General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAvenatti: I have been practicing law for nearly 20 years. Never before have I seen a defendant...
I have been practicing law for nearly 20 yrs. Never before have I seen a defendant so frightened to be deposed as Donald Trump, especially for a guy that talks so tough. He is desperate and doing all he can to avoid having to answer my questions. He is all hat and no cattle.
Link to tweet
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
SayItLoud
(1,702 posts)Cohen says he wants his 130K$ back, BUT, he was reimbursed by the F'n MORON tRUMP....so it would be tRUMP who should be demanding his $130K back. What am I missing here????
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)He wants to nullify the agreement by mutual consent, which normally means giving the money back as if the agreement never happened. But if he really doesn't want Trump to testify, then he will probably just let her keep the money. If that happens, the case is moot and Avenatti doesn't get his deposition.
HipChick
(25,485 posts)marylandblue
(12,344 posts)elmac
(4,642 posts)
ginnyinWI
(17,276 posts)to rip someone off is "winning".
And his actions as president echo that idea.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)he wanted to do business with? Or trying to get women fired for not sleeping w him?
Le Grand Pronounceur
(78 posts)I'm thinking Trump is worth a few million, tops.
calimary
(81,242 posts)One of many reasons why I believe he still hasn’t released his tax returns.
onetexan
(13,041 posts)bitterross
(4,066 posts)Sure, they may be able to stop depositions on the agreement if they nullify the agreement. Then the case would probably be "moot."
I'm not a lawyer here so do not feel I am correct. I'm just really making an educated guess.
My thought is, though, even if the agreement is no longer in place the claims of defamation are still valid claims. Daniels was "injured" by the defendants' comments and actions. That means Avanatti should still be able to depose them about their statements about her and their motives behind those statements.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Just as a ballpark figure, by how much has her ability to earn income been reduced by whatever statement of Trump’s you have in mind?
bitterross
(4,066 posts)Her character is a factor. Lies about her character are injuries.
She may be a porn star but that does negate the fact she is a human and deserves to be treated with honesty and dignity.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)I realize that people don’t generally get that civil lawsuits are about sticking numbers on things.
But the fact remains that it is necessary to show economic loss. For example, if you are a bricklayer and someone falsely says you are a bad bricklayer, then you’d show that you lost $x amount of business as a result.
So, please... identify a statement that Trump has made about her, and identify the manner in which it has damaged her economically or, for that matter, in any other way.
In point of fact, the entire controversy over her voluntarily fucking Trump has been her principal source of income for months now. There is no sane person who does not believe she had sex with Trump.
So what is it that has harmed her in any calculable way, and in what amount do you estimate?
bitterross
(4,066 posts)If one makes this about the acts they performed it gets tawdry.
What is at stake here is her honesty. Did those acts happen as she claims they did or did they not happen as the defendant claims?
What dollar amount do you put on honesty?
former9thward
(32,003 posts)Your are on the jury. What dollar amount do you assign to her honesty? (Knowing of course, her honesty or lack of, in other aspects of her life would be presented in court).
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The ONLY thing at stake in a civil trial is who is going to have to pay whom, and how much.
No one believes Trump’s denial. She has made a small fortune off of the publicity. She simply has not suffered any compensable damage as a consequence of anything that Trump has said.
So I don’t understand the point of your various rhetorical questions.
Absent legally cognizable damages, there is no basis for a defamation suit.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)There is a distinction between a contract claim and a tort claim. One doesn't have to show actual economic harm to get a judgment. What provable economic harm did Summer Zervos suffer as a result of Trump's defamation of her? Yet, her case still goes on.
Still, I'd argue Stormy has suffered great harm economic and otherwise as a result of Trump's defamation.
1. As far as I am aware, Trump has yet to publish a retraction of his defamatory statements. He has merely conceded the contract is void. As a result, she is still suffering ongoing harm.
To publish an effective retraction Trump would have to issue a public statement that she wasn't lying and he was. It would have to be made in a venue and manner that was capable of receiving similar media coverage that his denials did. So far, Trump hasn't even made this very basic attempt to mitigate the ongoing harm she is receiving as the result of his defamation.
2. Yes, Trump could argue that she has suffered very little economic damage because her career got a boost. I'd argue the boost to her career is only temporary and the increased costs as the result of his defamation are ongoing.
As the case has begun to fade from the national attention, so has the turnout to her shows and the number of her bookings. I am sure Avenatti will be able to demonstrate with documentation the decline. Porn Stars don't earn residuals from their prior work. The peak money that she made is already declining and will continue to do so as the story continues to fade.
She regularly gets death threats and threats of violence as a result of Trump's defamation. As such she has had to add 24-hour security whereas before she had none. Once her earnings fall back to that of a 39-year-old fading porn star she won't be able to afford this ongoing and necessary expense to keep herself and her family safe. I recall a news story from a while back where a Texas newspaper published pictures of her home. The original article included information that gave away her home address. In the article, several of her neighbors were interviewed and they all said they weren't aware a porn star lives in their neighborhood as they were quiet and kept to themselves. Even the most famous Porn Stars have the sanctuary of their home to return to where they can lead a non-public life. Ms. Daniels no longer does.
As the result of threats from Trump supporters, she had to take her daughter out of school and hire someone to homeschool her. (This was in an interview I read). She can also argue this is what led to her marriage breaking up and the possible loss of custody of her child. Oh, don't forget the Trump supporting police officers that made up an offense so they could arrest her and publically humiliate her. That wouldn't have happened if Trump hadn't defamed her.
I'd argue that overall it is difficult to imagine a defamatory act where one suffers greater harm than when the President of the United States uses the trappings of his office to defame you on multiple occasions. I think she is entitled to a very large judgment.
empedocles
(15,751 posts)Good argument. Good summary in the last paragraph.
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,001 posts)MooDrew
(41 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)Defamation likely goes nowhere. We'll see
But Avenatti gets his TV show/candidacy
bitterross
(4,066 posts)You know nothing about the morals and ethics of Stephanie Clifford. You are happy to judge her based on her profession. Her profession as a porn actress does not make her immoral.
You judging her for it does make you a prude though.
7962
(11,841 posts)And I'M not the one accused of defamation. I'm just saying 1/2 this case is a real stretch and theres going to be one sure winner; Avenatti.
As far as Stormy's "morals, her husband just filed for divorce based on her having "multiple affairs", so I guess she's about as moral as trump is in that respect. And speaking of "sexism", maybe you should research her background on that issue yourself.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/tasha-reign-i-was-assaulted-on-a-stormy-daniels-porn-set-and-she-did-nothing
MooDrew
(41 posts)And it is not a stretch at all. See my prior post above. If the POTUS publically defamed you by name on Air Force One and through his Press Secretary and other representatives numerous times which caused the deplorables to come out of the woodwork and threaten to kill you and your family members on a nonstop basis how much compensation would you think is fair? Keep in mind you could no longer do normal things like go out to eat, go to the grocery store and your kids couldn't even go to school. Would it be fair compensation to say oh, he is famous now, so he didn't suffer any harm?
The multiple affairs claim is a boatload of crap. She and her husband both performed in adult movies with different partners. They had an open marriage. They are attempting to reconcile according to the latest interview. Trying to say she doesn't have a valid claim because you perceive she has a lack of morality is nothing more than a deflection and it has nothing to do with the defamatory statements Trump made against her.
7962
(11,841 posts)You mention she could no longer go out to eat, go to the store, etc. So then trump admin people could file claims against those who urge that they be shamed out of a restaurant or store? Because she is a public figure just as much as a political person is.
If he's suing for divorce based on adultery, then they didnt have an open marriage. Being in porn doesnt mean you cant be accused of adultery. She could be with someone OUTSIDE the industry. Which, BTW, she no longer is in front of the camera and hasnt been for years.
I've seen nothing about a reconciliation anywhere maybe you can provide a link.
We'll see how it goes whenever its finally settled. I'm no lawyer or judge, but I'm skeptical of a successful defamation decision.
No, because they aren't being defamed. Saying someone is a Trump Administration official don't serve them isn't a false statement. They aren't missing a meal because someone said something untruthful about them.
Your other arguments are pointless. As I said before, her morality and her marriage have nothing to do with the question if Trump defamed her. If you want to read her latest interview, where she talked about her husband in glowing terms, use Google News. She is also still in front of the camera. You can find her recent in front of the camera work by doing a Google search if you are so inclined.
bitterross
(4,066 posts)You gave up the game when you decided to use the term "ragging." As in "on the rag" or being on the menstrual cycle.
As for her affairs and divorce, who are you to cast the first stone?
reACTIONary
(5,770 posts)... a liar when she told the truth. What does being a porn stsr have to do with it? Totally irrelevant.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The right to void the contract and to pay back the $130k is what Daniels is suing to do.
Daniels was paid by Cohen. If you got paid under a contract you are seeking to be declared void, it’s not as if you get to claim that you are entitled to the payment under the contract.
RockRaven
(14,966 posts)Trump's desperate not to be deposed b/c his choices in this matter are the same he faces with Mueller:
a) be honest and admit to actions/behaviors which were criminal
b) lie and commit perjury
c) invoke 5th Amendment rights which is humiliating given his comments on people who take the 5th
d) answer literally every question with "I don't remember" which is humiliating in its admission of gross feeble-mindedness and risks both perjury and contempt charges.
Between Stormy Daniels and Summer Zervos, Trump is in a world of legal danger which won't go away even if he could corrupt the entire DOJ and bend it completely to his will.
nini
(16,672 posts)He's delaying until KKKavenaugh can get in and protect him.
world wide wally
(21,743 posts)
yuiyoshida
(41,831 posts)
onecent
(6,096 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)yuiyoshida
(41,831 posts)counts...
Response to 7962 (Reply #39)
yuiyoshida This message was self-deleted by its author.
Liberalagogo
(1,770 posts)all FAT and no cattle.
AZ8theist
(5,459 posts)
bucolic_frolic
(43,158 posts)no matter what they do, no one other than their base is listening to them. Every time they try to change the dialogue, we hit them with their baggage. This is going to be good!
erronis
(15,241 posts)preferring to spend time with their mistresses/families. Perhaps in well-outfitted dachas.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)
LakeArenal
(28,817 posts)OnDoutside
(19,956 posts)anyone as odd, after all that Trump has said about Cohen ?
