama]

9. Yep, donated yesterday

[Equinox Moon]

10. So, there is a public donation happening?

I was wondering. So many people hate that fake president liar and want to see any form of justice we can. That is why I would think people are donating. Why did you?

[HipChick]

11. I'll donate to anything that will bring him down, its not the sex

It's the cover-up..

[Equinox Moon]

12. We want justice where we can get it!

[Pachamama]

23. Trump is a criminal - and in this case he is trying to silence a citizen

...with dirty tactics and intimidation.

It’s not about the sex...I could give a shit about that. But I think that anything that can be done to shed light on his crimes is a worthwhile endeavor.

[mnmoderatedem]

24. we may want to keep that powder dry a bit

trumps recent countersuit for 20 million, for his contention that they're going after one million for every supposed breach of the agreement, is a not so veiled threat to the apparent six other women who potentially may come out with information similar to Stormy.

And they likely don't have the financial means Stormy does. That may be a better direction of contributions.